Conservatives & Liberals - What's the difference?

[nakedstudent]

Why is this the standard right-wing arguement? 'Your links are no good', is the standard line, without bringing anything decent to the table. To have a debate you have to come to the table in an honest manner, yet right-wingers rarely do this. Why is that?

Qikdraw

Once again Qikdraw, if you actually read my post, what I said was links that IIIIIIIIIII found appeared to be uncredible and IIIIIIIII am taking what little time IIIIIIIII have between MMMMMMYYYYYY studies, homework, and numerous other demands in MMMMMMMYYYYYY day to find sources that back up what mark and others have simply thrown out there without linking or citing for one aspect of this discussion. All I'm looking for is a website (in English) that doesn't look like some 8th grade student from Nebraska threw together as an extra credit assignment. I also said the source IIIIIII found showed no credentials.


If this is unacceptable to you, I'm sorry. I just won't take a source written by Joe Blo from across the street written on toilet paper seriously.

[Naturist Mark]

Mark,

In addition, 90% of the population subscribes to supplementary health insurance to cover other benefits not covered under NHI.33

Yep, and there are people who buy supplements to Medicare too. That's smart if you can do it, but if you can't you still have a good base of coverage. The French have a mixed system that covers everyone, yet allows a huge variety of choices and customizations, and they do it for less than half the price we pay, and according to WHO and others, the result is better overall care. Isn't that what Americans want?

Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. We aren't ever going to find the perfect system, but we sure a heck can do better than the snarling mongrel we have now.

(My apologies to mongrels).

My old posts (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=Health+care&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=Naturist+Mark&exactAuthor=Y&sortType=0&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_count=3&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search) on national health have a plethura of supporting links if you wish to dig deeper.

-Mark

[Boreas]

I was thinking about this topic a bit last night. I participate in a couple of other message boards and have seen where people have put off going to their doctors because they could not afford the cost. This would be for something either small or potentially serious. You would never hear that in Canada. We can at least visit the doctor and get basic tests very easily without worrying about the cost. I believe it is totally wrong that you cannot go to the doctor easily for basic health concerns.

Now before you tell me that these people are a minority, the people I am talking about are hardworking people. Some are professionals who don't happen to work for a company that subsidizes their insurance and they cannot afford the premiums they would have to pay for the insurance.

I guess I thought of that as I was in my doctor's office waiting room. I very much appreciate the liberal thinkers such as Tommy Douglas who started the ball rolling for Canada's universal health care system. It also scares me that conservative thinkers are trying to ruin that rather than fix the areas that need repair.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
I was thinking about this topic a bit last night. I participate in a couple of other message boards and have seen where people have put off going to their doctors because they could not afford the cost. This would be for something either small or potentially serious. You would never hear that in Canada. We can at least visit the doctor and get basic tests very easily without worrying about the cost. I believe it is totally wrong that you cannot go to the doctor easily for basic health concerns.

Now before you tell me that these people are a minority, the people I am talking about are hardworking people. Some are professionals who don't happen to work for a company that subsidizes their insurance and they cannot afford the premiums they would have to pay for the insurance.

I guess I thought of that as I was in my doctor's office waiting room. I very much appreciate the liberal thinkers such as Tommy Douglas who started the ball rolling for Canada's universal health care system. It also scares me that conservative thinkers are trying to ruin that rather than fix the areas that need repair.

Me too! God bless Tommy Douglas!

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mark,

In addition, 90% of the population subscribes to supplementary health insurance to cover other benefits not covered under NHI.33

Yep, and there are people who buy supplements to Medicare too. That's smart if you can do it, but if you can't you still have a good base of coverage. The French have a mixed system that covers everyone, yet allows a huge variety of choices and customizations, and they do it for less than half the price we pay, and according to WHO and others, the result is better overall care. Isn't that what Americans want?

Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. We aren't ever going to find the perfect system, but we sure a heck can do better than the snarling mongrel we have now.

(My apologies to mongrels).

My old posts (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=Health+care&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=Naturist+Mark&exactAuthor=Y&sortType=0&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_count=3&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search) on national health have a plethura of supporting links if you wish to dig deeper.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apology accepted. Woof, woof, woof.

Mark, for a senior drawing social security the Medicare premium for A & B is around $210. I think, and this is coming off the top of my gourd. Then, to fill in all the gaps left by Medicare the senior would have to spend another $100 to $160 for supplemental or gap insurance. The for plan D, premiums have a wide range with some seniors paying $12.00 a month and others paying $50 to $75.00 a month, depending on what plan they have in which state.

And Medicare and the gap insurance each have deductable levels before they kick in, as does the Plan D which also has a nearly $3,000 doughnut hole where the senior keeps on paying premiums but has no coverage.

So, the average senior on Medicare is shelling out somewhere around $7,000 to $9,000 a year for health care, BEFORE their drug co-pays on PLan D.

Now, say that senior did have fairly good lifetime earnings which gets them around $2,000 per month, before income tax, from Social Security, and supplements that meeting and greeting at Wally World, or clerking at Hobby Lobby, to pick up another $10,000 a year, you have a senior shelling out about 27% to 30% of their gross, not net, income on health care.

And on Wednesday the conservative Republicans in the Senate acted to spike SB3 which would have allowed Medicare to bid and buy in bulk, as does the V.A. now, which would have reduced the costs of drugs sufficiently to close the doughnut hole, while reducing seniors' drug costs and effecting billions in savings for taxpayers.

Nobody is getting a free ride, except the drug companies whose CEOs earn $26-million or more a year.

[nacktman]

To bring this thread back to its original premise and in keeping with the fact it is a nudist form ... here are pictoral examples of the differences between "conservatives" and Liberals.

Liberals believe there are times and places for being nude. And that just everyday activities can be thusly enjoyed.
To wit: the following example.

[nacktman]

To bring this thread back to its original premise and in keeping with the fact it is a nudist form ... here are pictoral examples of the differences between "conservatives" and Liberals.

"conservatives" believe there are times and places for being nude. And that such activities as follows can be thusly enjoyed.
To wit: the following example.

[nacktman]

Yet another example of the differences between "conservatives" and Liberals.

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. We aren't ever going to find the perfect system, but we sure as heck can do better than the snarling mongrel we have now. Sigh...

Would that you could entertain the same sentiment toward our "snarling mongrel" of a Federal Tax system, the one that discourages Productivity instead of Consumption!

[Naturist Mark]

Would that you could entertain the same sentiment toward our "snarling mongrel" of a Federal Tax system, the one that discourages Productivity instead of Consumption!

Oh, believe me, I would love to see some big changes in the Tax system at every level. I happen to think the Fair Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax) proposal is a pig in a poke (which we've sufficiently discussed many times), but I'm open to other ideas.

-Mark

[usmc1]

Whoa, please hold on a minute before we head down that route. PLEASE!

Would someone be kind enough to tell us precisely how our tax codes stifle productivity?

American workers are among the most productive in the world despite declining real income, often hideously oppressive work situations, loss of meaningful jobs, and loss of pensions and health insurance programs.

Taxes and taxation are inherently onerous but they are how we pay for cvilization, police and fire protection, roads, libraries, schools, the welfare and protection of ourselves and our neighbors, our national defense and such. Much of our taxes cycle back through the economy many times over in the forms of jobs, grants, projects and investments in community, education, research and infrastructure to name a few things.

How does tax stifle production?

[nacktman]

Originally posted by usmc1:
How does tax stifle production?

Only in the warped minds of the "conservatives": especially the 1% who have no need of fear of taxation and their mindless syncophants and right-wing drones, usmc1, only in their minds. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

(And the syncophants and drones are already spewing and sputtering in response even as I type this.) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[Sanslines]

How does tax stifle production?


An excessively high or excessively progressive taxation level at especially the lower and middle income levels can and does discourage workers. Anyone who has worked overtime and has actually examined their payroll statement will see that overtime can place a worker in a situation where they are having so much money taken out in the form of taxes that it becomes pointless to work overtime. Why work so hard and kill yourself working when you are rewarded by being taxed so heavily that you are working to put more money into the pockets of various governments? The tax system is presently set up so that the only way to actually get ahead is to make huge amounts of money and thereby become part of the wealthy class. Messing about in the lower wage and middle wage classes by working extra hard and then seeing most of your hard work go to support the government is very discouraging to say the least. A better choice for most people, if then can, is to spend more quality time with their family then away at work slaving away only to be taxed to death in the end.

[Naturist Mark]

How does tax stifle production?
They don't stifle productivity.

These tax avengers use 'productivity' to stand in for "passive income" from saving and investment.

I produced a much more detailed response, but it doesn't belong in this thread, so I'm moving it to a new topic: New Tax Schemes (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=39710742&f=6500016152&m=4940077784&r=3950077784#3950077784)

-Mark

[nacktman]

Yet another in the "a la foley" mode:

Former South Dakota House member Ted A. Klaudt was just arrested today on

8 counts of Second Degree Rape

2 counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor

1 count of Sexual Contact with a Child

2 counts of Witness Tampering

1 count of Stalking

All stemming from a 'scam' he ran on young girls while in office.

Oh, and he is a 'conservative' and a 'republican'.

What is it in the 'conservative' mind that is perverted in that only sex with little girls and boys is the only way they can get their jollies off?

[usmc1]

Here's a fun site. It's a front for Maine Republican Susan Collin's campaign. But, the hilarious thing is that you have a conservative blogger throwing out wild-eyed assertions about Daily KOS and Move-On and other liberals sites and readers are pounding him for links to support his assertions, and the response. Yep. Nada!

Sound familiar?

But, if you scroll down far enough, you'll find a posting by a very well-known conservative Republican operative yearning for a terrorist attack on San Francisco or other liberal cities to rally the Republican faithful.

What is wrong with these people?

http://www.mainewebreport.com/2007/08/14/desperately-st...usan/#comment-113303 (http://www.mainewebreport.com/2007/08/14/desperately-stalking-susan/#comment-113303)

[nudebushwalker]

That contributor "nakedstudent" (last seen here back in April..) was certainly one warped individual...
[Maybe too much indulgence in the whacky weed?]

I think the big hole in his calculations against nationalised health schemes, was that he apparently didn't subtract the enormous profits being made by health funds and Pharmaceutical companies over there - So that the actual costs would be a lot lower than his maths would suggest,(is it any wonder that US educational standards have slipped so low, when you see the nonsense he was spewing on here?).
And that's before you add the costs that having no health cover for 5%, and inadequate for another 25%, of your population must be having on the overall economy - lost production, crime rates, lost consumption (due to what should have been either savings or 'discretionary' spending, being re-directed towards medical expenses for self or a close relative..).

And let's not mention that Iraq 'II' has already cost the US taxpayers over $800 billion..

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

[Naturist Mark]

But, if you scroll down far enough, you'll find a posting by a very well-known conservative Republican operative yearning for a terrorist attack on San Francisco or other liberal cities to rally the Republican faithful.

What is wrong with these people?

http://www.mainewebreport.com/2007/08/14/desperately-st...usan/#comment-113303
That whole site is now offline. Probably can't handle all the traffic it is suddenly getting. Fortunately some people saved an image of the post in question (attached below),

[usmc1]

There's another story behind the take-down. This a definitely a Susan Collins campaign site. Senator Collins has repeatedly claimed candidates are responsible for the writings of their campaign bloggers and operatives.

When her opposition got hold of this they tied the tin can to her tail and then the thunder boomed. And the lady from Maine scatted.

It was predicted that she would have the thread removed. It was!

The entire thread, leading up to and around this egregious insanity, was the usual conservative cant and canard with moderates, centrists and liberals asking for confirming links. As it happens here, none were forthcoming.

[nudebushwalker]

I was able to find several links when I followed that item earlier today...

So, I think some people out there in cyberland have archived it somewhere, so it might keep popping back up from time to time?
Try this link.. (http://www.mainewebreport.com/2007/08/14/desperately-stalking-susan/)

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[nacktman]

What's the difference?

According to a brain study just completed and published it is the brain itself.

The study "elegantly showed" the differences in brain activity between Liberals and conservatives.

You guess it - the highest and most intense brain wave activity was found among Liberals ... no big surprise to those of us who are Liberals (even if we tend to shy toward the middle - the left middle), we always knew that.

Also the study found that those with higher brain wave activity accept new ideas - social, science, religion and can alter their minds to fit reality as it changes, those with lower brain wave activity can not and attempt to warp reality to fit them unchanged.

*****

From an article in the September 9th, 2007 issue of the Los Angeles Times by Denise Gellene entitled Brain Study Finds Divide.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by nacktman:
What's the difference?

According to a brain study just completed and published it is the brain itself.

The study "elegantly showed" the differences in brain activity between Liberals and conservatives.

You guess it - the highest and most intense brain wave activity was found among Liberals ... no big surprise to those of us who are Liberals (even if we tend to shy toward the middle - the left middle), we always knew that.

Also the study found that those with higher brain wave activity accept new ideas - social, science, religion and can alter their minds to fit reality as it changes, those with lower brain wave activity can not and attempt to warp reality to fit them unchanged.

*****

From an article in the September 9th, 2007 issue of the Los Angeles Times by Denise Gellene entitled Brain Study Finds Divide.

Well, having altered my mind --IN THE PAST-- a few times, I am encouraged to learn this.

[Naturist Mark]

The Conservapedia is the Fox News of online encyclopedias - reality bent to the conservative point of view. A safe place for conservatives to look up things without having their beliefs challenged by inconvenient truths. Bloggers at The Agonist discovered that Conservapedia's usage statistics handily reveal what subjects conservatives are most concerned about:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

-Mark

[nudebushwalker]

what a sick joke...

following the biology references from their index shows where a group of bible-bashing comedians have hijacked their science section..

and don't you just love their obsessions with homosexual activities, as displayed on the statistics page.

[nacktman]

Here are some differences between Liberals and conservatives in answering the "You hate America" Canard the conservatives are always howling.

No. We love democracy and we want to return it to America.
You want a presidential dictator.

We love liberty and we want to return it to America.
You want to tap our phones.

We love equality and we want to return it to America.
You think some people are better than others.

We love honesty and we want to return it to America.
You love lobbyists and corruption.

We love fairness and we want to return it to America.
You want to oppress the powerless.

We love openness and we want to return it to America.
You love secrecy and hiding the facts.

We love nature’s glory and we want to return it to America.
You love the profit that comes from destroying nature.

We love community and we want to return it to America.
You want everyone to fend for himself.

We love public education and we want to return it to America.
You want to destroy public education.

We love civilian control of the military and we want to return it to America.
You want to militarize America.

In short it is the Liberals who love America and what it truly stands for and it is the conservatives who do not. But as conservatives are deluded into believing black is white and lies are truth they cannot see it.

[Qikdraw]

Here is another difference...

Democrats don't require 'loyalty' oaths like Repulicans do (http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=7411021&nav=S6aK).

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

What I find remarkable, and what certainly can't be a coincidence, is the parallel track of the increase in people calling themselves conservatives at the same time that we were closing state hospitals for the mentally ill and turning those people out into the general population.

And, here for the liberals to read...it's too long, and no pictures to color so the conservatives won't bother...a marvelous send-up of what neo-cons say to each other when they think liberals are not listening.

http://www.alternet.org/story/57001?page=entire

[missouriboy]

Here's a paragraph from a monograph digging into the question intellectually, instead of the usual partisan sniping:
(...the book "Moral Politics" opens with...) a question which reliably distinguishes liberals from conservatives: If your baby cries in the night, do you pick him up? A conservative may say, "No, you're only teaching the kid to cry more. Sooner or later he has to grow up; he might as well get used to it now." A liberal may say, "Of course. How cruel to let the child feel abandoned, as though no one cares for him." The point is not that we need an elegant new device for classifying political beliefs, but rather that we carry these parenting styles over to the state. Conservatives hold a disciplinary parent model of the state, seeing its role as policing "undesirable" behavior; liberals hold a model of the state as nurturing parent, whose role is to ensure that everyone is taken care of, and that bigger siblings don't take advantage of weaker ones.Thus both sides of that big-government coin see the state as the parent and the citizen as the child needing the state. Then it goes on to suggest that real thinking people would reject the idea that we are such children, and that if we value liberty we must rein in the state.

I agree.

[usmc1]

Arming the progressives, liberals, leftists and populists to rebut the conservative buzz words and to reframe the debate in inclusive, non-restrictive terms.!


LIBERAL ............ vs. ......... CONSERVATIVE
------------ ...................... ------------
Stronger America ...................... Stronger Defense
Broad Prosperity ......................... Free Markets
Better Future ............................. Lower Taxes
Effective Gov't. ............................ Smaller Gov't.
Mutual Responsibility................... Family Values
-------------------------------___---------------------------
STRONGER AMERICA ... provides much more room for actually making America stronger through already familiar progressive efforts in areas such as health care, poverty, environment, alternate energy, etc.

STRONGER DEFENSE ... is narrow focus and not one that translates to broader benefits to Americans.

BROAD PROSPERITY ... is a natural and can include education, technology, ending corporate welfare, eliminating corruption...

FREE MARKETS ... narrow, benefiting corporations at the expense of we the people.

BETTER FUTURE ... a broad field to attack corruption in gov't., promote alternate energy, improve environment, diplomacy abroad, education...

LOWER TAXES ... if we can't nail this one we deserve to lose. The current administration is a poster family for that mode of thinking.

EFFECTIVE GOV'T. ... eliminate corruption, ensure clean elections, end corporate influence, people-centered policies, ACCOUNTABILITY...

SMALLER GOV'T. ... Rove said he wanted it small enough to drown in a bath tub. They're drowning the whole country -in debt!

MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY ...promote shared values, equal opportunity - protection - justice, health care, environment, approach to gov't. *Quality* Of Life...

FAMILY VALUES ... here's where those metaphors kick in. Since most conservatives share the "strict father" concept, our job is to expose the implications of that and validate the benefits of the Mutual Responsibility approach.

[Boreas]

It seems to me that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" haven been severely corrupted in the US today. Either can be used as a curse to the "opponent". Ironically, liberal came from libre or free. Similar in concept to laissez faire, only that is not what we see as liberal these days. Did you know that Ebeneezer Scrooge would be considered a Liberal? I used to think I liked being considered liberal. Now I am not sure. In Canada anyway, it is a party that benefits from the status quo......big business benefits, only enough social programs to look good, and not really a lot different from the conservatives. Our conservative party is still quite a bit left of your Democrats too, so......

I used the term "progressive" in conversation with a transplanted American the other day. He challenged me on that because he said that life is progressive.....change is constant.

I think we might have to make over the whole concept. Perhaps Gene Rodenberry had it right with governments that sit in a circle rather than across the room from each other. Governments that work on consensus. Etc.

I am inclined to think I'd be looking for a third option if I lived in the US. I will be considering my vote seriously when our next election comes.

Hopefully I can make or influence change at my own little community level. I want to live in a community that values social justice and where business can succeed. Does one have to win at the expense of the other???

[usmc1]

One of the things that has happened is in a shift in the definition of terms, and what those terms mean to people. The religious right and conservative Republicans have, over three decades, created a shift by staking out positions on the extreme right. While some of those positions are outlandish and so far to the right as to be unacceptable to the general population, when they "compromise" their position their settling point is still way to the far right of center, which has pulled the center to the right and has left progressives, populists, leftists, and liberals out on the now seemingly extreme left.

The result has been a shift wherein even basic social services are viewed suspiciously by many who have actually benefited from them. Thus, for example, we see attacks on Social Security and Medicare. For liberals, the dialogue was changed from how can we make these programs better, and more effective, to how can we protect and preserve them.

This process has gone on for at least four decades and has picked up its pace and intensified over the past thirty years. Hence you wind up with the Clintons, who in earlier years would have appeared as moderate Republicans, and Kucinich who is no more than a very good Democrat seeming an utter radical leftist.

The response from the left has been subtle and effective. We did not throw in the towel.

1. We no longer allow the Conservatives and Theocons to define us. We defend ourselves and when shoved strike-back with vigor.

2. We no longer cede any street, neighborhood, city, district, region or state to the right. We mount campaigns wherever there is a contest.

3. We have worked very hard at building a grassroots network of alliances between progressive and activist groups and organizations across America. We have entwined our boot-straps.

4. And, for over five years we have coalesced around the notion that we must define our own ideology, the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs by which we live and strive and share our ideologies with others. Even those who do not wish to comprehend.

5. We Educate, Organize, and Mobilize around those liberal philosophies and beliefs (ideologies) and are taking back our country from the stateless corporations, the extremely wealthy and their tradespeople and lackies; the mendicant politicians of the far-right acting in concert with the depraved religionists of mindless fundamentalism.

The process has been like stopping a train by standing in front of it leaning into it as it speeds along the tracks. Some of us have been worn down to our thighs, but we're still pushing back and leaning into it. And, that damned ole train is a slowin' down, I'll tell you what!

2006!

Now we're on to 2008.

[nudebushwalker]

On the definition of which way people lean politically/socially/philosophically, I saw a grid that had lefties/"liberals" (where a communist would be the extreme left-wing example..) and conservatives/"neo-liberals" (where the 'free market'/"laissez faire" would be the right wing extremists, [= their economic beliefs..] on the horizontal axis, and their libertarian or authoritarian leanings on the vertical axis, so that people could be placed somewhere in one of four quadrants :
* left wing/liberal libertarians
* left wing/liberal authoritarians
* conservative libertarians
* conservative authoritarians

the relevant website is : http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Depending on how extreme peoples views are, determines how close to the centre or out on the fringes they are...

I found myself in the bottom left hand quadrant..


Just another angle to add to this neverending debate..

[missouriboy]

I took the test and ended up in the square immediately adjacent to the crosshairs, in the lower-right quadrant: libertarian/right, but as close to the center as possible.

Now I know who around here is "centrist" and who isn't! :laugh:

[Sanslines]

I took the test and wound up very close to the center. I am very slightly to the left side (economic scale) and very slightly below the center line (social scale). I am considered to be a true centrist, with leanings to the left both economically and socially.

[Boreas]

I am pretty much in the middle of the lower left hand quadrant with Gandhi and Mandala....no surprise.

I was talking about this with someone the other day. He spoke of the quadrant idea vs. the left right idea. I suspect I have come across this before in my social work literature. It is a far more sensible way of viewing things, as opposed to the strictly left/right paradigm.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, Boreaus, I agree with you re the quadrant rating versus the line. I came out, not of center, lol, but down and to the left, quite a bit. But then, as you noted, the labels, conservative and liberal, have been taken totally out of context now. Actually, today, they have loss their meanings and are just used primarily as jabs at one another.

[nacktman]

I took the test and ended up in the square immediately adjacent to the crosshairs, in the lower-right quadrant: libertarian/right, but as close to the center as possible.

Now I know who around here is "centrist" and who isn't! :laugh:

Well, I just took the 'test' and the results said ...


Economic Left/Right: 0.0

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.0


And the little red dot was centered squarely on the cross-hairs, so I guess that means I am the "centrist" around here.:shrug:

[Boreas]

nacktman, I had NEVER guessed you would be someone standing on the fence of life!!!

[Qikdraw]

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28

Somewhere around the Dalai Lama.

I donno if I agree with that though...

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

nacktman, I had NEVER guessed you would be someone standing on the fence of life!!!

No fence standing here Boreas, just an individual who has a mind, can use it and is not swayed by Madison Ave., admen, Politicians, Religion, and other varied and assorted types of ideologues and ideologies.
In short a very scary man - one that is truly independent ... that scares the bejesus out of some.;):sneaky:

I do tend to lean Left on most individual points as that is the point that makes more sense but with the current shift off the far extreme right edge I am viewed as far left by some here.
I am a Liberal though - I believe in Liberal Thinking ... which promotes new ideas, change, progress, societal advancement, inclusion and diversity.
In other words Liberal Thinking is dynamic thinking.

It falls to reason non-liberal thinking is not dynamic thinking and therefore the antithesis of new ideas, change, progress, advancement, inclusion and diversity ... this sorry state of affairs is known as conservative thinking and is the cause of the stifling of new ideas, stasis, regression, societal decline, exclusion and singularity.

[usmc1]

Lower left, somewhere around Eugene Debs, Noam Chomsky and Michael Harrington, I suppose.


Economic Left/Right: -9.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.95

Interesting game and perhaps an indicator of our beliefs, but I think the issue is way more complex than this.

For example, I don't think we really have conservatives in the United States. At least not in the sense of the European tradition.

Oh sure, we have people who call themselves conservatives, but they are mostly radical statists combining support for a very powerful and intrusive state with restrictive social norms--something at which real conservatives would blanch.

Those people generally align themselves with the interests of large international businesses and stateless corporations rather than society as a whole, ie. The People. Hence, by comparison to other developed Western nations with a true and vigorous Conservative/Liberal dialogue and debate, the United States has a very weak social contract and social support system.

Over the past three decades this has worsened to the point that the United States is rapidly becoming a state capitalist democracy emitting a very powerful and fetid reek of fascism. A scenario which should be frightening and repugnant to liberals and true conservatives alike.

Madison's "sacred fire of liberty" is flickering and waning!

[country nude]

I am a conservative who wants lower taxes, less government, and the right to be free and naked.:D

[NudeTopher]

I am a conservative who wants lower taxes, less government, and the right to be free and naked.:D


Considering that Conservatives align themselves and vote with the Republicans you might find that your party affiliations are your worst enemies. If you look at the facts you will see that the gov't grew the most while there was a Conservative Republican in the White House with a Conservative Republican Congress. Not only has Bush grown the gov't the most he has spent the most.


Next you want the freedom to enjoy nudity. Do you honestly believe that the right-wing, bible-thumping, Evangelical Base that Bush counted on would ever promote or accept nudity? Acceptance is generally not a trait of conservative bible thumpers.

You said in a different post that you want the "governemnt off your back" so I'm wondering, just how do you feel that the govt is on your back?

[Qikdraw]

You said in a different post that you want the "governemnt off your back" so I'm wondering, just how do you feel that the govt is on your back?

Well I think that 'conservative', like 'liberal', is too broad a category. Country Nude sounds more like a 'fiscal conservative'. (correct me if I am wrong) Which doesn't always meet eye to eye with the RRR branch.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Well I think that 'conservative', like 'liberal', is too broad a category. Country Nude sounds more like a 'fiscal conservative'. (correct me if I am wrong) Which doesn't always meet eye to eye with the RRR branch.

Qikdraw

What exactly is a fiscal conservative? Sounds quite an unnecessary modification to me. And if one has to modify with an adjective one's political position what exactly is one's political alignment?

How does a fiscal conservative feel about corporate and agribusiness subsidies and give-aways? Or run away defense spending? Or government bail-outs of failed corporations? Or using our military to advance the profits of the oil business and its allied industries? Or the decay of infrastructure to the point that commuters fall to their deaths after having a bridge drop out from under them?

All of which were perpetrated under the mantle of conservatism.

Or is it that so-called "fiscal conservatives" want to relabel their ideology in such a way to distance themselves from, and to not to have to accept, the effects of their neo-liberal economic theories and policies? It's as though they don't want to be overt with how they despise the weak and unfortunate, so they want to shut off funding for the services and programs which would provide a leveling for the weak and the poor. What they dare not voice overtly, they attempt to covertly accomplish under the guise of "fiscal conservatism."

And I am with the others here who would like to hear from our acquaintance down in the barefoot part of Illinois as to exactly how it is that the "government is on his back".

[Qikdraw]

What exactly is a fiscal conservative? Sounds quite an unnecessary modification to me. And if one has to modify with an adjective one's political position what exactly is one's political alignment?

The problem with a two party system. Its not white or black. Trying to keep it that way is idiotic.

Thats why the US needs to go to a Parlimentarian system. Its much better, and better represents the people.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

The problem with a two party system. Its not white or black. Trying to keep it that way is idiotic.

Thats why the US needs to go to a Parlimentarian system. Its much better, and better represents the people.

Qikdraw
Maybe, but, the response comes nowhere near answering my very sincere and quite straightforward questions of you.

[Qikdraw]

Maybe, but, the response comes nowhere near answering my very sincere and quite straightforward questions of you.

What these questions?

How does a fiscal conservative feel about corporate and agribusiness subsidies and give-aways? Or run away defense spending? Or government bail-outs of failed corporations? Or using our military to advance the profits of the oil business and its allied industries? Or the decay of infrastructure to the point that commuters fall to their deaths after having a bridge drop out from under them?

How do I know? I'm not a fiscal conservative and I suspect that each fiscal conservative would have different priorities. I disagree with all of those things.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

What these questions?

How does a fiscal conservative feel about corporate and agribusiness subsidies and give-aways? Or run away defense spending? Or government bail-outs of failed corporations? Or using our military to advance the profits of the oil business and its allied industries? Or the decay of infrastructure to the point that commuters fall to their deaths after having a bridge drop out from under them?

How do I know? I'm not a fiscal conservative and I suspect that each fiscal conservative would have different priorities. I disagree with all of those things.

Qikdraw

No, this question: What exactly is a fiscal conservative?

[Boreas]

I think fiscal conservative is a buzz word. It is under the category of "If I say it, you must believe it" that is prevelant in many leaders of today.

I suspect there is a much more proper term that would describe what people THINK they are saying when they use that term. I think of the idea that someone is wise with their money and spending. Of course we do know many who claim to be fiscal conservatives and who do not actually practice that wisdom. :)

[Sanslines]

No, this question: What exactly is a fiscal conservative?


lol.....lol.....lol

C'mon USMC, you most certainly know what a fiscal conservative is.

Now, what was the question again???

Sorry, just had to get it in.......too funny.

[usmc1]

lol.....lol.....lol

C'mon USMC, you most certainly know what a fiscal conservative is.

Now, what was the question again???

Sorry, just had to get it in.......too funny.

As usual some snotty disparaging remark aside from the point.

My question is very sincere and straight forward. What exactly is a fiscal conservative? Attaching the modifier fiscal to conservative seems redundant or even self-contradictory. Are there conservatives who are fiscally profligate? Is it a verbal smoke screen to imply that one is conservative, but wants to shield one's self from the onuses, implications and effects of withholding monies from social programs?

People come here calling themselves and others fiscal conservatives, and I think I have the right to ask just what in hell they mean by that, without being subjected to someone twittering snide and halfassed comments.

Please. will someone be so kind as to tell me what do you mean when you call yourself a fiscal conservative. Puh-effing-leeeeeeeze!

[Sanslines]

Please. will someone be so kind as to tell me what do you mean when you call yourself a fiscal conservative. Puh-effing-leeeeeeeze!

Probably no one is interested in replying for they think that this is a set up for arguments or condemnation for so called snotty remarks that don't meet with your approval. Silence will ensure that no disparaging remarks are made. It appears that you are on your own with this one.

[nacktman]

I think fiscal conservative is a buzz word. It is under the category of "If I say it, you must believe it" that is prevelant in many leaders of today.

I suspect there is a much more proper term that would describe what people THINK they are saying when they use that term. I think of the idea that someone is wise with their money and spending. Of course we do know many who claim to be fiscal conservatives and who do not actually practice that wisdom. :)

Methinks the Lady doth have it.

Fiscal and conservative are mutually exclusive terms that have been co-opted together to blow smoke up one's arse as one is getting hosed by those glamoring onto the non-sequitor that is the term fiscal-conservative.

Being wise with one's money means just that - being wise or put another way ... Fiscally Responsible. Knowing where and when and how to spend or not to spend one's capital - something that those claiming to be something that doesn't exist have no concept of. A quick look at history - real history, not the pseudo-history of those claimants - reveals that not only are the one's they revile as fiscally irresponsible, quite the opposite, but quite the opposite by a far margin.

As to their howls of fiscal wherewithal ... Just take it for what it is, another vain attempt to feed you a line of Bullsh!t and hope you believe it.

[LamontCranston]

Based on the following descriptions I'd say I'm firmly in the Economic Liberalism camp. Fiscal conservatism doesn't look so attractive by comparison. I'm glad I looked it up...


Fiscal Conservatism



Fiscal conservatism is a political phrase term used in the United States to attack government spending and advocate instead lower spending and a lower federal debt; it may also include higher taxes in order to lower the debt. It does not necessarily denote advocacy of free market economics as a whole, and is a distinct concept from that of neo-liberalism.



Fiscal Conservatism was rhetorically promoted during the presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989). During his tenure, Reagan touted economic policies that became known as Reaganomics. Based on the theory of supply-side economics, Reagan cut income taxes, raised social security taxes, deregulated the economy, and instituted a tight monetary policy to stop inflation. Reagan favored reducing the size and scope of government (see limited government), proposing a balanced federal budget.



However, by the end of Reagan's second term the national debt held by the public ballooned from 26 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1980 to 41 percent in 1989, the highest level since 1963. By 1988, the debt totaled $2.6 trillion, due in part to both increased military spending at the end of the Cold War and growth in the federal government. The country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.



Neoliberalism



Neoliberalism refers to a historically-specific reemergence of economic liberalism's influence among economic scholars and policy-makers during the 1970s and through at least the late-1990s, and possibly into the present (its continuity is a matter of dispute). In many respects, the term is used to denote a group of neoclassical-influenced economic theories, right-wing libertarian political philosophies, and political rhetoric that portrayed government control over the economy as inefficient, corrupt or otherwise undesirable.



Neoliberalism and social liberalism are both forms of liberalism but with different purposes. Social liberalism is defined with individual and social liberty while neoliberalism is primarily based on economic liberty. There is also a difference between neoliberalism and paleoliberalism. The term paleoliberalism has been used to define those in the US Democratic Party who are strongly against free trade.



Many neoliberals have been defined as neoconservatives and vice versa. The main difference between the two groups has mainly to do with defence and foreign policy. Neoconservatives favor huge defence budgets and foreign interventions. Neoliberals are opposed to this since it leads to large deficits and debt.



Economic Liberalism



The liberal theory of economics is the theory of economics developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith which advocates minimal interference by government in the economy. The case for economic liberalism which began to be argued in the eighteenth century was the then-startling claim that if everyone is left to their own economic devices instead of being controlled by the state, then the result would be a harmonious and more equal society of ever-increasing prosperity (see spontaneous order and invisible hand).



Today, the liberal theory of economics is strongly associated with libertarianism, neoliberal economics and some schools of conservatism, particularly liberal conservatism.



Private property and individual contracts form the basis of the liberal theory of economics. The early theory was based on the assumption that the economic actions of individuals are largely based on self-interest, and that allowing them to act without any restrictions will produce the best results, provided that at least minimum standards of public information and justice exist, e.g., no-one should be allowed to coerce or steal.



Since the 1970s, the governments of many countries around the world have adopted economic liberalism to a greater or lesser degree. For example, the theories of Friedrich von Hayek (winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974) inspired the market-oriented policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. India, under the direction of then Finance Minister and now Prime Minister Manmohan Singh began to liberalize its economy in the early 1990s, with spectacular results as evidenced by its 9% GDP growth.
Reference.com. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Economic_liberalism (accessed: January 01, 2008).

[usmc1]

Thanks, but one still wonders if those who describe themselves as "fiscal conservatives" actually are. And, one does also wonder how one can, in a system of state capitalism such as ours, extract fiscal policy from social programs and policies?

I am not certain a person can be a "fiscal conservative" and socially and/or culturally liberal. But, I hear people say or infer this all the time.

My sense is that American conservatives are just that and require no modifier. They are both socially and fiscally conservative and see and use economic policy as a means to restrict or hinder social programs and policies with which they disagree. Or that somehow they think they can limit government, reduce spending without having a negative impact on significant parts of society--or else they want to ignore that negative impact and eschew responsibility.

And, some rally around (or adamantly oppose) a term or buzz word which sounds self-descriptive and comforting (or menacing and frightening) without fully understanding its meanings, usages, ramifications or implications.

[MoonShadow]

LOL To my knowledge Congress has seldom been fiscally conservative. To be fiscally conservative, one balances the budget. That's it! Some administrations have been but most have not and our current one IS NOT!

[Boreas]

The term fiscally responsible just gives the powers that be the permission to slash social programs. Social programs to these people are considered the whole reason for the economic woes of the nation in question. (we have those ideologues up here too)

Ironically, FDR developed social programs because the idea at the time was that in order for a society to thrive, all members must be able to participate in the market. Social assistance was seen as a way to facilitate this. His fireside chat of 1934 describes some of this:

"The first was relief, because the primary concern of any Government dominated by the humane ideals of democracy is the simple principle that in a land of vast resources no one should be permitted to starve. Relief was and continues to be our first consideration. It calls for large expenditures and will continue in modified form to do so for a long time to come. We may as well recognize that fact. It comes from the paralysis that arose as the after-effect of that unfortunate decade characterized by a mad chase for unearned riches and an unwillingness of leaders in almost every walk of life to look beyond their own schemes and speculations." (http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#exec)

It is worthy to note that he blamed some of the capitalistic ideals and actions of the previous decades for the problems encountered during the depression. Of course the programs were residual in nature and were for the "deserving poor"

MoonShadow, you sum it up very nicely indeed!

[usmc1]

LOL To my knowledge Congress has seldom been fiscally conservative. To be fiscally conservative, one balances the budget. That's it! Some administrations have been but most have not and our current one IS NOT!

OK, but what does balanced budget really mean? I know it sounds simple, but, I don't think it really is. It "sounds" wonderful, but how does a government truly run a balanced budget?

Does it never ever incur debt?

Does it only spend in one year, what it takes in, or less...always running surpluses without ever running a deficit?

Since we know that goods and labor generally increase in cost, does it make sense for a government to borrow now to build/maintain/repair infrastructure, or to invest in other things at a lower overall cost than waiting until revenue catches up with need?

For me, the need is not so much a "balanced budget" as it is an "open" budget where the citizenry sees how the money is being spent, where it is coming from, where the various expense and revenue lines reside and how they contribute to our overall goals as a nation.

That's how we do it in the business world. We determine our goals. We prepare a revenue budget explaining where and how we expect to find our revenue, and we prepare an operational budget of how we will spend money in support of those revenue goals. And, we also prepare a capital budget, describing expenditures for certain equipment, modifications, or building that can be amortized and depreciated over time.

When things change, we develop contingency budgets and operating plans.

Shouldn't government do the same? In a well-managed company, department heads are not allowed secret "add-ons" for their pet projects or to keep their staff happy--why should government be any different?

As a liberal, I want to see tour tax dollars and other revenues properly managed and spent well and a budget that includes programs for the betterment of the people, the common defense, and health, and education so that we all can enjoy the blessings of liberty and be contributing members of society.

We can honestly debate the how much and which of that. That is needed, or else the conservatives would have truckloads of money being wheelbarrowed into the pentagon and to defense contractors while poor children starved to death in the winter blizzards.;)

But, I think that governments, like businesses, like people can't borrow, or extend more than they can repay. Yeah, each can run in the red for a time, but eventually payment comes due.

A farmer might be in the red this year, but next year that goes away when the crops sell. And by being in the red taht farmer was able to acquire machinery and land that will significantly increase her crop yield thereby putting her into better position for higher revenues in coming years.

So, again, the issue for me is not so much a balanced budget, but a budget that is open to view, and that has been thought out and well debated, and that relates to our nation's goals; as well as one in which revenue, operational expense, and capital outlays are planned and tied to those national goals.

Right now, I don't think liberals or conservatives are satisfied with the process or the results--but, I do think a yearning for a "balanced budget" overlooks the complexities.

[nacktman]

If one were to read the thread in the humor section about Clinton returning to the White House attempting humor one would find a severe lack of humor on the part of conservatives (something we already knew, but it just shows it in stark clarity).

The photo did have its 'funny' parts - the bad photoshop work.

The overall concept or lack thereof was not funny in the least.

Pathetic actually.

[Naturist Mark]

I don't understand what the confusion is over. Boreas understands.

Fiscal Conservatives believe in depriving the poor, needy and young in favor of the rich and privileged. They believe in using public policy - and dollars - to afflict the afflicted and to comfort the comfortable.

Liberals - there isn't really such a term as a "fiscal liberal" - do just the opposite. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Neither is known for fiscal responsibility, but at least the liberal is more willing to admit that taxes are the necessary consequence of public expenditures.

Good luck finding a real liberal today ... or conservative. Our 'left wing' is now composed of people who would have been considered Main Street Republicans in Ike's day. Our right wing has abandoned rugged individualism and self reliance in favor of top down corporatism. The so called liberal nanny state has been replaced by the daddy state. Mussolini would be proud.

-Mark

[J. C.]

If we rephrase the question to say "What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats", then I offer the following:

If you live in the U.S., they are as different as night and day.

If you live in Iraq or Cuba or Somalia or Ethiopia or China, they're exactly the same.

[missouriboy]

Here is another difference...

Democrats don't require 'loyalty' oaths like Repulicans do (http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=7411021&nav=S6aK).

Qikdraw
KUCINICH DENIED BID ON TEXAS BALLOT
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday (Jan. 18, 2008) allowed Texas to print presidential primary ballots without Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich's name. The court refused to step into a dispute between Kucinich and the Texas Democratic Party over a loyalty oath all candidates must sign to make the ballot. Kucinich and singer-supporter Willie Nelson objected to the party oath that a presidential candidate must "fully support" the party's eventual nominee. Kucinich crossed out the oath when he filed for a spot on the primary ballot.(No comment needed, but this software requires at 10 characters outside of quotes.)

[LamontCranston]

Does it never ever incur debt?

Does it only spend in one year, what it takes in, or less...always running surpluses without ever running a deficit?
When I was researching the actual meaning of these terms we throw about (I was using one incorrectly) I found a story about Thomas Jefferson, 2nd U.S. President.

It seems he had an ongoing arguement with Alexander Hamilton over debts owed due to the Revolutionary War. Jefferson was saying the paper was now bought for cents on the dollar and held by speculators and the U.S. governement didn't need to honor it.

Jefferson later changed his tune when he decided to borrow money to fund the Louisiana Purchase (best real estate deal on the books).

Income equals outgo has never really been a strict goal of government bookkeeping.

[nacktman]

http://www.bartcop.com/mc-cannibal.jpg

[walter05]

Jefferson was the third president under the U.S. Constitution. John Adams was the second.

John Hancock was the first President of the United States and there were quite a few others before George Washington. However, while they had the title, this was before the Constitution when the office was not what it is now.

[Naturist Mark]

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjfVrszPEkY&rel=0&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qjfVrszPEkY&rel=0&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

[usmc1]

Conservative Republican (redundant, what?) Senator Arlen Spector has announced that he is going to wage a full-scale, federally-funded (tax payer money) investigation into the charges that the NFL New England Patriots football team may have "spied" on a competing team during last season. No duh!

Let's see. Spying on Americans is OK. A football team trying to get an edge is a federal case. Riiiiiiight!

But one should consider the source. This is the bloke who gave the world the Magic Bullet theory during the Warren Commission "investigation" into the assasination of President John Kennedy. Remember? The bullet tore through JFK's neck from the rear, stopped in mid-air, redirected itself downward while changing the angle of its path, stopped again, and then redirected itself forward, striking Texas Governor John Connolly. Riiiiight! That one! Dang ole magic bullets are a caution, they are.

But if we don't spy on Americans, and let the phone companies, who assist in that, off the hook for their illegal behavior, why that dang ole Al Queada is going to come over here and snatch us from our beds at night and slit our throats out on the front lawn in front of all our neighbors. And that dang ole Patriots coach, a spying and all, that's bad for America's image in the world. Dang ole bare breasts, and spying and all, what's next for the NFL?

Welcome to life down the rabbit hole.

[BinCo]

A Liberal believes that you can fall on your face, but there might be a reason that someone tripped you and there should be a mechanism to help you out and keep you from falling on your face completely. But, learn a lesson and try not to do it again please.:o

A Conservative believes that you can fall on your face, and that there is a reason that YOU did something wrong to fall on your face. There is nothing that anyone else does to have you fall on your face and nobody should help you out unless there is something in it for them. It's your own fault, you are a failure!:mad:

Then again, I think most of us are somewhere in the middle of this.:)

[Centauri4]

I was going to ask what the difference is between a Democrat and a Republican, or between a Liberal and a Conservative, but it seems clear to me there are as many definitions of this as there are personalities in the world. A few of the posts in reply to this thread have tried to cite historical examples of, 'Who did what when' who 'Who believed their party stood for X', but what I am really trying to understand is how each person's affinity for one group or the other effects the way they vote!

I do not want to know whether you agree with George Bush, whether you love Hillary Clinton or whether Barak Obama is the man to bring America out of the 1990s. I want to know why being a Democrat means you will vote for one of them or the other, or if there is a critical issue that tops your list of concerns, how party alignment influences (may influence) your next policy vote?

Obviously this can be only speculative at best because we never know exactly what will be included in the next policy to come up for a vote, and much of the wording and jargon is the stuff lawyers dream of (no offense intended to any Counselors in the audience), but when we break down the issue to its "nuts and bolts" (or what it will do to taxes THIS year) this is where I feel the "average American" makes their choice.

Is that wrong?

I have finally been thinking about this very seriously for maybe the first time in my life because I usually describe myself as, "Independent" for whatever that is worth. Maybe because it just seems to be so much of a See-Saw Ride up and down but essentially getting us nowhere!

If you look at the way government budgets money and distributes it to various domestic and international infrastructure or aid programs, and then try to apply basic business principles to any of it, you will likely go "mad"! (having only recently watched the movie, "A Beautiful Mind" and learned of this Equilibrium Theory supposedly applied to international relations and labor negotiations)

How can schools teach our children to be financially responsible when our own government, in my mostly uneducated opinion, does a horrible job of demonstrating the concept?

Who can even imagine what numbers such as four hundred trillion dollars ($400,000,000,000,000) of national debt really means in terms of "economic stimulus"?

Finally, if I were to choose one party and remain devoted to it for a lifetime by always voting the "party line" (or party ticket) in local and national elections, does not my vote eventually become irrelevant in the "big picture"? If anyone knows about Chaos Theory and the idea that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can change the course of a hurricane in the Atlantic, then killing all the butterflies might have spared New Orleans their downfall, right?

What does Your Party mean to you? (not a textbook definition)

[usmc1]

Centauri et ux,

As a progressive I want:“... more schoolhouses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures,...”

These are the words of one of our great labor leaders, Samuel Gompers, and they are on the walls of the main meeting room on the first floor of the AFL/CIO headquarters in D.C.

As a community organizer and political activist, I really do not care about party affiliation if the candidate's values reflect those progressive goals. I will educate, organize and mobilize to help that person get elected. If not, I'll work toward their defeat. I, along with others, accomplish this by empowering citizens at the grassroots level to take charge and not to rely on "leaders".

However, history and experience has led me to understand that virtually no Republicans or conservatives share those progressive values, and, that recently, too damned few Democrats do either. Republican policies have us in and endless, pointless occupation in Iraq, conservative fiscal policies have our infrastructure decaying to the point that a bridges drops out from under innocent people while on their afternoon commute. Both parties dither while people lose their homes, young people struggle under the burden of a near lifetime of debt from expensive student loans, jobs disappear, and our nation slips closer and closer to third-world status.

But, make no mistake about it, getting the Democrats back in office is an important first step in restoring our nation to it rightful place in the world family and protecting the weak from the powerful and fulfilling the American dream. But, after the election we must keep the pressure on, or they will listen only to their corporate masters--not We The People.

As a progressive (or leftist, if you prefer) I want a place at the table not the scraps, orts, sops and left overs!

[Naturist Mark]

I am a Democrat, and I tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates (and often against them too - I live in a town with a Republican party and Two Democratic parties on the local level). But that doesn't mean the Democratic party has my unwavering or lifelong support.

I've supported and contributed to the Green party in Ohio not because of their politics, but because they were often the ONLY people working day and night to restore small 'd' democracy to the State of Ohio. The Democratic party was/is often too timid, or too co-opted, to call out the rampant fraud in Ohio Government while under absolute Republican rule for years (Ohio has always had a majority of Democratic voters- but is so gerrymandered and electorally dysfunctional that for years (until 2006) nearly every single statewide office was held by the GOP.) Apparently that suited the Ohio party bosses just fine. Only the Greens with help from the Libertarians were willing to fight electoral corruption in Ohio. Their spotlight on the issue of election fraud resulted in squeezing the capability to perform fraud in recent elections. In the 2006 election fraud was limited to 'just' 14% of the votes (in some of the worst cases), which was not enough to overturn the landslide that turned the state government over to the majority Democrats. And our new (Democratic) Secretary of State has adopted the Green's reform agenda - we will soon be rid of all electronic vote switching machines and will have 100% recountable paper trails for all elections. There is still a lot to do - the 'election reform' laws passed by the Republicans still have to be modified so that recounts can be actually be made, so that voter registration is not a criminal act, and so that no legal citizen can ever again be denied a vote that is counted.

Parties don't deserve automatic support. For them to do right, it is often necessary to work for change from within, or from without. On the national level we are seeing a massive realignment of the Democratic Party as 'netroots' progressives work to convert or replace the old party establishment. Howard Dean is one of these 'insurgents', which is why he was so fiercely opposed as Party Chairman by the old guard. Dynamic new congressmen like Jim Webb replaced establishment candidates, as did a growing number of new progressives like the corps of Iraq war vets who stormed the 2006 house races.

I think the Clinton/Obama race is turning into an establishment vs. netroots struggle in the Democratic party. Obama is not necessarily a member of the netroots movement - indeed his voting record is virtually identical to Hillary's, but with the exit of John Edwards, the clear netroots candidate, their hopes are now attached to Obama's candidacy. We'll see how that plays out before the Democratic convention when the party works on its platform positions - regardless of who gets the nomination, the platform fight is going to tell the tale about whether the old guard or the new progressives have prevailed.

[nacktman]

centauri, in answer to your question: I am an Independent and vote for whomever I feel is the best candidate in whatever election be it the PTA at the middle school down the road or the presidency of the United States.

Which makes me the most feared and most sought after voter around, with all 'parties' seeking to woo me into voting 'their way' ... kind of like being O-Negative in the blood department every blood bank in a three state area is sending me little love notes every four weeks wanting me to pay them a visit ... and the winner this week is ...

Although when you think about it I am a true Liberal (not just a left-winger) because I am independent and make up my own mind on matters and do not follow 'party lines' which is what a Liberal truly is - one that can decide for themselves what they want and can accept differences and alter their mind based on those differences or not.

Conservatives can not do those things.

[Boreas]

Mark your comments about establishment vs netroots is very interesting. That is what it seems from this side of the border. When you think of it, there has been a Bush or Clinton president in the White House for the better part of 20 years. There is a lot to like about Hillary. I'd like to see a different name in there. I suspect she is more establishment. Of course it could all be based on optics or whatever, but it is what it is.

This has been an interesting capaign so far. The actual lead up to the election will be very interesting. The next person in that position has quite the job ahead of them.

[Centauri4]

It seems there is much more to the issue than Democrat or Republican! Not simply two parties when we consider transitioning voters.

Democrat voting Democrat.
Democrat voting Republican.
Democrat voting Independent.
Republican voting Republican.
Republican voting Independent.
Republican voting Democratic.
Independent voting Democrat.
Independent voting Republican.

IF the CNN exit polls asked people to choose their initial affiliation in addition to how they voted today, the polls would be much more informative as to TRENDS and what percentage of people are being ATTRACTED TO their "side".

To me this would be MUCH MORE interesting than stupid outcomes.

[SpiderThug]

This 20 year study suggests that well-adjusted kids grow up to become liberals, while the whiners grow up to become conservatives.

But, we already knew that didn't we. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename..._pageid=970599119419 (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1142722231554&call_pageid=970599119419)

And the voice of the dissenting social scientist mentioned in the article is a righty whose expertise is Terror Management. Which well qualifies him to comment on early childhood developmental effects on adult political tendencies?

Funny, the first several posts in this thread have nothing but 'liberals' doing nothing but whine and moan.

[usmc1]

Funny, the first several posts in this thread have nothing but 'liberals' doing nothing but whine and moan.

Welcome back from Coventry, we'll see how long you last this time.

Funny thing, I understand your countryman, NudeBushwalker, has taken your desk in detention. We await his return. Bet he wished he'd taken the swats.

[nacktman]

From what all of us with functional minds can see - the biggest difference is that conservatives whine, piss and moan that they are the only ones 'correct' about everything and then accuse everyone else of doing what they are doing.
Heaven forbid they are called to task for their behavior(s) ... they only whine, piss and moan more loudly and accuse more fervently.
A real shame and pitiful, too.

[nacktman]

This illustrates the difference quite nicely ...


http://www.bartcop.com/rush-i-was-high.gif

[nacktman]

Further illustration of the Differences!


http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Jefferson.jpg

[Skinview]

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
-Thomas Jefferson, libertarian

[MoonShadow]

History has shown that people don't, Skinview, and won't. Libertarianism will not work today.

Today's government is too big and can be reduced significantly but not the point where we rely on "people" and businesses to monitor each other; it won't ever happen.

[Skinview]

Libertarianism will not work today.

Today's government is too big and can be reduced significantlyThat is libertarian.

but not the point where we rely on "people" and businesses to monitor each other; it won't ever happen.The idea is not to eliminate government altogether. Environmental regulation is fine, for instance. The idea is to privatize the production of goods and services, like education, mail delivery, or Amtrak, eliminate price controls and supports, like mohair production, protectionist tariffs, payments to agribuisnesses, and allow a whole range of personal freedoms that are suppressed.

[usmc1]

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
-Thomas Jefferson, libertarian

Wrongo bongo! Thomas Jefferson was a republican (which actually was the precursor of the present day Democratic party). He favored a strong central government and abhored the conservatives of his day.

A man of his time, he very much was in favor of agrarian democracy and ending inherited aristocracy.

Simply proof-testing for a single line quote out of context and slapping a label on it is absurdly revisionist and proves nothing.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/je/JeffersT.html

[nacktman]

That is actually 'Democratic Republican' as the political party identified themselves, there usmc1.
But you are correct it was the beginning of today's Democratic party.
They dropped the 'republican' part with Andy Jackson.

[Skinview]

Wrongo bongo! Thomas Jefferson was a republican (which actually was the precursor of the present day Democratic party). He favored a strong central government and abhored the conservatives of his day.

Simply proof-testing for a single line quote out of context and slapping a label on it is absurdly revisionist and proves nothing.

No, Righto Brighto. That was libertarian with a small "l". I am a Republican and libertarian. Libertarians are very happy with current Federal Constitution that Jefferson supported. The "conservatives" of his day were authoritarian Tories and Federalists. British mercantilist trade policies were one of one of the causes of the Revolutionary War. Libertarians are definatively in favor of free trade, free markets, minimal government spending and taxes, and personal liberties. These are all things that Jefferson was strongly in favor of. The combination of valuing personal liberties, which Jefferson was famous for, and minimalist government, which this quote illustrates:

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

clearly marks Jefferson as a libertarian. At that point in American history, the size of government was so small, and so favored to be small, that there was really no one in America that was what we would call a "liberal" today. Hamilton might have been the closest thing to a "liberal". The politics then were very different than they are today. The political dicotomey was more libertarian v authoritarian, rather than left v right.

[MoonShadow]

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
.


Question then: Didn't happen in the past, isn't happening now; so, how could such work?

[Boreas]

The political dicotomey was more libertarian v authoritarian, rather than left v right.

I think that dicotomy is there now. Bush is VERY authoritarian and paternalistic. I suspect even Hillary may be closer to the authoritarian side of the spectrum. While some strong leadership needs to be in place, and that MAY have some ELEMENTS of authoritarian nature, it should not be even remotely as authoritarian as Bush and his Admin. I also believe that a government can govern wisely without the use of authoritarian tactics. Such a government would allow things like protest without callng protesters "anti-American" or whatever nationality is appropriate. Such a government would fund initiatives without telling those implementing the policies how to run the program. They would have guidelines for accountability. We have at times seen some of this in Canada. Hopefully it is not going out the window with our current authoritarian PM.

[Qikdraw]

Question then: Didn't happen in the past, isn't happening now; so, how could such work?


It won't. Communism and Libertarianism are both great ideas, but they just won't work in the real world. They fail because of the same thing. Greedy people.

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

It won't. Communism and Libertarianism are both great ideas, but they just won't work in the real world. They fail because of the same thing. Greedy people.

Qikdraw

Beg to differ Qikdraw, communism does work and has for at least 50,000 years, but it only works in small groups such as the sub-Saharan Bushmen who use it today.

However, that ideology wrongly labeled communism by Marx and Ingalls does not work ... reason? Yep, as you said greedy people.

Liberatrianism is just another name for Authoritarianism, don't let the revisionists and so called libertarians of today fool into believing it is not.
It is also known as Fascism and the ideology of Marx and Ingalls is also know for what it truly is as National Socialism (Nazi). Both the USSR and China were/are not communist nations they were/are national socialist nations and we all know that that does not work either.

[Skinview]

Beg to differ Qikdraw, communism does work and has for at least 50,000 years, but it only works in small groups such as the sub-Saharan Bushmen who use it today.True, but on that level there is almost no property beyond what you can carry, and the poltical units are really extended families.


Liberatrianism is just another name for Authoritarianism, don't let the revisionists and so called libertarians of today fool into believing it is not.This is so wacko that it can't even be addressed. There has to be some basic language agreement.

[usmc1]

No, Righto Brighto. That was libertarian with a small "l". I am a Republican and libertarian. Libertarians are very happy with current Federal Constitution that Jefferson supported. The "conservatives" of his day were authoritarian Tories and Federalists. British mercantilist trade policies were one of one of the causes of the Revolutionary War. Libertarians are definatively in favor of free trade, free markets, minimal government spending and taxes, and personal liberties. These are all things that Jefferson was strongly in favor of. The combination of valuing personal liberties, which Jefferson was famous for, and minimalist government, which this quote illustrates:

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

clearly marks Jefferson as a libertarian. At that point in American history, the size of government was so small, and so favored to be small, that there was really no one in America that was what we would call a "liberal" today. Hamilton might have been the closest thing to a "liberal". The politics then were very different than they are today. The political dicotomey was more libertarian v authoritarian, rather than left v right.

Nope, you're still wrongo bongo, and I'm righto & brighto.

I know it is part of the current cant of Libertarianism that Jefferson was really "one of us".
I'm going to explain the subtilities and nuances and shadings which make your assumption incorrect.

Thomas Jefferson championed national self-government, popular sovereignty (government formed and influenced by the will of the people). Plainly put; self-government by the people "en masse".

Libertarians on the other hand emphasize "individual rights" in opposition to national government, regulatory and restrictive laws. Jefferson believed that individual members rights were the foundation of a free society. But, he was never so "individualistic" as are Libertarians.

Jefferson, and here's the nuance, understood clearly that some indidividual rights might be muted in order that we have a society directed by all the people. He wrote often of the rights of the minority which presumes quite clearly that for the good of the majority there would be restrictions on individuals--and that those restrictions would be sorted out by empowered people working together (not individuals stating: I don't like it, so I ain't gonna do it).

Jefferson's beliefs were to the point of empowerment of "the people" and an evolving government ever-changing at the "will of the people". Libertarians believe in government limited by specific dogma derived from certain political ideas. These two lines of thought just do not transect!

The difference is nuanced and subtle, but Jefferson was no libertarian, big "L" or little "l".

[Skinview]

Question then: Didn't happen in the past, isn't happening now; so, how could such work?It did exist in the past! We had very minimal government in this country until Franklin D. Roosevelt came along. Even with the bloated government we have in the US, America is mostly libertarian right now. Libertarians just want to make it a little more so. Taxation is far higher in Europe and especially Scandinavia. A really nonlibertarian state would be North Korea or Cuba. You think the country would fall apart if Amtrak was sold off? If every state had the same gun laws that Vermont has? You saw a naked breast on tv? All the public beaches were "clothing optional"? Libertarians are not anarchists. There is a range of positions encompassed by "libertarian". Some I don't favor. Perhaps there are a few that you object to that I would too, but I think we can agree that the government we had in 1900 "worked".

[Skinview]

Thomas Jefferson championed national self-government, popular sovereignty (government formed and influenced by the will of the people). Plainly put; self-government by the people "en masse".Nothing unlibertarian here.


Libertarians on the other hand emphasize "individual rights" in opposition to national government, regulatory and restrictive laws.You are confusing libertarians with anarchists. Libertarians want a national government. Its there to defend individual rights.


Jefferson believed that individual members rights were the foundation of a free society. But, he was never so "individualistic" as are Libertarians.You have support for this?


Jefferson, and here's the nuance, understood clearly that some indidividual rights might be muted in order that we have a society directed by all the people.Support for this?


He wrote often of the rights of the minority which presumes quite clearly that for the good of the majority there would be restrictions on individuals--and that those restrictions would be sorted out by empowered people working together (not individuals stating: I don't like it, so I ain't gonna do it).Wrongo! Once you acknowledge that there are rights that minorities have, then the majority must not violate those rights. It wouldn't be right. Expression of minority opinions and religious practices must not be violated, and Jefferson was famous for promoting that idea, and that is libertarian.


Jefferson's beliefs were to the point of empowerment of "the people" and an evolving government ever-changing at the "will of the people".Again, thats libertarian.


Libertarians believe in government limited by specific dogma derived from certain political ideas.Which is: "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted anong Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..." - Jefferson

[Qikdraw]

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Well except for the slaves. The founding fathers didn't mean them.

Which just goes to show you that the Founding Fathers were capable of using words to inspire, but not actually mean them, so we shouldn't look at everything they said and think they actually meant them. As with now you have to look beyond words to actions. Sadly the Founding Fathers never lived up to their inspiring words, nor has any US government since the founding.

Don't get me wrong, the ideals put forth in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independance are great and I believe them wholeheartedly, but to think the US has ever lived up to its ideals is just idiocy and lack of knowledge of US history.

Qikdraw

[Skinview]

Well except for the slaves. The founding fathers didn't mean them.

Which just goes to show you that the Founding Fathers were capable of using words to inspire, but not actually mean them, so we shouldn't look at everything they said and think they actually meant them. As with now you have to look beyond words to actions. Sadly the Founding Fathers never lived up to their inspiring words, nor has any US government since the founding.

Don't get me wrong, the ideals put forth in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independance are great and I believe them wholeheartedly, but to think the US has ever lived up to its ideals is just idiocy and lack of knowledge of US history.

QikdrawJefferson's original draft of the Declaration included a condemnation of the slave trade, but it was deleted because the southern delegates would not have accepted it. Mostly the founding fathers lived up to their words, but they were not all of one mind.
Jefferson really did want to end slavery, but he did have slaves. He was deep in debt after the war, and his slaves were really owned by his creditors. He had to plead with them to free his black family. Washington's will freed his slaves on the death of him and Martha.
The Declaration was cited by abolitionists, and we did live up to the idea after a bloody civil war. The US has mostly lived up to its ideals, but its always a fight to meet them.

[usmc1]

Dang it Skinview, I just knew the nuance and subtility thing was not going anywhere with you. I just knew it, and went and tried anyway. My bad.

Sure T. J. was a libertarian, and Patrick Henry was a Toastmaster, John Adams was a Rotarian, and Aaron Burr was a Shriner, and Old King George was an Oddfellow.

LOL, dude! You do crack me up with this stuff.

[Skinview]

Dang it Skinview, I just knew the nuance and subtility thing was not going anywhere with you. I just knew it, and went and tried anyway. My bad.The problem is you are trying to tell a libertarian what libertarianism is, and getting it wrong. I don't like to appeal to authority in arguments, but I have been asked to run for office by the Libertarian Party. I am plenty well aquainted with Jefferson, Locke, Mill, Friedman and Hayek. I know what I am talking about.


Sure T. J. was a libertarianLets agree to agree and leave it at that.

[nacktman]

Here's a smiley graphic one can use to reply to posts of inane and languid sorts.


http://img84.exs.cx/img84/6927/palizaconsilla7eo.gif


Perfect for one or two posters on this thread in particular.

Feel free to apply liberally!

[usmc1]

The problem is you are trying to tell a libertarian what libertarianism is, and getting it wrong. I don't like to appeal to authority in arguments, but I have been asked to run for office by the Libertarian Party. I am plenty well aquainted with Jefferson, Locke, Mill, Friedman and Hayek. I know what I am talking about.

Lets agree to agree and leave it at that.

No, what I'm agreeing to is:
Sure T. J. was a libertarian, and Patrick Henry was a Toastmaster, John Adams was a Rotarian, and Aaron Burr was a Shriner, and Old King George was an Oddfellow.

LOL, dude! You do crack me up with this stuff.

[Skinview]

No, what I'm agreeing to is:I was ribbing you, silly.

[usmc1]

The difference?

Liberals have a sense of humor...obviously, conservatives don't!

Conservatives can dish it out, but can't take it when it comes back at them.:rolleyes:

[KirkOntario]

Liberals and conservatives laugh at different things based on their views of the world.

[Sanslines]

Based upon the real definition of 'liberal', we don't seem to have any real liberals in this forum.

[Skinview]

Based upon the real definition of 'liberal', we don't seem to have any real liberals in this forum.What is your "real" definition of a liberal? I'm an 18th century liberal, and we have lots of 21st century liberals here, it seems to me. I would think one of us would qualify.

[Sanslines]

The word 'liberal' is used by the media as a derogatory way to put down Democrats and paint them as the out of control 'tax and spend' party.

The REAL meaning of the word 'liberal' can be found in any dictionary, such as Webster's Dictionary.

From that dictionary: liberal: generous, ample, abundant, broad and open minded, tolerant, favors reform or progress.

[tinhfwv]

From that dictionary: liberal: generous, ample, abundant, broad and open minded, tolerant, favors reform or progress.

"Open minded and tolerant" seem to be in short supply around here. Their scarcity inhibits the constuctive exchange of ideas, and the expansion of thought patterns.

[harveym]

I think that the major difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the conservative says, 'Keep your hands off our boardroom', while a liberal says, 'Keep your hands off my bedroom.'
I've noticed that when conservatives are in power my friends and family are hurt. When liberals are in power my pocket may be strained. Given a choice I would rather give cash than pain.

[Sanslines]

I think that the major difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the conservative says, 'Keep your hands off our boardroom', while a liberal says, 'Keep your hands off my bedroom.'
I've noticed that when conservatives are in power my friends and family are hurt. When liberals are in power my pocket may be strained. Given a choice I would rather give cash than pain.

The way that the governments spend money in this country is certainly not fiscally conservative. Our federal and state tax codes are virtually incomprehensible to most Americans and are getting more complicated by the year. A senior citizen was telling me the other day that back in the 1950's, a federal income tax form was the size of an index card and could be filled out in a few minutes. The exponential increase in complexity is staggering. We certainly do need a serious effort from either party to simplify the tax code to the point where people can actually understand the forms.

[Skinview]

The word 'liberal' is used by the media as a derogatory way to put down Democrats and paint them as the out of control 'tax and spend' party.

The REAL meaning of the word 'liberal' can be found in any dictionary, such as Webster's Dictionary.

From that dictionary: liberal: generous, ample, abundant, broad and open minded, tolerant, favors reform or progress.
There is a liberal supply of sand at the beach, but I don't think that meaning applies to political positions so well, other than to say that there is a liberal supply of liberals here. ;)
The last three meanings are true, but liberals did get their reputation by being "generous" with other people's money. Republican's have not been any better lately either.
The 18th century political meaning of the term is more connected with its Latin root meaning: liber, free. Liberals today tend to protect civil liberties and other personal liberties, relatively speaking, but they have been very restrictive of economic freedoms, and not at all liberal in the Latin meaning with repect to that. So someone had to come up with the term "libertarian" to cover advocates of freedom generally.

[Boreas]

What is your "real" definition of a liberal? I'm an 18th century liberal, and we have lots of 21st century liberals here, it seems to me. I would think one of us would qualify.

I am glad you brought that up! Scrooge was a liberal.

Today, in the US at least, the term liberal seems to be used indiscriminately. Mostly as a term of derision. I have also seen some of the folks being labelled liberal down there and I chose not to be lumped in with them. Also, there is a big difference, it seems, between how the term is used up here and down there.

I prefer not to be considered a liberal. I am not sure what term I would use to describe myself, partly because I don't like labels in the first place. I believe that we could find a balance between business and social needs, if we had the will to do so. I also believe that good social programs help people take more responsibility for their own lives and does not create dependency.

Oh, I most definitely do not fit in the current "conservative" category. I lean more to the left than the right!

[Skinview]

The way that the governments spend money in this country is certainly not fiscally conservative. Our federal and state tax codes are virtually incomprehensible to most Americans and are getting more complicated by the year. A senior citizen was telling me the other day that back in the 1950's, a federal income tax form was the size of an index card and could be filled out in a few minutes. The exponential increase in complexity is staggering. We certainly do need a serious effort from either party to simplify the tax code to the point where people can actually understand the forms.I think the reason that conservatives have been in the doldrums lately is because none of the Presidential candidates, besides Ron Paul, really has an agenda to do anything. (Wait, no, Huckabee wanted to replace the income tax with a national sales tax). McCain wants to win the war, but what about here? Forbes had a great flat tax plan. It would be great if someone would pick up that ball and carry it. Reagan came in with an ideal and plan to do things. The last time any conservative did anything like that was when Newt Gingrich came out with the contract with America. I don't think the Democrats have an issue to push either, besides the war.

[Skinview]

I am glad you brought that up! Scrooge was a liberal.Hunh?


Today, in the US at least, the term liberal seems to be used indiscriminately. Mostly as a term of derision.The word "liberal" gets traction as a term of derision here because the US, for good or ill, is a conservative country. Liberals are out of the mainstream. They try to turn that image around by labeling every Rpublican candidate as "extreemist", and then all the "extreemist" voters give the "extreemist" the majority vote. I guess we have an extreemist center. :)


Oh, I most definitely do not fit in the current "conservative" category. I lean more to the left than the right!I got that impression.

[BinCo]

I think the reason that conservatives have been in the doldrums lately is because none of the Presidential candidates, besides Ron Paul, really has an agenda to do anything. (Wait, no, Huckabee wanted to replace the income tax with a national sales tax). McCain wants to win the war, but what about here? Forbes had a great flat tax plan. It would be great if someone would pick up that ball and carry it. Reagan came in with an ideal and plan to do things. The last time any conservative did anything like that was when Newt Gingrich came out with the contract with America. I don't think the Democrats have an issue to push either, besides the war.

I have a little different idea. Perhaps Republicans are in the doldrums because they don't have a candidate that can energize it's people. As much as Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan and even Carter really seem to divide the people now, they sure had a vision that brought people to their feet. They had energy and vision and the communication skills to get people moving and see possibility. Unlike Bush Sr./Jr., Nixon who have/had nearly zero communication and motovation skills and could not get a mouse to eat the cheese let alone get people to see possibility. For my lifetime the Republicans have always been about fear. Fear of the Commies, fear of the Terrorists. It's all about fear, not about hope.

I think this is why Obama is on top today. He gets people moving and really is able to communicate a dream of America. He gets people thinking that things can really get better. Sure, history might show that it is all BS, but it probably won't. I, for one, will always take hope over fear as a rule to live by.:)

[Skinview]

I have a little different idea. Perhaps Republicans are in the doldrums because they don't have a candidate that can energize it's people.That too.

As much as Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan and even Carter really seem to divide the people now, they sure had a vision that brought people to their feet.I don't recall a Carter vision. He was that antiNixon. People trusted him. After Clinton, I came to appreciate his honesty, even if I thought he was a poor President.

For my lifetime the Republicans have always been about fear. Fear of the Commies, fear of the Terrorists. It's all about fear, not about hope.Yeah. Lets not prepare for anything and hope nothing bad happens.


I think this is why Obama is on top today.Is he? Last time I checked, McCain was beating him by 1%.

[Boreas]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Boreas http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=191887#post191887)
I am glad you brought that up! Scrooge was a liberal.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Hunh?

Well, that does not mean that all traditional liberals were skinflints like he was. He was the epitome of the English laissez faire, liberal. Let others live their lives, let me live mine. As you said, liberal=libre etc. Of course Scrooge was focused on his own wealth which is not what I was suggesting that all traditional liberals do.


The word "liberal" gets traction as a term of derision here because the US, for good or ill, is a conservative country. Liberals are out of the mainstream. They try to turn that image around by labeling every Rpublican candidate as "extreemist", and then all the "extreemist" voters give the "extreemist" the majority vote. I guess we have an extreemist center. :)

Yes, you guys are a conservative country. Our conservative PM Stephen Harper would be too liberal for many down there. He is too conservative for many up here. I would also wonder if perhaps you do have a few extremist politicians who have given the rest a bad name. Bush has had some extreme views on the war, and the whole "if you are not for us you are against us" thing.

Got to go......it is time to get to work! :surprised:

[Sanslines]

For my lifetime the Republicans have always been about fear. Fear of the Commies, fear of the Terrorists. It's all about fear, not about hope.


After the 'malaise' that Jimmy Carter spoke about in the late 1970's, Reagan came to power, in part, by preaching that America's best days were ahead and not behind. He offered hope. A few examples pop into mind.......his 'shining city on the hill' and his 'it's morning in America' speeches.

[usmc1]

Conservatism is an ideology which values the status quo and accepts change only reluctantly and at a very slow pace. It is based upon the premise that human institutions are the product of a gradual process of experience, and that they have endured because they have proven to be effective over a long period of time. It follows that it would be most imprudent to change these institutions and practices in any fundamental way. It is not realistic to expect that workable new institutions and practices can be introduced to replace existing ones except through a long gradual process of experimentation. To do otherwise is to invite chaos.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
The most ardent adherents of conservatism are likely to be the privileged groups in society. Conservatism is essentially pessimistic and negative in its applications
<o:p></o:p>
"Liberal" is defined as "having political or social views favoring reform and progress; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition." Being a liberal doesn't mean living in a comfortable <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">New England</st1:place> or Midwestern home discussing why gays should be allowed to get married over a cup of coffee at the local Starbucks, condemning all of those "ignorant Southerners" and then hopping back in the BMW that was given to you.

Being liberal doesn't mean just being pro-choice and for gay marriage. Being liberal means fighting for reducing socio-economic inequality, advocating that resources be sent to people and places that need our help and ensuring tolerance of all differences. Being liberal means understanding that the homeless aren't homeless because they're lazy and realizing that someone with one pair of clothes isn't going to make a great impression at a job interview. Being liberal means helping everyone, being open to new ideas, being broad-minded. Progress is what Liberalism really means - moral progress, economic progress and social progress to benefit all humanity. This represents the path towards a better world. At its heart, Liberalism is an optimistic, progressive philosophy.<o:p></o:p>

[BinCo]

Yeah. Lets not prepare for anything and hope nothing bad happens.

I'm not saying that. But you don't prepare for peace by spending your country into oblivian on the military and forget about the general public. You don't prepare for peace by refusing to acknoledge that other countries have a problem with us and telling the world that you are "either with us or against us." That is how to prepare for war. Which is exactly what this administration, Bush Sr. and Reagan did. Nixon and Ford didn't do it because they were digging themselves out of the quagmire that was Vietnam.

I cut my engineering teeth in the defense industry and believe me, they like warfare. It gets them more jobs and more money. We spend billions on new ships for the navy to fight who? The terrorists? They don't have a navy! With the navy we have we can already wipe out any navy fleet on the planet. Why do we need to spend billions more to design new ships. If we need to replace the aging fleet, why not do some upgrades to the existing ship designs and build new ones? With this administrations furvor for privatization I'm shocked that they have not figured out a way to make a private navy that can fall outside of the laws of any country. It makes me sick to see that they have pushed to pay private militia men (which is what they are) to act on behalf of our country and yet not have to answer to any of our laws or the laws of the country they are in.


Is he? Last time I checked, McCain was beating him by 1%.

Depends on the poll. Some show McCain leading, some Obama.

[Sanslines]

I'm not saying that. But you don't prepare for peace by spending your country into oblivian on the military and forget about the general public. You don't prepare for peace by refusing to acknoledge that other countries have a problem with us and telling the world that you are "either with us or against us." That is how to prepare for war. Which is exactly what this administration, Bush Sr. and Reagan did. Nixon and Ford didn't do it because they were digging themselves out of the quagmire that was Vietnam.

I cut my engineering teeth in the defense industry and believe me, they like warfare. It gets them more jobs and more money. We spend billions on new ships for the navy to fight who? The terrorists? They don't have a navy! With the navy we have we can already wipe out any navy fleet on the planet. Why do we need to spend billions more to design new ships. If we need to replace the aging fleet, why not do some upgrades to the existing ship designs and build new ones? With this administrations furvor for privatization I'm shocked that they have not figured out a way to make a private navy that can fall outside of the laws of any country. It makes me sick to see that they have pushed to pay private militia men (which is what they are) to act on behalf of our country and yet not have to answer to any of our laws or the laws of the country they are in.



Depends on the poll. Some show McCain leading, some Obama.

One thing that we all have to remember were the conditions in the 1980's.
The process of detent was started in the 1970's. After the end of Vietnam in '75, our military was viewed in a very unfavorable way by the majority of the American society. Many blamed the military for the 'losing' Vietnam. As a result, the military suffered and there were cases where, for example, Air Force pilots could not train due to lack of monies for aircraft fuel. Many were grounded and were restricted to practicing on aircraft simulators.

After Reagan came into office, he started the largest peace time buildup of the military. He did not want to just contain the Soviet Union and prolong the Cold War. He wanted to win it. His strategy involved negotiating with the Soviet Union from a position of overwhelming strength. During the 80's enormous numbers of defense related jobs were created. During that period of time, the Los Angeles Times had numerous full page ads in their employment section seeking anyone and everyone who could work in the defense industry.

The rational behind ending the Cold War was very simple. Massive stockpiles and endless buildups of nuclear weapons (and other god aweful weapon systems) that could never be used were an enormous drain on the USA economy. The end result was to free ourselves from this massive burden and focus our resources on other issues. After the end of the cold war, George H W Bush presided over a massive scaling down of the defense industries. Unemployment soared - especially in Southern California - where many defense industries were based. Southern Californina experienced a severe recession and the buildup in housing prices that occured up until about '92 started to come down as people who lost their jobs walked away from their homes. When Bill Clinton entered office, this decline process was not complete. Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, at the time mentioned that many of the high paying job losses were lost for good. Others might eventually come back. Over time, the employment situation did continue to improve under Clinton. Clinton was also not burdened with the cold war and was able to concentrate on domestic policy. Unfortunately under Clinton, the stock market was allowed to surge to unprecedented levels. Eventually the crash started to occur just before Bill Clinton left office. Bill Clinton was also heavily distracted by the "Monica Affair". George Bush then came into power. Not long after he was elected, 911 occured, and the entire world changed. Unfortunately, instead of continuing the focus on the domestic economy, that Bill Clinton started, major resources were directed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another bubble, the housing bubble, was also allowed to occur as a replacement for the stock market bubble that occured under Bill Clinton.

Presidents do not always 'dig themselves' into situations. They inherit problems and must deal with them as they see fit. Case in point is the next president. He or she will have to deal with the mess that Iraq has become - not because they want to, but because the current administration has passed this mess onto the next administration.

[usmc1]

The reactionary revisionists are rewriting history and shifting the blame and focus and ignoring the fact that Bush did launch his domestic agenda while also conducting a skirmish in Afghanistan which did little else than establish Karzai as mayor of Kabul and reinvigorate the opium poppy trade there, and then launch a crack-brained invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Bush did get his tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Bush did launch a failed attempt to hand Social Security over to Wall-Street. Bush did oversee a dreadful, wasteful and virtually incomprehensible drug insurance plan for Medicare pouring millions into the coffers of insurance companies at the expense of hard-strapped Older Americans. Bush continues to pursue privatization of Medicare. Bush did get the various deregulations and business favorable policies he sought. Bush did staff the various bureaucracies and agencies which drive economic policies and money flow.

It is incomprehensible how any truthful person could even suggest that the economic situation we find ourselves in today is the responsibility of any administration other than the current one. It is misrepresentation of the very worst sort to even suggest that Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, as costly and disastrous has it has been, has in any way deterred him and his neo-liberal economic advisers from their agenda. Deficits have consequences; immediate, short-term, and long-term.

Going to war without generating the tax revenues to pay for it will prove to be one of the stupidest acts ever made by any president of any party. It threatens to destroy our middle-class, endangers our security, places us in debt to nations who in the long run do not have our best interests at heart, and places in economic shackles our children and our children's children.

Any decisions, moves, actions or policies of previous administrations could have, and should have, been rectified and corrected by this administration over the past seven years. We're now in the fourth month of this administration's eighth year---time enough!

The question recurs, are you better off or worse off?

No amount of conservative flap-doodle and right-wing yammer-yammer will change these very simple and brightly glaring truths.

[Skinview]

The reactionary revisionists are rewriting history and shifting the blame and focus and ignoring the fact that Bush did launch his domestic agenda while also conducting a skirmish in Afghanistan which did little else than establish Karzai as mayor of Kabul and reinvigorate the opium poppy trade there, and then launch a crack-brained invasion and occupation of Iraq.The NATO invasion of Afghanistan ejected the Taliban from power, who were harboring Osama Bin Ladin. You are the first person of any party who I have heard suggest that that wasn't something that had to be done. The Democrat party line has been that Iraq has diverted attention from our important operations in Afghanistan. I will criticize Bush for carrying the War on drugs to Afghanistan, which has just made us really unpopular in the countryside there.


It is incomprehensible how any truthful person could even suggest that the economic situation we find ourselves in today is the responsibility of any administration other than the current one.Its the housing bubble. Its not the responsibility of any administration.

[Sanslines]

Its the housing bubble. Its not the responsibility of any administration.

Actually it was the Fed that helped, in part, to create the housing bubble by lowering interest rates to very low levels. This created 'easy money' and encouraged reckless borrowing. Can any administration dictate to the Fed what they can and cannot do and will the Fed listen? That's the million dollar question.

[Skinview]

I'm not saying that. But you don't prepare for peace by spending your country into oblivian on the military and forget about the general public.What about that massive perscription drug program?


You don't prepare for peace by refusing to acknoledge that other countries have a problem with us and telling the world that you are "either with us or against us." That is how to prepare for war. Which is exactly what this administration, Bush Sr. and Reagan did.Damn glad they did. Saddam Hussain would torturing dissidents in Saudi Arabia and selling us oil at $200 a barrel if Reagan hadn't built the military we have now.


I cut my engineering teeth in the defense industry and believe me, they like warfare. It gets them more jobs and more money. We spend billions on new ships for the navy to fight who? The terrorists? They don't have a navy!I keep hearing this line from liberals that weapon system x won't help fight terrorism, as if we didn't need a military before 9/11. I'll give a short list of reasons to have a navy: Korea, China, Iran, and that most dangerous nemisis of all, country X that you never dreamed you would be at war with.


With the navy we have we can already wipe out any navy fleet on the planet. Why do we need to spend billions more to design new ships. If we need to replace the aging fleet, why not do some upgrades to the existing ship designs and build new ones?If we are going to build new ships, why not the best designs that we can come up with? Anyway, it is a lot cheaper to build the military that can win a war with overwhelming superiority, than it is to wage a protracted bloodbath with an adversary who is an even match.

[KirkOntario]

The NATO invasion of Afghanistan ejected the Taliban from power, who were harboring Osama Bin Ladin. You are the first person of any party who I have heard suggest that that wasn't something that had to be done. The Democrat party line has been that Iraq has diverted attention from our important operations in Afghanistan. I will criticize Bush for carrying the War on drugs to Afghanistan, which has just made us really unpopular in the countryside there.

Its the housing bubble. Its not the responsibility of any administration.

Good post Skin. And let us not forget the hollow promises of Democrats like those of John "Breck Girl" Edwards post 9/11...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvg4utL07o&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair%2Ecom%2Farchives%2F2007%2 F05%2F23%2Fflashback%2Dvideo%2Dedwards%2Dpledges%2 Dunity%2Dthroughout%2Dthis%2Dwar%2Don%2Dterrorism% 2F

[Skinview]

Well, that does not mean that all traditional liberals were skinflints like he was. He was the epitome of the English laissez faire, liberal. Let others live their lives, let me live mine. As you said, liberal=libre etc. Of course Scrooge was focused on his own wealth which is not what I was suggesting that all traditional liberals do.Traditional liberals (libertarians) think that private charity is better than having the government confiscate wealth and squander it on inefficient and counter productive programs. I am a bit more moderate than libertarian purists, but I think they acknoledge some truths. Scrooge might have been a traditional liberal, but he was a baad liberal, at least at the start of the story.

[Boreas]

Traditional liberals (libertarians) think that private charity is better than having the government confiscate wealth and squander it on inefficient and counter productive programs. I am a bit more moderate than libertarian purists, but I think they acknoledge some truths. Scrooge might have been a traditional liberal, but he was a baad liberal, at least at the start of the story.


Yes, I suspect that Scrooge might have said something like that, only he could not part with his money. That is one concern I have with private charity. Some of the folks who espouse that view say that, yet do not contribute.

I do agree, that inefficient and counter productive programs should not be wasting our money. At the same time, we should not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and cutting all programs, which is what neo-liberals do. We recently had a tragic incident in Merritt, BC that was probably preventable on many levels. This was a woman who apparently moved from Vancouver (about a three hour drive I think) to get away from this man. This is a man who apparently has addiction issues. Our government slashed funding to women's programs and does not fund mental health and addictions programs adequately. Also, support programs for children are lacking in this province. Had there been an adequate network of services, perhaps this family would not be mourning the death of three children under ten.

This is one related story about the incident. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/10/merritt-suspect.html

[usmc1]

The NATO invasion of Afghanistan ejected the Taliban from power, who were harboring Osama Bin Ladin. You are the first person of any party who I have heard suggest that that wasn't something that had to be done. The Democrat party line has been that Iraq has diverted attention from our important operations in Afghanistan...

TALIBAN BACK IN CONTROL...
The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into Taliban hands, according to a report by an independent thinktank with long experience in the area.Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries", the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.


On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change".
It says the territory controlled by the Taliban has increased and the frontline is getting closer to Kabul - a warning echoed by the UN which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.


The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when ... and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm before time runs out."


Its 110-page report coincides with an equally severe warning from Oxfam. In a report for the House of Commons International Development Committee the humanitarian and aid agency warns that the security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating significantly with the country's problems exacerbated by corruption in central and local government.
Senior British and US military commanders privately agree despite their public emphasis on short-term successes against Taliban fighters.
The insurgency is divided into a largely poverty-driven "grassroots" component and a concentrated group of "hard-core militant Islamists", says the Senlis Council, which has an office in Kabul and field researchers based in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in southern Afghanistan.


It says that the Nato-led International Security Force of some 40,000 troops should be at least doubled and include forces from Muslim countries as well as Nato states which have refused to send troops to the country.
There is no sign of any move within Nato to send reinforcements to Afghanistan.


While western governments, like the Senlis Council and Oxfam, are increasingly concerned about the lack of effectiveness of President Hamid Karzai's government, there is no agreement about how to solve the problems.


Oxfam warns that urgent action is needed to avert humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan where millions face "severe hardship comparable with sub-Saharan Africa". Though the country has received more than $15bn (£7.5bn) in aid since 2001, the money is not getting to projects which could lead to sustained improvements in people's lives, says Oxfam.
It adds that at least 1,200 civilians have been killed so far this year, half in operations by international or Afghan forces. It notes there are four times as many air strikes by international forces in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
The Senlis Council wants Nato forces, and their Provincial Reconstruction Teams, to take on a bigger role distributing aid and Oxfam says the military should stick to providing security.

[usmc1]

The NATO invasion of Afghanistan ejected the Taliban from power, who were harboring Osama Bin Ladin. You are the first person of any party who I have heard suggest that that wasn't something that had to be done. The Democrat party line has been that Iraq has diverted attention from our important operations in Afghanistan. I will criticize Bush for carrying the War on drugs to Afghanistan, which has just made us really unpopular in the countryside there.


I wrote, suggested nor inferred no such thing. And you damned well know it. Do not twist my words!

[usmc1]

I will criticize Bush for carrying the War on drugs to Afghanistan, which has just made us really unpopular in the countryside there.


ANOTHER OF BUSH'S "FAILED" WARS!

Afghanistan Opium Crop Sets Record
U.S.-Backed Efforts At Eradication Fail
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 2, 2006; A01

Opium production in Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/afghanistan.html?nav=el), which provides more than 90 percent of the world's heroin, broke all records in 2006, reaching a historic high despite ongoing U.S.-sponsored eradication efforts, the Bush administration reported yesterday.

In addition to a 26 percent production increase over past year -- for a total of 5,644 metric tons -- the amount of land under cultivation in opium poppies grew by 61 percent. Cultivation in the two main production provinces, Helmand in the southwest and Oruzgan in central Afghanistan, was up by 132 percent.

White House drug policy chief John Walters called the news "disappointing."
The administration has cited resurgent Taliban forces as the main impediment to stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and the U.S. military investment has far exceeded anti-narcotic and development programs. But U.S. military and intelligence officials have increasingly described the drug trade as a problem that rivals and in some ways exceeds the Taliban, threatening to derail other aspects of U.S. policy.

"It is truly the Achilles' heel of Afghanistan," Gen. James L. Jones, the supreme allied commander for NATO, said in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. Afghanistan is NATO's biggest operation, with more than 30,000 troops. Drug cartels with their own armies engage in regular combat with NATO forces deployed in Afghanistan, he said. "It would be wrong to say that this is just the Taliban. I think I need to set that record straight," he added.

"They have their own capability to inflict damage, to make sure that the roads and the passages stay open and they get to where they want to go, whether it's through Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/pakistan.html?nav=el), Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iran.html?nav=el), up through Russia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/russia.html?nav=el) and all the known trade routes. So this is a very violent cartel," Jones said. "They are buying their protection by funding other organizations, from criminal gangs to tribes, to inciting any kind of resistance to keep the government off of their back."

Any disruption of the drug trade has enormous implications for Afghanistan's economic and political stability. Although its relative strength in the overall economy has diminished as other sectors have expanded in recent years, narcotics is a $2.6 billion-a-year industry that this year provided more than a third of the country's gross domestic product. Farmers who cultivate opium poppies receive only a small percentage of the profits, but U.S. officials estimate the crop provides up to 12 times as much income per acre as conventional farming, and there is violent local resistance to eradication.
"It's almost the devil's own problem," CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told Congress last month. "Right now the issue is stability. . . . Going in there in itself and attacking the drug trade actually feeds the instability that you want to overcome."

"Attacking the problem directly in terms of the drug trade . . . would undermine the attempt to gain popular support in the region," agreed Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "There's a real conflict, I think."

The Afghan government has prohibited the aerial herbicide spraying used by U.S. anti-narcotic programs in Latin America. Instead, opium poppy plants in Afghanistan are destroyed by tractors dragging heavy bars. But only 38,500 of nearly 430,000 acres under cultivation were eradicated this year.
Because of security concerns and local sensibilities, all eradication is done by Afghan police, and corruption is a major problem at every level from cultivation to international trafficking. Although the drug trade is believed to provide some financing to the Taliban, most experts believe it is largely an organized criminal enterprise. According to a major report on the Afghan drug industry jointly released last week by the World Bank and the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, key narcotics traffickers "work closely with sponsors in top government and political positions."

The report drew specific attention to the Afghan Interior Ministry, saying its officials were increasingly involved in providing protection for and facilitating consolidation of the drug industry in the hands of leading traffickers. "At the lower levels," the report said, "payments to police to avoid eradication or arrest reportedly are very widespread. At higher levels, provincial and district police chief appointments appear to be a tool for key traffickers and sponsors to exercise control and favor their proteges at middle levels in the drug industry."

Opium cultivation was outlawed during Taliban rule in the late 1990s and was nearly eliminated by 2001. After the overthrow of the Taliban government by U.S. forces in the fall of that year, the Bush administration said that keeping a lid on production was among its highest priorities. But corruption and alliances formed by Washington and the Afghan government with anti-Taliban tribal chieftains, some of whom are believed to be deeply involved in the trade, undercut the effort.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently noted that "once we thought terrorism was Afghanistan's biggest enemy" but said that now "poppy, its cultivation and drugs are Afghanistan's major enemy."

Eradication and alternative development programs have made little discernible headway. Cultivation -- measured annually with high-resolution satellite imagery that is then parsed by analysts using specialized computer software -- is nearly double its highest pre-Karzai level.

"There is supposed to be a tremendous energy associated with this," Jones said of the counter-narcotics programs, "but it needs a fresh look because . . . we're losing ground.

[Sanslines]

At the same time, we should not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and cutting all programs, which is what neo-liberals do.

We should not cut or end valuable programs that efficiently use the monies that are allocated to them. We should reward competence and efficiency and those who eliminate waste and fraud. The problem with the system today is that is full of fantastic waste and fraud. The system punishes those dedicated indivuduals who stand up to this waste in an attempt to 'do the right thing'.

Here are just some brief examples of the kind of waste that occurs around here. At a local university, a new building is scheduled to be built (starting this July) adjacent to the old building which was built in 1924 and is scheduled for demolition once the new building is complete. The old building is also scheduled for a brand new roof that will cost over $125,000. Instead of doing the sensible thing, and patching the old roof (for a couple of thousand dollars) to keep the old roof from leaking until the building is demolished in less then one year, the new roof will be installed over the Summer and then demolished along with the building. Fantastic waste!
Here is another example at the same university. The annual heating budget allocates a certain amount of funds and resources to heat the university. If there is a mild heating season, or heat is conserved, such that the amount of money spent falls far short of what was allocated, then the excess money must be retured and next year's budget will be cut. However, if the budget is exceeded, then more money will be allocated to the budget next year. The end result is that the buildings are so overheated in order to 'burn' budget that windows must be kept open during the Winter to get rid of the excessive heat. More fantastic waste!
Here is one final example of waste at the same university. There is a budget allocated for salt in order to keep the university roads open during the Winter. There is limited storage capacity on campus to store excess salt that is left over from either a mild Winter or being conservative with salt usage. If there is salt left over, it cannot be dumped in the local landfill. However, it must be dumped somewhere to make space for the new shipment of salt that arrives over the Summer. Also if salt is left over, the next year's salt budget will be trimmed. The answer seems to be to apply salt to the roads where there is absolutely no need to use salt (ie in warm weather) and also to literally pour extremely heavy amounts of salt on the roads during the Winter just to get rid of the salt. Another example of fantastic waste.

There are so many examples of this kind of fantastic waste and yet important programs that are effective go begging for money. The answer is NOT to keep raising taxes forever. The obvious answer is to eliminate a system that rewards waste and punishes those who want to change the system to be more efficient. Just think of how many scholarships that the savings from the above three wasteful programs could be provided to needy students!

[KirkOntario]

Yes, I suspect that Scrooge might have said something like that, only he could not part with his money. That is one concern I have with private charity. Some of the folks who espouse that view say that, yet do not contribute.

I do agree, that inefficient and counter productive programs should not be wasting our money. At the same time, we should not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and cutting all programs, which is what neo-liberals do. We recently had a tragic incident in Merritt, BC that was probably preventable on many levels. This was a woman who apparently moved from Vancouver (about a three hour drive I think) to get away from this man. This is a man who apparently has addiction issues. Our government slashed funding to women's programs and does not fund mental health and addictions programs adequately. Also, support programs for children are lacking in this province. Had there been an adequate network of services, perhaps this family would not be mourning the death of three children under ten.

This is one related story about the incident. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/10/merritt-suspect.html

No, the problem with that case was that a lenient judicial system granted a dangerous man bail. His criminal record was 3 pages long but the Justice of Peace (an NDP --Canada's socialist party--appointee) decided to 'give him a break.'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080412.BCMERRITT12/TPStory/National

[Boreas]

I agree with your examples Sanslines and have seen them up here. We used to see hospitals rewarded in similar ways. Also, apparently the city of Toronto used to have a budget for snow removal. If they did not use it up one year, it would get put over into the next year and things would balance out. Now they have to return the money and so when they get huge dumps of snow, they go into deficit instead of into the cushion of money set aside from previous years.

I am not saying that no programs should be cut. I am saying that we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because some programs are wasteful, does not make all programs wasteful.

[Boreas]

No, the problem with that case was that a lenient judicial system granted a dangerous man bail. His criminal record was 3 pages long but the Justice of Peace (an NDP --Canada's socialist party--appointee) decided to 'give him a break.'

WAY too simpistic as usual. Blame the other party etc. That is only one thing that went wrong in that situation. You cannot take one part of a situation and say that is the reason why it went wrong. There was a whole series of systemic failures that caused this, this man not being detained is only one of them. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080410/merritt_murders_080410/20080410/

I understand that the police did not tell the JP about the restraining order, though I find that very difficult to believe in this situation. Apparently the transcripts have been released to confirm that the JP did not know. There is reference to this in the article I posted.

What we seem to know is that this woman moved to Merritt to get away from an abusive man. Where were the women's services and supports that could have helped her safety? Cut by the Campbell government. This man had a history of substance abuse and possibly mental health programs. Did he ever try to get help for these problems? We don't know. I could guess that if he had, the services would have been insufficient. And yes, why was he released after all the altercations he'd had with the police and the community before the murders?

It isn't as simple as you imply Kirk. And it is not the NDP or the socialists fault. In fact, the current Liberal government (which is a fine example of neo-liberalism) can take much of the blame.

[MoonShadow]

Quite true, Boreas. In situations such as this one, there is no one or two reasons but many.

As usual, the wasteful programs are used as another reason, to cut programs that do work. Pass the buck, condemn all..... Maybe someday we will get this right, but let's not hold our breath, that more people will look for what does work and improve upon that and eliminate what doesn't work AND not lumped all programs into the same "bathwater".

[BinCo]

What about that massive perscription drug program?

What about it? Want someone to blame? Blame all of American for being out of whack when it comes to health and so gullible that Pharma companies can now run ads saying "Ask you doctor if you need XXXX" and know that people will come like sheep. I'm happy to be one 40yr old guy who has never been on any long term prescription drugs, just short term anti-biotics and pain killers after surgeries for gall bladder and vision correction. Oh, and blame the Pharma companies for selling drugs at 4x the price of the same drug sold out of the US. And blame them for crafting legeslation that makes it tough to sell imported drugs here when they are made elsewhere on the exact same machines that we make them on with the same suppliers we make them on.


Damn glad they did. Saddam Hussain would torturing dissidents in Saudi Arabia and selling us oil at $200 a barrel if Reagan hadn't built the military we have now.

Really? Saddam would have been in Saudi Arabia, with the Saudis who hated him? How about what the Saudis do to their own people. How about that fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis with ZERO ties to Iraq?


I keep hearing this line from liberals that weapon system x won't help fight terrorism, as if we didn't need a military before 9/11. I'll give a short list of reasons to have a navy: Korea, China, Iran, and that most dangerous nemisis of all, country X that you never dreamed you would be at war with.

Really? I'm not the one running for president on the platform of needing more of the same and that we might be in Iraq for 100 years and we need a larger military. And yet we continue to support the Osprey? We continue to support an anti-missle system that can be disabled by taking out the gps satellites. And we still have an idiot running things that believes you never communicate, you never negotiate, you just fight.


If we are going to build new ships, why not the best designs that we can come up with? Anyway, it is a lot cheaper to build the military that can win a war with overwhelming superiority, than it is to wage a protracted bloodbath with an adversary who is an even match.

Because I would rather we spend money a lot more efficiently. Why do you thing the Air Force/Navy and Marines all share common air frame designs for thier planes? It makes them cheaper and better.

As noted in Iraq with the protracted bloodbath. We WON the ******* war folks. We can't win the peace because the moron who started the war in Iraq had no interest in it. He thought things would be peachy if Saddam was gone and never considered the power vacuum that would happen because he has his head up his arse.

[KirkOntario]

WAY too simpistic as usual. Blame the other party etc. That is only one thing that went wrong in that situation..

Would children be alive today had that J.P. not granted the father bail? That is where the blame lies and rightly so.

[Boreas]

Would children be alive today had that J.P. not granted the father bail? That is where the blame lies and rightly so.

Perhaps. It is also WAY too simplistic. Of course, when you are a person who thinks in black and white, you are very likely unable to see beyond the immediate. If you had read my post you will have seen that I acknowledged that the man should have been kept in jail.

Your neo-liberal friends helped to create that disaster on many fronts. Had the supports and services been in place, the whole incident need not have happened and perhaps that father would not have been in Merritt in the first place.

That is all I will say. I have said what I need to say.

[KirkOntario]

Your neo-liberal friends helped to create that disaster on many fronts. Had the supports and services been in place, the whole incident need not have happened and perhaps that father would not have been in Merritt in the first place.

.

By 'support' you mean social workers and other paid government employees. Why do we need social workers to solve all our problems? What did we do before the invention of the social worker? Despite all the social workers and government programmes this sort of incident still occurs more so than it did 80 years ago. Why is that?

[Boreas]

By 'support' you mean social workers and other paid government employees. Why do we need social workers to solve all our problems? What did we do before the invention of the social worker? Despite all the social workers and government programmes this sort of incident still occurs more so than it did 80 years ago. Why is that?

No. I do not. I have made my points clear before. Instead of just having a thing against social workers, look further into the situation. Why does it happen? Many reasons. I am not going to waste my time explaining to you. You may do some research yourself if you are truly interested in an answer to that question. Check out researchers like Robert Mullaly, Janis Fook, Graham Riches.....oh, perhaps you would rather not. They are all social workers.

BTW, not all social workers are employed by the government. I am one who is not dependent on the government for my employment. There is some very good research out there, done by social workers, even lawyers, I am sure, and others. If you are TRULY interested in an answer, and not just being provocative, then you will check it out yourself.

[Sanslines]

For those who believe that social workers are government supported leeches who make no difference in this world, here is just one example of an organization that is supported by numerous 'amateur' social workers who make all the difference in the world to homeless, runaway, and throwaway youth:

Covenant House:

About Covenant House

<TABLE id=bigslideshow style="DISPLAY: none; FLOAT: left; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 20px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/inw.gif</TD><TD style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(globalimages/itopbg.gif); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x"></TD><TD>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/ine.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(globalimages/ileftbg.gif); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-y" vAlign=top>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/igrad.gif</TD><TD id=test style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"></TD><TD style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(globalimages/irightbg.gif); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-y"></TD></TR><TR><TD>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/isw.gif</TD><TD style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(globalimages/ibottombg.gif); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x"></TD><TD>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/ise.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SCRIPT type=text/javascript charset=utf-8> var images_directory = "images"; var slideshow_place = "test"; var slideshow_base_url = window.location.toString().replace(".html","").replace(/\/([^/_]+)_([^/]+)$/, "/$1/$2"); var slideshow_count = 1; var slideshow_pe = null; var slideshow_image = null; function initializeSlideshow(){ var slideshow_base_test = new Ajax.Request(slideshow_base_url + "_01.jpg", {method:"get", onSuccess:startSlideshow}); } function stopSlideshow(){ if(slideshow_pe) slideshow_pe.stop(); } function startSlideshow(){ stopSlideshow(); Element.setStyle("bigslideshow",{display:"inline"}); if(!slideshow_image){ slideshow_image = new Image(); slideshow_image.src = slideshow_base_url + "_01.jpg"; slideshow_image.setAttribute("id", "slideshow_rotator"); $(slideshow_place).appendChild(slideshow_image); } slideshow_pe = new PeriodicalExecuter(function(){ var slideshow_next = new Ajax.Request(slideshow_base_url + "_" + (++slideshow_count < 10 ? "0" + slideshow_count : slideshow_count) + ".jpg", {method:"get", onFailure:function(){ slideshow_count = 1; $("slideshow_rotator").src = slideshow_base_url + "_01.jpg"; }, onSuccess:function(){ $("slideshow_rotator").src = slideshow_base_url + "_" + (slideshow_count < 10 ? "0" + slideshow_count : slideshow_count) + ".jpg"; }}); }, 15) } initializeSlideshow(); </SCRIPT>
Covenant House International is the largest privately-funded agency in the Americas providing shelter and other services to homeless, runaway and throwaway youth.
Incorporated in New York City in 1972, Covenant House International has facilities in 21 cities throughout the United States, Canada, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua. Covenant House International also operates 24-hour crisis hotlines in the United States (Covenant House NINELINE) and Mexico (Acercatel). In addition, Covenant House International and its member sites are leading advocates on behalf of street youth at local, state, national and international levels of government. Covenant House International is a member of the Non-Government Organization (NGO) Board of Directors of UNICEF and has taken on a prominent role in The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC.)

Covenant House International sites are located in Anchorage, Atlanta, Atlantic City, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Houston, Guatemala City, Los Angeles, Managua, Mexico City, Newark, New Orleans, New York, Oakland, Orlando, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Tegucigalpa, Toronto, Vancouver and Washington, D.C.

In addition to food, shelter, clothing and immediate crisis care, Covenant House provides a variety of services to homeless, runaway and throwaway youth including medical care, educational and vocational programs, drug abuse treatment and prevention programs, legal aid services, recreation programs, mother/child programs, transitional living programs, life-skills training and street outreach.

Covenant House provided residential and non-residential services to more than 60,000 youth in FY06. More than 15,000 young people came into Covenant House Crisis Shelters and Rights of Passage Programs while another 17,000 young people received assistance in Community Service Centers. Covenant House Street Outreach teams made contact with an additional 28,000 homeless and at-risk youth on the streets in the 21 cities where Covenant House operates facilities.

The Covenant House NINELINE (1-800-999-9999 / www.nineline.org (http://www.nineline.org)) received and immediately responded to more than 48,000 crisis calls from youngsters all over the United States who needed immediate help and had nowhere else to turn. Acercatel, the Covenant House 24-hour national crisis hotline in Mexico, received and responded to more than 13,000 crisis calls.

Covenant House Programs

<TABLE id=bigslideshow style="DISPLAY: none; FLOAT: left; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 20px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/inw.gif</TD><TD style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(globalimages/itopbg.gif); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x"></TD><TD>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/ine.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(globalimages/ileftbg.gif); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-y" vAlign=top>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/igrad.gif</TD><TD id=test style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"></TD><TD style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(globalimages/irightbg.gif); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-y"></TD></TR><TR><TD>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/isw.gif</TD><TD style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(globalimages/ibottombg.gif); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x"></TD><TD>http://www.covenanthouse.org/globalimages/ise.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SCRIPT type=text/javascript charset=utf-8> var images_directory = "images"; var slideshow_place = "test"; var slideshow_base_url = window.location.toString().replace(".html","").replace(/\/([^/_]+)_([^/]+)$/, "/$1/$2"); var slideshow_count = 1; var slideshow_pe = null; var slideshow_image = null; function initializeSlideshow(){ var slideshow_base_test = new Ajax.Request(slideshow_base_url + "_01.jpg", {method:"get", onSuccess:startSlideshow}); } function stopSlideshow(){ if(slideshow_pe) slideshow_pe.stop(); } function startSlideshow(){ stopSlideshow(); Element.setStyle("bigslideshow",{display:"inline"}); if(!slideshow_image){ slideshow_image = new Image(); slideshow_image.src = slideshow_base_url + "_01.jpg"; slideshow_image.setAttribute("id", "slideshow_rotator"); $(slideshow_place).appendChild(slideshow_image); } slideshow_pe = new PeriodicalExecuter(function(){ var slideshow_next = new Ajax.Request(slideshow_base_url + "_" + (++slideshow_count < 10 ? "0" + slideshow_count : slideshow_count) + ".jpg", {method:"get", onFailure:function(){ slideshow_count = 1; $("slideshow_rotator").src = slideshow_base_url + "_01.jpg"; }, onSuccess:function(){ $("slideshow_rotator").src = slideshow_base_url + "_" + (slideshow_count < 10 ? "0" + slideshow_count : slideshow_count) + ".jpg"; }}); }, 15) } initializeSlideshow(); </SCRIPT>
Food, clothing, shelter for a night: given freely, with no questions asked, no strings attached, for any hurting, homeless youth who will knock on our door tonight.
"Programs" is just another way of saying that we promise to keep loving these children unconditionally, because a covenant never quits, never fails, and never stops believing in the future.

An organization like Covenant House is only as good as what goes on face to face between youth and staff members. Once a youth decides to stay with us, our staff begins the hard, day-to-day work of building a plan for the future with each resident. Sometimes the result is the absolute heartache of losing a kid back to the street. Sometimes, the result is the rebirth of a young life society had long left for dead.

Covenant House Advocacy

The abuse and mistreatment of children and young adults knows no borders. Every day, children and young adults needlessly suffer and die all over the globe. They almost always are the most innocent of victims.
The Covenant House mission includes speaking out for those children and young people cannot speak for themselves. Covenant House international advocacy efforts include keeping media aware of issues and topics related to youth homelessness; hosting the annual Covenant House International Candlelight Vigil for homeless youth; working with politicians and lawmakers at the local, state and national level to enact laws protecting young people; and sending Covenant House representatives to Congress, the White House, and the United Nations to raise awareness and seek assistance for suffering children.

Covenant House currently is the Co-Chair of the NGO Committee on UNICEF. The NGO Committee on UNICEF is the body that the United Nations established for non-governmental organizations to consult and collaborate with UNICEF.

In Central America, where Covenant House is known as Casa Alianza, staff members have been at the forefront of advocacy efforts on behalf of children. The Casa Alianza advocacy team focuses its efforts on behalf of the estimated 40 million street children in Latin America. Topics addressed by Casa Alianza advocacy efforts include child labor, sexual violence, and illegal adoption issues.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the diplomatic community, and the worldwide media recognize Covenant House as one of the world’s foremost advocates for Central American street children.

Covenant House speaks out for the rights of all children. The Covenant House NINELINE (800-999-9999), a 24-hour hotline crisis hotline, received more than 48,000 calls this past year from youngsters, parents, and other individuals from all over the United States who turned to Covenant House NINELINE trained counselors for emergency intervention. In nearly all cases, callers are immediately connected to an appropriate local organization from a network of more than 30,000 health, social service, self-help, or law-enforcement agencies across the United States.

Outreach

Covenant House advocates for children at every opportunity. The President of Covenant House and senior staff members have made presentations, given testimony or provided information to Congress, the White House, State Legislatures, and City Halls. Local Covenant House leaders have done the same in city councils, neighborhood or ward meetings, and during special forums at Covenant House sites -- all with the goal of giving a voice to homeless and runaway youth.

The Covenant House Outreach Program is integral in the agency's efforts to connect with as many street youth as possible. The Covenant House Outreach Program also serves as a point of entry for homeless youth who make the choice to come off the streets and enter a Covenant House programs.
Many youth end up on the wrong path due to circumstances beyond their control, such as family disintegration and crippling poverty. The Outreach Program enables Covenant House to connect with those young people who otherwise would not seek help on their own. The Covenant House Outreach teams establish trusting relationships and offer young people alternatives to their desperate situations.

Traveling by van or on foot, Covenant House outreach workers regularly visit the toughest streets in each city trying to connect with homeless, runaway. The Outreach workers offer on-the-spot assistance with needs such as food and minor medical attention. When these young adults express a desire for additional assistance they are referred to Covenant House Crisis Centers.

Covenant House Outreach staff also responds to calls received by the Covenant House NINELINE, a 24-hour crisis hotline for young people.

Covenant House makes contact with more than 25,000 young people annually through the Outreach Program.

Covenant House Faith Community
Free room and board.
And the chance to change the world of homeless youth.

What does it take to make a difference in the life of a homeless youth? Beyond food, shelter and clothing, it takes guidance, love and respect. The kind of day to day support that comes from dedicated volunteers willing to commit 3, 6 or 12 months of their life to serving homeless youth through Covenant House Faith Community.
Why would someone drop everything to become a full-time volunteer? For the men and women who make up Covenant House Faith Community, the answer is simple -- they feel called to serve young people in crisis. They want to make a difference in the world, one youth at a time.
Through Covenant House Faith Community, volunteers have the opportunity to serve full time at Covenant House, live in an intentional community with other volunteers, and share in daily communal prayer/reflection.

To learn more about Faith Community, meet our current volunteers, or obtain an application, please visit the Faith Community page at:
www.covenanthouse.org/faithcommunity (http://www.covenanthouse.org/faithcommunity)


Mentor Program:
Through its Mentorship Program, Covenant House fosters positive relationships between youth and adults. Mentors offer support, guidance, and experience in order to help youth set attainable goals, map out plans to achieve those goals, and begin to successfully implement them. The Mentor serves as a role model for the youth as he or she moves into independent living and adulthood. For more information, contact the local Covenant House near you (http://www.covenanthouse.org/ab_loc.html).

[Boreas]

Sanslines, Covenant House also employs "professional" social workers. It is a good example of work that can be done by social workers and like-minded folk.

And for the record, there has only been one person who has been bashing social workers in here, that I have noticed.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines, Covenant House also employs "professional" social workers. It is a good example of work that can be done by social workers and like-minded folk.

And for the record, there has only been one person who has been bashing social workers in here, that I have noticed.

Boreas,

I know about Covenant House from personal experience. Yes they do employ professionals. However, the backbone of their organization consists of the many volunteers who live in a communal setting and work day in and day out to salvage and save youth that have been traumatized and victimized by some rather souless individuals out there.

[Boreas]

I agree Sanslines. Covenant House is very visible in Toronto. I had clients who had been involved with them. I did not get directly involved for a variety of reasons. I personally think that the best programs are a combination of volunteer and professional workers. The best addictions programs have recovered people who are volunteers or who are professionals, working with professionals who may or may not be recovering people. We have a dynamic Salvation Army here in this town. I have been able to be involved with them and am very grateful for the work they do.

[Skinview]

you don't prepare for peace by spending your country into oblivian on the military and forget about the general public.
What about that massive perscription drug program?What about it?Obiously Bush hasn't forgotten "the general public", as you wrote. Thats what the perscription drug program is for, and its very liberal.


Oh, and blame the Pharma companies for selling drugs at 4x the price of the same drug sold out of the US. And blame them for crafting legeslation that makes it tough to sell imported drugs here when they are made elsewhere on the exact same machines that we make them on with the same suppliers we make them on.I think the issue is that Canada has drug price controls. We have a free market here in the US, but the drug companies will still sell their drugs in Canada. They just don't want Canada undercutting their prices by somebody shipping the same drugs they shipped to Canada, back to the US at Canadian controlled prices. If you were selling a product, I doubt you would want some foreign government setting your prices here in your own country. I suppose the drug companies could put the hammer on Canada and cut off their supply of medicine to them, but I think its better that we just stop people from reimporting the drugs here.




Really? Saddam would have been in Saudi Arabia, with the Saudis who hated him?So? The Kuwaities didn't like him either, and that didn't slow his army down.



How about what the Saudis do to their own people.The Saudi government is bad, but do you think it compares to what Saddam did? Did they indescriminately wipe out whole villages with poison gas????



How about that fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis with ZERO ties to Iraq?Hey, if you want to invade Saudi Arabia and do some nation building there too, we have an army sitting there ready to go... Of course there would be a billion screaming muslems out for our blood when we occupy Mecca.



Really? I'm not the one running for president on the platform of needing more of the same and that we might be in Iraq for 100 yearsIt would be adventagious if we could be there for the next hundred years, and probably long after that.



and we need a larger military.The army isn't big enough for the job it has now.



And yet we continue to support the Osprey?It can do things no helicopter can do.



We continue to support an anti-missle system that can be disabled by taking out the gps satellites.Neither Iran nor North Korea has anywhere near the capability of taking out GPS satellites. A couple of other countries could develop that capability, but none seem to want to.



And we still have an idiot running things that believes you never communicate, you never negotiate, you just fight.I hardly think that is the case. Bush just signed a treaty with Columbia. We have negotiated with North Korea way too much.



Because I would rather we spend money a lot more efficiently. Why do you thing the Air Force/Navy and Marines all share common air frame designs for thier planes? It makes them cheaper and better.That is all well and good. The F-35 going to do that, and Bush wants funding for it. But at the moment, they share next to nothing in common. The F-4 is long gone.



As noted in Iraq with the protracted bloodbath. We WON the ******* war folks.We rolled over Iraq and only lost 187 soldiers. It was amazing. They had the better part of a million troops, and we didn't just win, we didn't just win decisively, we swept them aside with impunity.



We can't win the peace because the moron who started the war in Iraq had no interest in it. He thought things would be peachy if Saddam was gone and never considered the power vacuum that would happen because he has his head up his arse.I don't see how you can say he had no interest in it. He didn't predict the insurgency, although we know Cheney did ten years beforehand. But things are great in the Kurdish north, and things may work out in the south yet still.

[Skinview]

I keep hearing this line from liberals that weapon system x won't help fight terrorism, as if we didn't need a military before 9/11.
Wow, usmc1 has handed me a perfect example of what I am talking about!


CORPORATIONS CASH IN ON IRAQ!
What a boondoggle 9/11 has been for the merchants of war, who this week announced yet another quarter of whopping profits made possible by George Bush's pretending to fight terrorism by throwing money at outdated Cold War-style weapons systems.

As Columbia professor Richard K. Betts points out in Foreign Affairs magazine: "With rare exceptions, the war against terrorists cannot be fought with army tank battalions, air force wings, or naval fleets--the large conventional forces that drive the defense budget. The main challenge is not killing the terrorists but finding them, and the capabilities most applicable to this task are intelligence and special operations forces. ... It does not require half a trillion dollars worth of conventional and nuclear forces."

Thanks to bin Laden and Bush's exploitation of "war on terror" hysteria, the taxpayers have been hoodwinked into paying for a sophisticated military arsenal to fight a Soviet enemy that no longer exists.

[Fitz1980]

I think the issue is that Canada has drug price controls. We have a free market here in the US, but the drug companies will still sell their drugs in Canada. They just don't want Canada undercutting their prices by somebody shipping the same drugs they shipped to Canada, back to the US at Canadian controlled prices. If you were selling a product, I doubt you would want some foreign government setting your prices here in your own country. I suppose the drug companies could put the hammer on Canada and cut off their supply of medicine to them, but I think its better that we just stop people from reimporting the drugs here.

No what we have hear is a cartel who chooses to keep prices high. I'm all for free market capitalism when it comes to things like cars, liquor & entertainment. The rich can buy new BMWs, Grey Goose Vodka & front row tickets to Elton John, while the poor buy used Honda Civics, pabst blue ribbon & rent a video to watch for the evening. They still get transportation, booze & entertainment. On the other hand when talking about life saving drugs that were developed by using tax funded CDC research where the drug companies just took the next step and than patent it and charge 100X what it cost to make I do have a problem.

Also they take long existed drugs, change them just enough to re-patent them under a new name and than give rich doctors free trips to golf resorts if they prescribe them to their patients. The reason is that after a certain period of a few years a patent enters the public domain and anyone else can manufacture it. Those are generic drugs, which are identical molecules to the original drugs with all of the benefits of the original. Rather than do that the bribed doctor will prescribe the 'newly pattented' version of the same drug because the patient has to pay 5X the cost, even if they can't afford it. That's why the prescription drug industry is spending so much more time & money in finding ways to repatent old drugs that fix common aliments, or give old guys a boner, or re-grow hair. It's because that's where the money is. On the other hand curing cancer would be hard and take work and money. There's more money in cancer 'treatments' that use already existing medical technology, BS new overpriced antibiotics (which we've had around forever so they can make a new one on demand) & hair/boner pills.

The whole reason behind patents expiring is that you develop something cool, sell it, make lots of cash than after a while the patent expires and everyone can make it, forcing everyone to go back to the drawing board and make something better, not to re-patent the same idea twice or more.



The Saudi government is bad, but do you think it compares to what Saddam did? Did they indescriminately wipe out whole villages with poison gas????

And if they did; did the USA (Ronald Reagen) give them the poison gas to do it? And than after it happened did Rumsfeld and co go on "60 Minutes" saying that he was a good guy?



Hey, if you want to invade Saudi Arabia and do some nation building there too, we have an army sitting there ready to go... Of course there would be a billion screaming muslems out for our blood when we occupy Mecca.

Yea that would work, we've not even got enough troops for the current job so let's spread them even thinner. Even with the back door draft (I'm sorry "Stop Loss Program") the US military is hemorrhaging troops and new people don't want to sign up to die in Bush's pointless oil war, who knew?




We rolled over Iraq and only lost 187 soldiers. It was amazing. They had the better part of a million troops, and we didn't just win, we didn't just win decisively, we swept them aside with impunity.

Yea that's because Bush and his chickenhawks (guys who talk like Rambo but never actually went into combat or even understand the first thing about how war works) ignored the military leaders who understood Iraq. The people who understood the situation said we needed to hit every population center and pacify it, which would be long and bloody. Instead they chose to use our superior air power to jump right over it into Baghdad. Good idea until you consider that everyone with a gun and a beef against us just had a perfect chance to go into hiding and wait for the right moment to strike. Than they chose to disband the Iraqi army, meaning now guys with guns, knowlege of millitary tactics & how to blow things up now have a bigger beef against us; they just lost a pension that they fought and risked death for.



I don't see how you can say he had no interest in it. He didn't predict the insurgency, although we know Cheney did ten years beforehand. But things are great in the Kurdish north, and things may work out in the south yet still.

And why didn't he say something about it to president numb-nuts?

Most of Bush & co didn't even realize that Iraq had three separate ethnic groups who had been at each others throats for centuries. Was he either so dumb that he didn't know what would happen, even though as a younger man he predicted it? Or was he evil enough that he still knew what would happen but didn't care the lives it would cost (on both sides) as long as it might give his oil industry buddies a chance to drill for Iraqi oil?

[Skinview]

No what we have hear is a cartel who chooses to keep prices high. I'm all for free market capitalism when it comes to things like cars, liquor & entertainment.... On the other hand when talking about life saving drugs that were developed by using tax funded CDC research where the drug companies just took the next step and than patent it and charge 100X what it cost to make I do have a problem.Drug companies develop drugs with their own money. Its an investment. If they can't make a profit, they aren't going to make the investment. Medicine is too important NOT to let free market capitalism work. There is no cartel. Company X invents a new drug, and its THEIRS. They don't have to form a cartel with anyone, because no other company has it. You can't just pump drugs out of the ground. (OK, were are addicted to oil, but you know what I mean.)


And if they did; did the USA (Ronald Reagen) give them the poison gas to do it?The US doesn't give poison gas to anyone. Its not that hard for a country to make, why would anyone have to import it? Where are you getting this?


And than after it happened did Rumsfeld and co go on "60 Minutes" saying that he was a good guy?Do you have a quote for that?


Yea that would work, we've not even got enough troops for the current job so let's spread them even thinner.Saudi Arabia has a tiny population. Its mostly empty desert. Two guys in a HUMMV could occupy it.


And why didn't he say something about it to president numb-nuts?Do we know he didn't?


Most of Bush & co didn't even realize that Iraq had three separate ethnic groups who had been at each others throats for centuries.On what do you base this assertion?


Was he either so dumb that he didn't know what would happen, even though as a younger man he predicted it?Who, Bush or Cheney?


Or was he evil enough that he still knew what would happen but didn't care the lives it would cost (on both sides) as long as it might give his oil industry buddies a chance to drill for Iraqi oil?More goofy conspiracy theories... Ok, what is your source for this one?

[usmc1]

The US doesn't give poison gas to anyone. Its not that hard for a country to make, why would anyone have to import it? Where are you getting this?

Do you have a quote for that?



I do, I do ,I do. Pick me, pick me. Under a program begun during the Regan administration. Not just poison gas technology, but, biological also. When you read the names of the other nations involved, simply insert CIA front operations.

In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore) (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) (4,261 tons), Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) (2,400 tons), India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (2,343 tons), and Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) (1,027 tons). One Indian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm of Singapore supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29), sarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin), and mustard gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas) precursors and production equipment to Iraq.<sup id="cite_ref-nytiraqchemweaponsgraphic_17-0" class="reference">[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Saddam_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#cite_note-nytiraqchemweaponsgraphic-17)</sup>
<sup id="cite_ref-nytiraqchemweaponsgraphic_17-0" class="reference"></sup>
By contrast, Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland) company, transported thiodiglycol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiodiglycol), a mustard gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas) precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. A full list of American companies and their involvements in Iraq was provided by The LA Weekly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_Weekly) in May 2003.<sup id="cite_ref-NTIiqChem_18-0" class="reference">[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Saddam_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#cite_note-NTIiqChem-18)</sup>
On 25 May (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_25) 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994), The U.S. Senate Banking Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Banking%2C_Housing%2C_and _Urban_Affairs) released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Commerce)." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."<sup id="cite_ref-SenateBankingIraq_19-0" class="reference">[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Saddam_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#cite_note-SenateBankingIraq-19)</sup>
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_anthracis)) from the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."<sup id="cite_ref-JMCbio_20-0" class="reference">[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Saddam_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#cite_note-JMCbio-20)</sup>
<sup id="cite_ref-JMCbio_20-0" class="reference"></sup>
A report by Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin)'s die tageszeitung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_tageszeitung) in 2002 reported that Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council) listed 150 foreign companies that supported Saddam Hussein's WMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) program. Twenty-four U.S. firms were involved in exporting arms and materials to Baghdad.<sup id="cite_ref-King2003-03_5-1" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Saddam_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#cite_note-King2003-03-5)</sup>
Donald Riegle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_W._Riegle%2C_Jr.), Chairman of the Senate committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Banking%2C_Housing%2C_and _Urban_Affairs) that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report), said,

UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention) sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Saddam_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#cite_note-SPT2003-03-16-21)

[Boreas]

I think the issue is that Canada has drug price controls. We have a free market here in the US, but the drug companies will still sell their drugs in Canada. They just don't want Canada undercutting their prices by somebody shipping the same drugs they shipped to Canada, back to the US at Canadian controlled prices. If you were selling a product, I doubt you would want some foreign government setting your prices here in your own country. I suppose the drug companies could put the hammer on Canada and cut off their supply of medicine to them, but I think its better that we just stop people from reimporting the drugs here.

:applause: Good job! Blame Canada. Canada is always a good target. :laugh:

I agree with what has been said about the big pharmaceutical companies. They have done a very good job of marketting their products. Such a good job in fact, that now they have people going to their doctors asking for specific drugs. Thankfully that type of advertising is not allowed in Canada, yet. We do get to see it on American channels though. :(

[Sanslines]

....... Thankfully that type of advertising is not allowed in Canada, yet. We do get to see it on American channels though. :(

Then it is up to the Canadian Government to take immediate action and jam those American channels. Do not allow American media corruption to enter the airwaves of Canada. The corruption stops at the border!

[Boreas]

Then it is up to the Canadian Government to take immediate action and jam those American channels. Do not allow American media corruption to enter the airwaves of Canada. The corruption stops at the border!

:laugh: LOL. Don't think that would happen! Besides we are all addicted to our American TV shows. You know, the highly intellectual ones like Big Brother and Desperate Housewives. :sneaky:

[Skinview]

I do, I do ,I do. Pick me, pick me. Under a program begun during the Regan administration. Not just poison gas technology, but, biological also. When you read the names of the other nations involved, simply insert CIA front operations.Oh please.
"Program during the Reagan administration"??? "CIA front operations"??? Now lets see your evidence for those wild claims.

As you have shown yourself, Saddam had to go around the world to scrounge this stuff up. If we intended to ship him this stuff, this wouldn't have happened:

Alcolac was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law.

We sent nuclear warhead triggers to Taiwan when they asked for helicopter batteries. I doesn't surprise me in the least that Saddam managed to get some bad stuff out of here. Screwups and crooked companies does not a program make.

Nowhere have you even asserted that we, or anyone, shipped poison gas to Iraq. Raw chemicals are something else entirely. Just because some company is making fertilizer or fuel oil doesn't mean they are in the bomb making buisness.

[usmc1]

Oh please.
"Program during the Reagan administration"??? "CIA front operations"??? Now lets see your evidence for those wild claims.

As you have shown yourself, Saddam had to go around the world to scrounge this stuff up. If we intended to ship him this stuff, this wouldn't have happened:


We sent nuclear warhead triggers to Taiwan when they asked for helicopter batteries. I doesn't surprise me in the least that Saddam managed to get some bad stuff out of here. Screwups and crooked companies does not a program make.

Nowhere have you even asserted that we, or anyone, shipped poison gas to Iraq. Raw chemicals are something else entirely. Just because some company is making fertilizer or fuel oil doesn't mean they are in the bomb making buisness.

A few points need to be made:

1. I am not accountable to you. So demanding things of me will avail you nothing.

2. Reframing the assertions into something deniable is an old trick, but, the folks in this forum are way ahead of you on that.

3. Were you not so enamoured with right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer, you would have read and linked to the very citations and attributions you so rudely demanded of me.

[Qikdraw]

:applause: Good job! Blame Canada. Canada is always a good target. :laugh:

I agree with what has been said about the big pharmaceutical companies. They have done a very good job of marketting their products. Such a good job in fact, that now they have people going to their doctors asking for specific drugs. Thankfully that type of advertising is not allowed in Canada, yet. We do get to see it on American channels though. :(


Do you breathe? Can you taste food? Do you blink? Ask your doctor if Igivebadsideffects is for you!

May cause anal bleeding, loss of hair, shrinking gums and loosening teeth, runny nose and loss of hearing, and or, sight.

One of the major problems with US healthcare today is the pharmaceutical industry.

Did you hear about the drug that gives you the same effects as marijuana? But its ok cause its in pill form and made from chemicals instead of natural.

Oh and the whole pharmaceutical drug plan? Yeah the one where they LIED about how much it was going to cost until the day after it was signed? The one where even Republicans who signed it said they would not have signed it if they knew the TRUE cost of it. Yeah that program? Yeah its costing more for many seniors. It was a bill to hand over more money to big pharma, and nothing more. When pharmaceutical companies write a bill, you know its gonna be bad.

Qikdraw

[Skinview]

1. I am not accountable to you. So demanding things of me will avail you nothing.Hey, I don't think your claim is true. By not supplying evidence for it, you are just reenforcing my belief. You only have to provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously.


2. Reframing the assertions into something deniable is an old trick, but, the folks in this forum are way ahead of you on that.Not reframed here, these are your words:

"Under a program begun during the Regan administration. Not just poison gas technology, but, biological also. When you read the names of the other nations involved, simply insert CIA front operations."



3. Were you not so enamoured with right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer, you would have read and linked to the very citations and attributions you so rudely demanded of me.Ok, which one says that Reagan had a "program" to supply poison gas to Iraq? Which one identifies a "CIA front operation"?

[usmc1]

Hey, I don't think your claim is true. By not supplying evidence for it, you are just reenforcing my belief. You only have to provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

Not reframed here, these are your words:

"Under a program begun during the Regan administration. Not just poison gas technology, but, biological also. When you read the names of the other nations involved, simply insert CIA front operations."


Ok, which one says that Reagan had a "program" to supply poison gas to Iraq? Which one identifies a "CIA front operation"?

No! I was clear enough and there is sufficient recorded history and data, attribution and citations for you if you have a sincere interest in the issue. But, I have absolutely no interest in engaging with you in one of your silly line by line parsing and demands to be shown exercises.

None! Got it?

[KirkOntario]

Hey, I don't think your claim is true. By not supplying evidence for it, you are just reenforcing my belief. You only have to provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

True. Not backed up such accusations can't be taken seriously, hence the defensiveness in the answer to you.

[Naturist Mark]

:applause: Good job! Blame Canada. Canada is always a good target. :laugh:(

RIGHT!

<object width="300" height="80"><param name="movie" value="http://media.imeem.com/m/QXLJsss6mq/aus=false/"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://media.imeem.com/m/QXLJsss6mq/aus=false/" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="300" height="110" wmode="transparent"></embed></object>

[usmc1]

True. Not backed up such accusations can't be taken seriously, hence the defensiveness in the answer to you.

Or better yet, in much more clear syntax, if one can't disprove another's assertions go on the attack and demand "proof". The essay I posted was clear and to the point with more than sufficient attribution and citations.

So, get over it!

[Skinview]

Or better yet, in much more clear syntax, if one can't disprove another's assertions go on the attack and demand "proof". The essay I posted was clear and to the point with more than sufficient attribution and citations.

So, get over it!

The burden of proof lies with the affirmative. If you don't think so, then disprove Obama's program to ship nuclear weapons to Iran.

[usmc1]

The burden of proof lies with the affirmative. If you don't think so, then disprove Obama's program to ship nuclear weapons to Iran.

No.............!

[Skinview]

No.............!Can't............!

[Naturist Mark]

The burden of proof lies with the affirmative. If you don't think so, then disprove Obama's program to ship nuclear weapons to Iran.

It is the Bush Administration that has been laying plans to ship* nuclear weapons to Iran ...

-Mark

*via bomber (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact)

[usmc1]

Can't............!
Won't!.......

[MoonShadow]

LOL usmc and Skinview, you guys are funny!

[Sanslines]

LOL usmc and Skinview, you guys are funny!


Yes, it is hilarious. I am sure that USMC is overcome with happiness now that he has met another worthy adversary.

[Skinview]

Yes, it is hilarious. I am sure that USMC is overcome with happiness now that he has met another worthy adversary.

Ohhh, thats low! Moderator! Moderator!

[Skinview]

It is the Bush Administration that has been laying plans to ship* nuclear weapons to Iran ...

-Mark

*via bomber (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact)

Interesting article.

[KirkOntario]

Looks like the People's Republic of North Korea is a big big fan of leftwing kooks. Isn't it interesting how America's enemies and their rhetoric is exactly the same as those on the American leftwing of the Democratic party?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsSfB4i-DsE&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

[usmc1]

30% of Republicans (Bush's Approval #) Voted for this zany republican kook! But, then you just have to figure he's found his natural constituency!

Tony Zirkle, who is seeking the Republican nomination in Indiana's 2nd District, stood in front of a painting of Hitler, next to people wearing swastika armbands and with a swastika flag in the background for the speech to the American National Socialist Workers Party in Chicago on Sunday.

"I'll speak before any group that invites me," Zirkle said Monday. "I've spoken on an African-American radio station in Atlanta."

Zirkle said he did not know much about the neo-Nazi group and that his intention was to talk on his concern about "the targeting of young white women and for pornography and prostitution."

The event was not the first time Zirkle has raised controversy on race issues. In March, Zirkle raised the idea of segregating races in separate states. Zirkle said Tuesday he's not advocating segregation, but said desegregation has been a failure.

[KirkOntario]

The problem with leftwing (so called) 'peace' protesters is their violent intolerant nature.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/04232008/news/regionalnews/police__bush_basher_smashes_disabled_tee_107782.ht m

"A man heckling First Lady Laura Bush and daughter Jenna outside the 92nd Street Y was arrested after he punched a wheelchair-bound girl whose parents has told him to shut up, authorities said yesterday. German Talis, 22, was shouting obscenities at the Bushes, who were leaving the building Tuesday, when he crossed paths with Wendy and John Lovetro and their daughter Maureen, 18, who has cerebral palsy.

"He began yelling about Iraq and Iran at Jenna Bush. She was waving at the crowd. I told the guy, 'What are you doing? Shut up. This is about a child and books,' " said John Lovetro. "He was unperturbed. I said, 'Get out of here! You're being a moron!' "

The next thing he knew, Talis was allegedly punching Maureen - a fan of the first lady since meeting her in 2004."

[Qikdraw]

I don't think anyone, of any stripe, with any intelligence, really thinks this is ok. There are idiots on BOTH sides. Remember the pro-life guy who got caught buying a gun to rescue Terry Schiavo?

You can't use examples of extremism, of either side, and say the whole is like that. Thats an idiotic arguement.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Using a gun to rescue someone isn't really comparable at all to beating a disabled person because a person is a Bush hating fanatic.

Sadly the majority is misguided extremists seem to be on the left side of the poltiical spectrum.

[usmc1]

Using a gun to rescue someone isn't really comparable at all to beating a disabled person because a person is a Bush hating fanatic.

Sadly the majority is misguided extremists seem to be on the left side of the poltiical spectrum.

Terry Schiavo was a corpse on life-support....disabled, I reckon!

As to the idiot that created the disturbance in question, well bad behavior is bad behavior and as much as I despise that dry-drunk sociopath squatting in the White House, I don't think I'd be hassling some kid in a wheelchair--unless she ran over my toe on purpose

And again; vague, unfounded generalities are no more than flap-doodle and Yammer-yammer of the right-wing variety. You'd be hard-pressed, if anyone cared enough to ask, to support your wild-eyed assertion about extremist majorities belonging to the left side of the political [sic] spectrum.

[KirkOntario]

Terry Schiavo was a corpse on life-support....disabled, I reckon!


Not a person? Not a life? Sorry, not into eliminating disabled people. We had that here. Dangerous trend supported by liberals.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308119

"People with disabilities are expressing fear and disbelief over public reaction to another chapter in the story of Tracy Latimer, a disabled 12-year-old killed 15 years ago by her father, Robert.

The Saskatchewan farmer, who asphyxiated his daughter in the cab of his truck, was granted day parole this week after serving seven years of his life sentence on a second-degree murder conviction. The sentence stipulated he serve a minimum of 10 years without parole.

Latimer has always claimed he did "the right thing" to "end (Tracy's) pain." A public group, the Friends of Robert Latimer, has supported him. But advocates for people with disabilities are concerned any appearance of leniency may put other vulnerable people at risk."

[usmc1]

Not a person? Not a life? Sorry, not into eliminating disabled people. We had that here. Dangerous trend supported by liberals.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308119

"People with disabilities are expressing fear and disbelief over public reaction to another chapter in the story of Tracy Latimer, a disabled 12-year-old killed 15 years ago by her father, Robert.

The Saskatchewan farmer, who asphyxiated his daughter in the cab of his truck, was granted day parole this week after serving seven years of his life sentence on a second-degree murder conviction. The sentence stipulated he serve a minimum of 10 years without parole.

Latimer has always claimed he did "the right thing" to "end (Tracy's) pain." A public group, the Friends of Robert Latimer, has supported him. But advocates for people with disabilities are concerned any appearance of leniency may put other vulnerable people at risk."

One doesn't equal the other, Terry Schiavo was a dead person on life-support machinery. Separate cases, separate events, separate issues. Neither of which have anything to do with the thread or the topic at hand.

[KirkOntario]

Al Franken. Leftwingers always want rules to apply to other people not themselves. Liberals like the self-righteous Al Franken love taxes for their social programmes but they want OTHER people to pay for those programmes.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/18160744.html

"The campaign explained that no returns were filed because Franken hadn't done business in the state since 2003, and that the accountant was unaware that the corporation, Al Franken Inc. (AFI), had to be formally dissolved.

But Republicans now say Franken has in fact done business in California on many occasions. Using the Internet and information programs such as Lexis Nexis, party researchers found 32 public appearances that Franken made in California from 2003 to 2007, at least eight of which charged an admission fee. For instance, Franken spoke at universities, addressed the Urban Land Institute and debated conservative pundit Ann Coulter for a lecture series."

[Boreas]

Al Franken. Leftwingers always want rules to apply to other people not themselves. Liberals like the self-righteous Al Franken love taxes for their social programmes but they want OTHER people to pay for those programmes.


Kirk as long as you continue to use such blanket statements you will have next to no credibility. I am what YOU would consider a "leftwinger", and I want the rules to apply to me and I am willing to pay the taxes.

I am quite sure that I am not alone in that.

[BinCo]

The problem with leftwing (so called) 'peace' protesters is their violent intolerant nature.

I'll keep this in mind the next time I read about a right wing anti-abortion fanatic bombing a clinic or shooting a doctor.


Not a person? Not a life? Sorry, not into eliminating disabled people. We had that here. Dangerous trend supported by liberals.

As much as you and the other right wing nutters hate to admit it, the autopsy clearly showed that almost all of her brain was gone, especially the area concentrating on eyesite. She was dead and the right wing nuts, who somehow hate government interference, took it all the way to the supreme court to keep her body fluids moving.


Leftwingers always want rules to apply to other people not themselves. Liberals like the self-righteous Al Franken love taxes for their social programmes but they want OTHER people to pay for those programmes.

I'll keep this in mind the next time I want to go into an adult entertainment place of legal business and see protestors outside. The next time I want to buy alcohol on Sunday and realise that the blue laws in Colorado prevent that. The next time I read that some anti-evolution fool wants to inject creationism into the science curriculum.

As far as social programmes, keep in mind that it is the right wingers that keep pushing for school vouchers so that they can break down the secular public school system and force the rest of us to pay for their little kids to go to a private religious based school. So please shut up about that crap. Republicans want us to pay for their programs as much as Democrats do it's just different programmes. Republicans like programmes like giving oil companies $18B in tax breaks.

[KirkOntario]

So please shut up about that crap. Republicans want us to pay for their programs as much as Democrats do it's just different programmes. Republicans like programmes like giving oil companies $18B in tax breaks.

Excuse me but I haven't suggested that you 'shut up' and I expect the same courtesy from you. School vouchers is not a social programme. It is allowing people to use their tax dollars towards quality education of their own choosing. Everyone should have that right.

[BinCo]

I don't think anyone, of any stripe, with any intelligence, really thinks this is ok. There are idiots on BOTH sides. Remember the pro-life guy who got caught buying a gun to rescue Terry Schiavo?

You can't use examples of extremism, of either side, and say the whole is like that. Thats an idiotic arguement.

Qikdraw

:applause:

Yup, otherweise we 'leftwingers' could bring up a view right wingers. Namely Timothy McVeigh who instigated the largest home grown terrorist attack on US soil. How about Rudolph Eric and the other anti-abortion nuts?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Aren't most of the pro-life crowd considered conservative and Replublicans?

[BinCo]

Excuse me but I haven't suggested that you 'shut up' and I expect the same courtesy from you. School vouchers is not a social programme. It is allowing people to use their tax dollars towards quality education of their own choosing. Everyone should have that right.

That maybe the case in Canada, in the US we all pay into the school system with our property taxes. So, I have only a few problems with someone getting their own tax dollars back and abandoning the public schools. I have a HUGE problem with someone saying that I should take MY tax dollars and pay for their children to go to a private religious school. I consider that a social programme, it just benefits a different group than most social programmes. I notice how most of these conservatives who hate taxes are more than happy to get more than their share if it benefits them and their beliefs. Google "Bush Faith based Initiative" to see all the great social programs that MY taxes support that were pushed by Conservatives.

Sorry about telling you to shut up, I got into it with some guys at a customers yesterday about this same subject. Funny how they hate taxes and yet demand that they get vouchers far in excess of the taxes they pay for the schools and then say that it is not a social programme so loudly it makes the paint peel. Then to hear you claim that only liberals like social programmes just sets me off. Conservatives want them just as much, they just usually benefit their group.

We also have an idiot on the radio who looks forward to riots in Denver at the Democratic convention. I doubt if there are too many people who have as many sheep in their controls as that fat jerk and certainly none who tought themselves as more conservative. I live in the Denver area and hope for a peaceful convention, but will not be surprised if there are some problems.

[Boreas]

Excuse me but I haven't suggested that you 'shut up' and I expect the same courtesy from you. School vouchers is not a social programme. It is allowing people to use their tax dollars towards quality education of their own choosing. Everyone should have that right.

In an ideal world maybe. In the real world, that statement is right-winged rhetoric. Take Stephen Harper's child tax credit or whatever it is that is supposed to allow parents to decide how to use it. Do they put the money into a daycare for their child or do they stay-at-home and parent the child? If it were a reasonable amount of money, and if there were adequate childcare resources from which to choose, it would be legitimate. In its current state there are the following problems:


there aren't enough daycare resources from which to choose
if a daycare facility is found, the amount is a mere drop in the bucket of the cost.In order to make it less than rhetoric, more needs to be done. Until then, such comments are just rhetoric.

[Boreas]

BinCo, our schools are paid for by property taxes in Canada as well. Ontario has "separate" school boards, aka Catholic, and a "public" school boards, or not religious. You decide whether you want to pay for separate or public schools. You pay into the fund even if you do not have kids. The idea is that we all contribute to the schooling of our children even if we do not have children. A few years ago, the religious schools that were not Catholic felt that they were being discriminated against and wanted taxes to support their school. I believe that was shot down. The reason there is a Catholic and Public system has something to due with the history of the province, and country.

I agree, I do not want to pay for private religious schools that indoctrinate rather than educate.

[Qikdraw]

Al Franken. Leftwingers always want rules to apply to other people not themselves. Liberals like the self-righteous Al Franken love taxes for their social programmes but they want OTHER people to pay for those programmes.

Excuse me? How many TRILLIONS of dollars have the Republicans put onto our national debt since coming into office? They had to raise the debt cap it is so out of control. I don't see any Republicans lining up to pay for it either. They've left it for our children, grandchildren and further.

More right wing rhetoric that is disproven by facts.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Excuse me? How many TRILLIONS of dollars have the Republicans put onto our national debt since coming into office? They had to raise the debt cap it is so out of control. I don't see any Republicans lining up to pay for it either. They've left it for our children, grandchildren and further.

More right wing rhetoric that is disproven by facts.

Qikdraw

Errr, excuse me please. But that is better characterized as right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer.:laugh:

[KirkOntario]

In an ideal world maybe. In the real world, that statement is right-winged rhetoric. Take Stephen Harper's child tax credit or whatever it is that is supposed to allow parents to decide how to use it. Do they put the money into a daycare for their child or do they stay-at-home and parent the child? If it were a reasonable amount of money, and if there were adequate childcare resources from which to choose, it would be legitimate. In its current state there are the following problems:


there aren't enough daycare resources from which to choose
if a daycare facility is found, the amount is a mere drop in the bucket of the cost.In order to make it less than rhetoric, more needs to be done. Until then, such comments are just rhetoric.

The child tax credit has nothing to do with public education.

There are tons of people who look after children. They are called 'family members' but our Liberal government wanted institutionalized daycare run by unionized employees to take the place of family. There are also private childcare providers. The Conservative tax credit did more for families than the Liberals ever did.

The Liberals promised national childcare from 1992 to 2006 but never delivered. It was just another broken Liberal promise.The Conservatives delivered real help to families in the form of a small subsidy.

[KirkOntario]

Excuse me? How many TRILLIONS of dollars have the Republicans put onto our national debt since coming into office? They had to raise the debt cap it is so out of control. I don't see any Republicans lining up to pay for it either. They've left it for our children, grandchildren and further.

More right wing rhetoric that is disproven by facts.

Qikdraw

Yes, the Republicans have acted as bad as Democrats which is why they got voted out in 2006 and when Republicans go back to their conservative roots instead of spending and expanding government they have a shot at power again.

[Sanslines]

Yabba Dabba Doo!

[usmc1]

The child tax credit has nothing to do with public education.

There are tons of people who look after children. They are called 'family members' but our Liberal government wanted institutionalized daycare run by unionized employees to take the place of family. There are also private childcare providers. The Conservative tax credit did more for families than the Liberals ever did.

The Liberals promised national childcare from 1992 to 2006 but never delivered. It was just another broken Liberal promise.The Conservatives delivered real help to families in the form of a small subsidy.

And those subsidies came from generous corporate sponsors or taxes?

The weird thing about your argument is that here in the states, the conservative approach would be tax credits and the liberal approach would be funding and subsidies.

And often liberal promises are left "unkept" because of conservative obstructionism. I'm betting a dollar to a doughnut that one of our Canadian members will confirm that one for us.

The rest of it is just the same old right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer undeserving a response.

[KirkOntario]

Not the same here USMC. We had a Liberal majority government from 1992 to 2006 with a free hand to pass any legislation they wanted.

[usmc1]

Not the same here USMC. We had a Liberal majority government from 1992 to 2006 with a free hand to pass any legislation they wanted.

And the conservatives stood by and gave the liberals a wave-through on every piece of legislation they put up? How wonderfully decent of them: lost the election and let the will of the people prevail. What a concept.

Boreas, Qikdraw, et ux, is that really the way things happen up there? Journeyman, you're in Canada aren't you, do you recollect it that way?

[KirkOntario]

The Liberals didn't put up the legislation. There was no waive through or blocking of legislation. The Liberal party of Canada is famous for making promises to get elected and then breaking them--most famously they pledged to scrap the unpopular Goods and Services Tax (GST); they kept the tax.

National daycare was one of many promises they broke. Opposition members can sponsor their bills but they have little chance of passing when there is a majority government. The Liberals also control the appointed Senate which can hold up bills but not block them. Today the Liberal dominated Senate is blocking many Conservative bills and thwarting the will of the democratically elected House. But then Liberals only believe in democracy when it suits them.

[Boreas]

The Liberals promised national childcare from 1992 to 2006 but never delivered. It was just another broken Liberal promise.The Conservatives delivered real help to families in the form of a small subsidy.

No, the conservatives threw money out into the yard and said "aren't we wonderful? We are helping" when in fact it was just a token, rhetorical act that did nothing.

It is also part of the educational process. Whether the child is being cared for in a home, or in a daycare, they are being educated in some form. It was not my intent though to compare it to education. My intent was to challenge your notion that merely handing out money so people can allegedly do what they wish with it is a good thing. It is only good if the recipients of this money actually have real choices. In the case of the child tax credit, there is no real choice. It only looks like they have a choice, and therefore the act remains part of the rhetoric.


There are tons of people who look after children. They are called 'family members'

Of course that is the ideal. Unfortunately it is not always reality and alternative daycare must exist.

I see you also toe the party line by making sure you blame "the previous government" for all that ails. I have noticed that is a wonderful Canadian conservative trait. Never take responsibility. Blame "the previous government" even though you have been in office for what, two years? If they are so wonderful when are they going to actually do something or take responsibilities for their own mistakes? Oh, right, the things which they have been accused of doing are lies.

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Boreas]

usmc, the "Universal Child Care Benefit" is described here in the Canada Government site:

The UCCB is designed to help Canadian families, as they try to balance work and family life, by supporting their child care choices through direct financial support. The UCCB is for children under the age of 6 years and is paid in instalments of $100 per month per child.
Enrolment for the UCCB is processed through the Canada Child Benefits application (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/rc66/README.html) or by applying

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/benefits/uccb/menu-e.html

The Canadian government would have you believe it is a marvelous program they have created, when in fact it is a mere drop in the bucket. In fact, in my search to find more information about this program, I found this slick website: http://www.universalchildcare.ca/en/home.shtml It is clearly a government site.

Carol Goar has written this article that describes some of the history of attempts to get universal child care in Canada: http://www.childcareontario.org/news/?p=86#more-86 You will note that it was Conservative PM, Brian Mulroney, who started the whole thing. It has been stalled over the years by bickering and grumbling from different levels. Oh, and when "The previous government" had actually created a plan that could have meant a real program, Stephen Harper was elected and axed it.

Here is a report done by a group in Ontario advocating a universal system of care for children: http://www.childcareontario.org/res/briefs/OCBCC_ON_PreBudgetSubmission2008.pdf

Here is a BC group that advocates public child care: http://www.cccabc.bc.ca/

It is my understanding that if you want to put a child in daycare around here, you have to do a lot of searching, get on some waiting lists and be creative. Not only that, I believe that the cost will eat up the $100 subsidy in mere days. Then what?

People like Kirk would have you believe that parents and families are abdicating their roles by placing their children in horrible daycare from day one. This country has a maternity leave of 1 year. There is often the option of staying home for another year without pay, since in many employers, the parent's job is protected. In addition, the parental leave benefits are set up so that the father can share the time off. In this case, the mother would have a certain amount of time to allow for healing from the pregnancy and delivery. Then the man can take time off to parent his children if the family prefers. I have found that most parents do want to stay home with young children. Reality is though, that in many homes, both parents must work in order to survive. Of course there are many reasons for this. Some of the reasons are outside of the family's control, such as rising gas prices or such.

As usual, Kirk has simplified things down to make it look like the current government is wonderful and generous. Ignoring the context is dangerous and frankly, stupid. I do believe it is good to give families money so that they can make the choices which suit them the best. This money is useless if there are no child care spaces or options. This money is also useless if it costs a family more to use the benefit than not.

[Boreas]

National daycare was one of many promises they broke. Opposition members can sponsor their bills but they have little chance of passing when there is a majority government. The Liberals also control the appointed Senate which can hold up bills but not block them. Today the Liberal dominated Senate is blocking many Conservative bills and thwarting the will of the democratically elected House. But then Liberals only believe in democracy when it suits them.

Yeah right. Those glowing conservatives. They are acting on the will of the majority of the country......what is that? 30% or something like that?

More rhetoric and whining.

While I agree on some points......a majority government does have a lot more power. I disagree on the whole "poor conservatives" line.

Ironically, I am listening to "The House" on CBC right now and the story they are discussing is the current government's "election act" issues. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[KirkOntario]

As usual, Kirk has simplified things down to make it look like the current government is wonderful and generous. .

I didn't say they were 'wonderful and generosus.' I said that the Liberals promised universal childcare for 13 years but didn't deliver. Several generations of pre-school kids grew up while the Liberals did nothing. Conservatives delivered direct aid to parents, a small but tangible benefit while the Liberals delivered nothing.

Which do you prefer a broken promise for a grandiose bureaucratic costly scheme that goes nowhere or actual assistance to look after your child? I know what my choice is.

[Boreas]

Actually, if you will look at your history, you will see that Brian Mulroney started the whole "Universal Child Care" thing. That was one of his promises.

Care to explain how a conservative government would break ITS promises?

Yes, I would prefer ACTUAL assistance to look after my child. As I have stated previously, what Harper has put into place is NOT actual assistance.

[KirkOntario]

Actually, if you will look at your history, you will see that Brian Mulroney started the whole "Universal Child Care" thing. That was one of his promises.

Care to explain how a conservative government would break ITS promises?

Yes, I would prefer ACTUAL assistance to look after my child. As I have stated previously, what Harper has put into place is NOT actual assistance.

The "Progressive Conservative Party" no longer exists. It was destroyed by Brian Mulroney.
The new Conservative Party of Canada kept its promise to give real relief to families with the child benefit, the GST cut and a deduction for children participating in physical activities. Stephen Harper has benefited my family more than any Liberal government ever did and he's restored our military and given us influence and prestige in NATO after decades of Liberal neglect and mistreatment of the Canadian military.

If your cheque isn't 'actual assistance' then send your cheque to me, I'll take it.

[usmc1]

The Liberals didn't put up the legislation. There was no waive through or blocking of legislation. The Liberal party of Canada is famous for making promises to get elected and then breaking them--most famously they pledged to scrap the unpopular Goods and Services Tax (GST); they kept the tax.

National daycare was one of many promises they broke. Opposition members can sponsor their bills but they have little chance of passing when there is a majority government. The Liberals also control the appointed Senate which can hold up bills but not block them. Today the Liberal dominated Senate is blocking many Conservative bills and thwarting the will of the democratically elected House. But then Liberals only believe in democracy when it suits them.

Yeah, as I thought, Boreas has cut through the right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer to take us to the truth of the matter. I knew you couldn't be taken at face value.

[Qikdraw]

Boreas, Qikdraw, et ux, is that really the way things happen up there? Journeyman, you're in Canada aren't you, do you recollect it that way?

Well don't get confused with the word 'liberal'. The Liberal party in Canada is slightly left but mostly centre. Not what you usually hear around here from some people. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada

* Conservative Party of Canada (founded by merger of Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties in 2003) - conservative-leaning, centre-right, centrist
* Liberal Party of Canada (founded in 1867) - liberal, left-of-centre, centrist
* New Democratic Party (founded in 1961) - social democratic, left-wing

You also have to understand that in US politics the Conservative party of Canada would be considered leftist. Politics in Canada are vastly different than in the US. From funding to policies.

One key difference is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Canada

(Under the heading)
Party funding reform

A good part of the reasoning behind the change in funding was that union or business funding should not be allowed to have as much impact on federal election funding as these are not contributions from citizens and are not evenly spread out between parties. They are still allowed to contribute to the election but only in a minor fashion.

That whole page will actually give you a good grasp of Cdn politics.

Plus the PEOPLE of Canada seem to have a greater say in what happens. Bad policies will get fixed by the party that did them (usually) if enough people get upset over it. The Harper government made a mistake in not allowing photographs of returning soldiers coffins from Afganistan, they quickly reversed this once it became known because people got upset.

Our media is better at 'reporting' than 'creating' news like the US does.

Oddly enough I was never really into politics until I came to the US, and I describe my facination/horror with US politics to my Cdn friends like this:

Its like when you drive by a car accident on the road and there's lots of cars piled up and a few bodies, with blood. You slow down and look to see if you can see anything greusome, and when you do, you quickly look away, but you always have to look back again.

Thats my view of US politics. :D

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

Oddly enough I was never really into politics until I came to the US, and I describe my facination/horror with US politics to my Cdn friends like this:

Its like when you drive by a car accident on the road and there's lots of cars piled up and a few bodies, with blood. You slow down and look to see if you can see anything greusome, and when you do, you quickly look away, but you always have to look back again.

Thats my view of US politics. :D

I think that is why I keep getting involved in these discussions.


The "Progressive Conservative Party" no longer exists. It was destroyed by Brian Mulroney.

Well, that is one way to get oiut of that discussion. Today's Conservative party lacks the word "Progressive" and that is apt. Also, it is merely an evolution of Mr. Mulroney's PC's. As I recall, Mr. Mulroney was once an advisor or mentor of Mr. Harper.


The new Conservative Party of Canada kept its promise to give real relief to families with the child benefit, the GST cut and a deduction for children participating in physical activities. Stephen Harper has benefited my family more than any Liberal government ever did

Well, you are a lawyer, I hardly think you are near the poverty line, and I would imagine you could afford the daycare etc anyway. There is also still a long way to go before many families experience "real relief" due to this government's actions. Frankly it is a shell game. When Harris cut taxes in Ontario, he brought in user fees. So his tax relief meant that a family of four saved something like $750 in taxes per year, but had to pay something like $700 in user fees. Shell game.

For the record, I am not saying the Martin or Cretien's Liberal party were wonderful.

[KirkOntario]

When Harris cut taxes in Ontario, he brought in user fees. So his tax relief meant that a family of four saved something like $750 in taxes per year, but had to pay something like $700 in user fees. Shell game.


Source? Name a 'user fee' brought in by the Mike Harris government. Name one.

[usmc1]

Source? Name a 'user fee' brought in by the Mike Harris government. Name one.

Kirk feels comfortable issuing such a challenge since he well knows many (most, if not all) of Harris's “user fees’ in Canada become “hidden” or “buried” in municipal bills (such as water), licensing, road and bridge tolls, tuitions and the like.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
But, it is incredibly easy to cut through the right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer and deconstruct the impact of Harris’s “users fees” on the average Canadian family as has been done in this outstanding research report from Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
http://www.ocufa.on.ca/research/Vol.5_No.2.pdf (sorry you have to cut & paste to get there)

Driver licensing, public services, highway tolls, auto insurance and university tuition, and daycare costs are other area's where Canadians pay "user fees".

[KirkOntario]

Nice try, USMC1. Mike Harris was Premier of Ontario not Mayor of a municipality that brought in 'user fees'.

[Naturist Mark]

Nice try, USMC1. Mike Harris was Premier of Ontario not Mayor of a municipality that brought in 'user fees'.

Oh come on Kirk, this may be a new tactic in Canada, but in the USA we are very familiar with national government 'cutting spending' by shifting the burden to State and Local governments. Saint Reagan was notorious for it, and it is now the basis for the outcry against 'unfunded mandates'.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

Oh come on Kirk, this may be a new tactic in Canada, but in the USA we are very familiar with national government 'cutting spending' by shifting the burden to State and Local governments. Saint Reagan was notorious for it, and it is now the basis for the outcry against 'unfunded mandates'.

-Mark

Don't forget to mention the 'Saint Democrats' in New York State who mandated programs without provided funding for them and then required that the counties and municipalites find their own ways to fund those programs. The problem is NOT exclusive to Republicans!

[Boreas]

Thanks usmc, Mark and Sanslines. I agree, the tactic of downloading expenses to the municipalities is not unique to one party. Several parties, including the Democrats and our federal Liberal party, do ascribe to neo-liberal ideologies, which encourage privatization and fees for service rather than tax funded programs. It is a shell game. You cannot tell constituents that they are getting tax breaks when they are paying the same or close to the same some other way. Kirk, if you will re-read my post that you attack, you will see that I did not say that Harris implemented the user fees. I said that the families had to pay them. The Harris government was the master of shell games and BS.

[usmc1]

Nice try, USMC1. Mike Harris was Premier of Ontario not Mayor of a municipality that brought in 'user fees'.

You know you're splitting hairs and engaging in deceitful semantics which translate to right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer.

"The Harris and Eaves eras saw prodigious increases in user fees" reaching from fisheries to municipal water supplies in all of the provinces and which impacted families across Canada---it was Boreas point that tax cuts were insufficient to offset the increased burdens of direct, hidden and passed through user fees initiated during Harris's tenure. You know the article linked here refers to those fees' effects on one province. Other articles which could be linked which refer to the quarreling related to Quebec's users fee being lower than in other provinces. Do I need to do that?

Do I need to put up a table showing most of the user fees?

Your assertion is analogous to saying that since certain social programs are administered by the states that Bush's tax cuts are not responsible for their underfunding. If the state of Illinois, say, does a research project on the effects of those cuts in that state it does not mean that the principal responsibility does not lie with that dry-drunk sociopath squatting in the White House.

[Boreas]

it was Boreas point that tax cuts were insufficient to offset the increased burdens of direct, hidden and passed through user fees initiated during Harris's tenure.

Actually, that was part of my point. Mike Harris and his government had the belief that you pay for what you use, and that if you do not pay for it, you should not have to pay for it. While this is a good view on some level, it can be put into effect in ways that negatively affect so many things. Certain recreational programs that had been accessible to all, we no longer funded through our taxes. The idea was that if you wanted your kids in these programs, you could pay as you go. Well, then that means that many families could not afford these programs anymore. When kids do not have access to recreational activities they come up with other ways to amuse themselves.....not always good ways. So, then the neo-liberal ideologues decide we need more police and punitive measures in order to solve that problem.....and so the viscious cycle continues.

[KirkOntario]

Thanks usmc, Mark and Sanslines. I agree, the tactic of downloading expenses to the municipalities is not unique to one party.

Ahh...so you can't name a user fee brought in by the Mike Harris government. Yet you accused him of bringing in user fees. Sounds like your accusation that Cheney profited from the war. Unfounded.

[usmc1]

Ahh...so you can't name a user fee brought in by the Mike Harris government. Yet you accused him of bringing in user fees. Sounds like your accusation that Cheney profited from the war. Unfounded.


You know you're splitting hairs and engaging in deceitful semantics which translate to right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer.

"The Harris and Eaves eras saw prodigious increases in user fees" reaching from fisheries to municipal water supplies in all of the provinces and which impacted families across Canada---it was Boreas point that tax cuts were insufficient to offset the increased burdens of direct, hidden and passed through user fees initiated during Harris's tenure. You know the article linked here refers to those fees' effects on one province. Other articles which could be linked which refer to the quarreling related to Quebec's users fee being lower than in other provinces. Do I need to do that?

Do I need to put up a table showing most of the user fees?

Your assertion is analogous to saying that since certain social programs are administered by the states that Bush's tax cuts are not responsible for their underfunding. If the state of Illinois, say, does a research project on the effects of those cuts in that state it does not mean that the principal responsibility does not lie with that dry-drunk sociopath squatting in the White House.

[Boreas]

Yet you accused him of bringing in user fees

What in heaven's name are you reading????? Please read the post above yours and see what I wrote.

Simplistic thinking does not serve you well Kirk.

I feel no need to play your stupid game. I have expressed my views. Re-read what I wrote and do not revise what I wrote.

[Boreas]

You know you're splitting hairs and engaging in deceitful semantics which translate to right-wing flap-doodle and yammer-yammer.

"The Harris and Eaves eras saw prodigious increases in user fees" reaching from fisheries to municipal water supplies in all of the provinces and which impacted families across Canada---it was Boreas point that tax cuts were insufficient to offset the increased burdens of direct, hidden and passed through user fees initiated during Harris's tenure. You know the article linked here refers to those fees' effects on one province. Other articles which could be linked which refer to the quarreling related to Quebec's users fee being lower than in other provinces. Do I need to do that?

Do I need to put up a table showing most of the user fees?

Your assertion is analogous to saying that since certain social programs are administered by the states that Bush's tax cuts are not responsible for their underfunding. If the state of Illinois, say, does a research project on the effects of those cuts in that state it does not mean that the principal responsibility does not lie with that dry-drunk sociopath squatting in the White House.

Aren't you repeating yourself?? :p

I am quoting it so it can be posted again! :D As if that is going to help. :rolleyes:

[usmc1]

Aren't you repeating yourself?? :p

I am quoting it so it can be posted again! :D As if that is going to help. :rolleyes:

Yep!:p Thanks! :D You're righto-bingo with that!:rolleyes:

[Boreas]

Yep!:p Thanks! :D You're righto-bingo with that!:rolleyes:

Well, I guess it was so well said the first time, it bore repeating! ;)

[usmc1]

Awhile back we had a thread started by the righties in which they alleged that people were leaving the Democrats in droves and flocking to the republican party. It got closed, because, once again, the neo-con element in the forum couldn't handle the truth and diverted the thread with false allegations, rant, flap-doodle, yammer-yammer, and personal attack.

Well, in case no one's looking, the assertion remains untrue...people are flocking to the Democratic party in record numbers. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that we are building a new progressive Democratic party while conservatives languish as their tired old cants and canards are being rejected by a majority of Americans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24344152/

[Qikdraw]

Conservatives Increasingly Tuned Out Everything Except Fox News Between 1998-2006 (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/28/conservatives-increasingly-tuned-out-everything-except-fox-news-between-1998-2006/)


A new analysis by University of Georgia associate professor Barry Hollander finds that between 1998 and 2006, Americans became increasingly polarized in their news-gathering habits. After examining five national Pew Center for the People and the Press during that time period, Hollander concluded that the public now lives in “a huge echo chamber of attitudes and ideas.”

The Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Political Insider reports:

In 1998, 27 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of Democrats tuned in regularly to Atlanta-based CNN. Eight years later, the number of Democrats had risen to 29 percent.

But the number of Republicans who tuned in to CNN had shrunk to 19 percent. Gosh, where do you think they went?

Over the same period, Fox News’ share of Republican viewers jumped from 14 to 36 percent.

Hollander also notes that conservatives “dramatically dropped news sources that they perceive as being biased against their position.” Evidently, this included C-SPAN, which also saw a dramatic drop in conservative viewers.

These findings are similar to a Norman Lear Center/Zogby International poll from November 2007, which found that 22 percent of conservatives say they “never” enjoy entertainment that reflects values other than their own, as opposed to just 7 percent of liberals. Fox News was also the “most politically divisive TV channel,” with 70 percent of conservatives and just 3 percent of liberals watching it daily.

But too much Fox News may be bad news for conservatives. An April 2007 Pew Research Study survey found that viewers of the conservative Fox News channel had the lowest knowledge of national and international affairs.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

"In many ways I'm still a Hubert Humphrey Democrat -- someone who believes in afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. A society is judged by how it treats the elderly, the sick, the impoverished. To me it's a matter of ethics and compassion."
- Al Franken, Playboy interview

What a man of ethics! Owes $70,000 in taxes. This after not paying workers comp and disability premiums for workers.

We can conclude two things about candidate Franken: he's comfortable not being afflicted by taxes and he is comfortable not comforting the afflicted.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/18377884.html

[KirkOntario]

Confronting Ted Kennedy on dodging estate taxes while supporting their use against others....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbDwbUZar0o

[Naturist Mark]

"In many ways I'm still a Hubert Humphrey Democrat -- someone who believes in afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. A society is judged by how it treats the elderly, the sick, the impoverished. To me it's a matter of ethics and compassion."
- Al Franken, Playboy interview

What a man of ethics! Owes $70,000 in taxes. This after not paying workers comp and disability premiums for workers.

We can conclude two things about candidate Franken: he's comfortable not being afflicted by taxes and he is comfortable not comforting the afflicted.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/18377884.html

Actually .... if you read the story you would conclude that Mr. Franken had poor service from his legal and accounting advisors. There is no indication of an attempt to evade taxes, and restitution was made promptly upon discovery. Sound reasonably ethical to me.

Some things you may not be aware of concerning this 'selfish' man. During the rocky startup of Air America Radio, when it was being run by a pair of Republican conmen from Guam (I'm not kidding) early cash flow problems meant several payrolls could not be met - Franken personally paid the salaries of his staff. What a curr!

He has also gone on 4 USO tours to Iraq - an unpaid gig. Perhaps he should have been doing paying gigs in the States so that he could afford better financial managers.

-Mark

[Baron Lake]

Franken can also apply for a rebate in the State where he Overpaid income taxes. Probably stands a snowball's chance of collecting....

b.l.

[usmc1]

The difference? Conservatives are losing!

BATON ROUGE, La. - Democrat Don Cazayoux won a special congressional election Saturday, bolstering his party's majority status on Capitol Hill and taking a seat held by Republicans since 1974.

Cazayoux, a state lawmaker, beat Republican Woody Jenkins to cap a campaign that drew attention and cash from the national parties and from interest groups in Washington. The seat opened when Republican Richard Baker, a 20-year incumbent, resigned to take a lobbying job.


With all precincts reporting, Cazayoux had 49 percent to 46 percent for Jenkins, a community newspaper publisher. Three independents combined to take over 4 percent of the vote.

[Boreas]

The difference? Conservatives are losing!

Please God, may
this be a sign that
the radical right is
is losing its power
and that wiser
brains may prevail,
on both sides!
:thinking:

I do hope this is a sign of better things. Too far in either direction is not good.......though the US has a long way to go before it is at the left version of the radical right.

[usmc1]

Please God, may
this be a sign that
the radical right is
is losing its power
and that wiser
brains may prevail,
on both sides!
:thinking:

I do hope this is a sign of better things. Too far in either direction is not good.......though the US has a long way to go before it is at the left version of the radical right.

Congratulations on your anointment.

[Boreas]

Congratulations on your anointment.


Thanks. Can't wait to see our banned Canadian friend's response. ;)

[Qikdraw]

N.Y. congressman admits to affair, fathering child (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/05/09/ny_congressman_admits_to_affair_fathering_child/)


WASHINGTON - Representative Vito Fossella of New York ran a red light and wrecked his life. A drunken driving arrest last week led to talk of an extramarital affair, and then finally yesterday, an admission of a child from that affair.

"My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love and I am truly sorry," said Fossella, a Republican, who lives in his Staten Island, N.Y., district with his wife and their three children.


Fossella said he had no immediate plans to resign. The disclosures are a blow to the career of a lawmaker once seen as a potential candidate for mayor of New York.

"While I understand that there will be many questions, including those about my political future, making any political decisions right now are furthest from my mind. Over the coming weeks and months, I will continue to do my job and I will work hard to heal the deep wounds I have caused," he said.


What no calls from the moral high horses for him to resign? Or does that only apply if democrats do it?

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

N.Y. congressman admits to affair, fathering child (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/05/09/ny_congressman_admits_to_affair_fathering_child/)

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> WASHINGTON - Representative Vito Fossella of New York ran a red light and wrecked his life. A drunken driving arrest last week led to talk of an extramarital affair, and then finally yesterday, an admission of a child from that affair.

"My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love and I am truly sorry," said Fossella, a Republican, who lives in his Staten Island, N.Y., district with his wife and their three children. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Fossella said he had no immediate plans to resign. The disclosures are a blow to the career of a lawmaker once seen as a potential candidate for mayor of New York.

"While I understand that there will be many questions, including those about my political future, making any political decisions right now are furthest from my mind. Over the coming weeks and months, I will continue to do my job and I will work hard to heal the deep wounds I have caused," he said. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

What no calls from the moral high horses for him to resign? Or does that only apply if democrats do it?

Qikdraw
Now, now Qikdraw, you know the answer to those questions
http://www.webweaver.nu/clipart/img/education/angry-prof.gif

Don't be so silly!:laugh:

[Skinview]

What no calls from the moral high horses for him to resign? Or does that only apply if democrats do it?
DWI is a serious crime, but I don't think it should disqualify him from office.

[usmc1]

DWI is a serious crime, but I don't think it should disqualify him from office.

The commission of a crime does not constitute cause for disqualification from office?

Hhhhhmmm, why then did you conservatives carry on so and try to impeach Bill Clinton from office for the "crime" of lying and trying to conceal a sexual escapade?

Driving drunk is ever so more serious than lying about a sexual affair. It is a life threatening crime.

[Qikdraw]

DWI is a serious crime, but I don't think it should disqualify him from office.

I'll say to you what my wife always says to me. You're being deliberately obtuse. :p

The long term affair, with the child as well isn't reason for the pro-family republicans to get all upset about? They wet themselves when Clinton got a bj, why aren't the standards the same?

This is rather interesting too...


Perhaps now might be a good time to note that Fossella has an 81% rating from the Christian Coalition for his “pro-family” votes, and supported a constitutional amendment to prevent gays from destroying the sanctity of marriage. (Fossella also voted to impeach Bill Clinton over an extra-marital affair.)

Link (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15474.html)

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Them there dang old Republicans you just gotta love 'em. Sometimes you just want to reach out and scratch them behind the ears and throw a stick for them to fetch. 'Cept if you do that the next thing you know they're up on the sofa.

Here's what they've done now. They've adopted for their current campaign slogan the advertising message of a popular anti-depressant drug, Eflexor..."The Change You Deserve".

Now we've known all along that they're in cahoots with the drug companies, but now we know to what extent. They're so tight on money, they have to borrow a campaign slogan from one of their patrons.

[Skinview]

You're being deliberately obtuse. :p

;) And making a point that way too.

[Skinview]

The commission of a crime does not constitute cause for disqualification from office?Well, if DWI was, then we wouldn't have the benifit of the outstanding President we have now. Besides, you can be legally DWI and still have a pretty low blood alcohol level. Some of these laws are very strict. I have no idea how drunk the guy was. And then there is pot smoking, fornication, stripping in Harvard Square... Its gotten to the point where most people have committed a felony.


Hhhhhmmm, why then did you conservatives carry on so and try to impeach Bill Clinton from office for the "crime" of lying and trying to conceal a sexual escapade?They didn't. They went after him for purjury. Clinton lied all the time, but that wasn't grounds for impeachment. Lying and sexual escapades are not crimes (not everywhere, anyway), but purjury is a crime.


Driving drunk is ever so more serious than lying about a sexual affair. It is a life threatening crime.Good point, but the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Clinton's purjury undermines the judiciary and his own office. Part of his job is to kill lots of people with our armed forces, from time to time, to protect our institutions. If we commit perjury its not as serious, but when the President commits purjury, its more serious than a life threatening crime.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Skinview
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Qikdraw http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=195584#post195584)
You're being deliberately obtuse. :p
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
;) And making a point that way too.Incorrect. No point was made or even hinted at for that matter.

Which is just another example of the differences ...

conservatives deliberately try to distort and divert and confuse ...

Liberals do not.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by skinview
Originally Posted by usmc1 http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=195581#post195581)
The commission of a crime does not constitute cause for disqualification from office?
Well, if DWI was, then we wouldn't have the benifit of the outstanding President we have now. Besides, you can be legally DWI and still have a pretty low blood alcohol level. Some of these laws are very strict. I have no idea how drunk the guy was. And then there is pot smoking, fornication, stripping in Harvard Square... Its gotten to the point where most people have committed a felony.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Hhhhhmmm, why then did you conservatives carry on so and try to impeach Bill Clinton from office for the "crime" of lying and trying to conceal a sexual escapade? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
They didn't. They went after him for purjury. Clinton lied all the time, but that wasn't grounds for impeachment. Lying and sexual escapades are not crimes (not everywhere, anyway), but purjury is a crime.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Driving drunk is ever so more serious than lying about a sexual affair. It is a life threatening crime. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->Good point, but the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Clinton's purjury undermines the judiciary and his own office. Part of his job is to kill lots of people with our armed forces, from time to time, to protect our institutions. If we commit perjury its not as serious, but when the President commits purjury, its more serious than a life threatening crime. Trouble is Clinton did not commit perjury.
He did not lie in court about anything.
He testified and answered all questions put to him using the definitions of terms as they were ordered by the judge at the insistence of the prosecutor.
So, even using their own twisted definitions the republicans could not complete their mission ... typical. They mucked it up just as they do everything else ... of course their mission was just to get a Democrat out of office, and failing that by illegal means they resorted to other illegal means, again as they typically do.

Denying having a sexual affair is as common as the Common Cold so get off that rotted equine corpse.
Besides getting a hummer from a member of the opposite sex under the desk is more acceptable than ankle biting in the third stall in the men's room for a member of the same sex to our society.
But where is the indignation from the conservatives when one of their own is caught doing the men's room boogie and denies it?

Yet another difference: Total lack of a grasp on reality.

[usmc1]

...but the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Clinton's purjury undermines the judiciary and his own office. Part of his job is to kill lots of people with our armed forces, from time to time, to protect our institutions. If we commit perjury its not as serious, but when the President commits purjury, its more serious than a life threatening crime.

Y'awl ever come across the expression "tortured reasoning"? Well, there you have an example of such.

Jeez Skinview, maybe you should stick to geology and evolution where you seem to have some expertise. There simply is no correlation between a man trying to inveigle his way out of being exposed for having a sexual fling and another's risking lives and property by drunken driving.

[Skinview]

Trouble is Clinton did not commit perjury.
He did not lie in court about anything.
He testified and answered all questions put to him using the definitions of terms as they were ordered by the judge at the insistence of the prosecter.Riiiight. So why did the judge sanction him?????


Denying having a sexual affair is as common as the Common Cold so get off that rotted equine corpse.Not in court under oath.


Yet another difference: Total lack of a grasp on reality.That describes someone here. All the information on Clinton's lying under oath and the sanctions that were put on him was presented to you before.

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=184112&postcount=53

[Fitz1980]

Good point, but the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Clinton's purjury undermines the judiciary and his own office. Part of his job is to kill lots of people with our armed forces, from time to time, to protect our institutions. If we commit perjury its not as serious, but when the President commits purjury, its more serious than a life threatening crime.

How about lying to the US congress, the American people & the UN about WMDs in order to get us into an illegal war that has caused thousands of deaths, ruined our economy and turned Iraq into a recruiting station for Al-Qaeda? Is that more serious than telling a face saving half-truth (about weather or not 3rd base counts as sex) in response to a question that never should have been asked in a partisan witch hunt.

[Skinview]

Y'awl ever come across the expression "tortured reasoning"? Well, there you have an example of such.

Jeez Skinview, maybe you should stick to geology and evolution where you seem to have some expertise. There simply is no correlation between a man trying to inveigle his way out of being exposed for having a sexual fling and another's risking lives and property by drunken driving.
Most of the US House of Representatives thought otherwise. They impeached Clinton.

[usmc1]

Most of the US House of Representatives thought otherwise. They impeached Clinton.

Oh? Congress is now, for you, a source of sober, reflective reasoning?:eek:

I'll keep that in mind, I'm certain it will come up sometime in the future.

But since you're so outraged by presidential liars, I'm wondering if you'll join in with the rest of sane america, and former President Carter, and condemn that liar currently squatting in the White House?

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/))
Jimmy Carter's Right! Presidents Should Not Be Liars.
By Jay Diamond
Created May 13 2008 - 9:10am

Jay Diamond
May 13, 2008

This morning, Jimmy Carter has written a post on the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog entitled "Presidents Should Not be Liars".

The most glaring, destructive, and disgusting lie invented and maintained by the handlers of George W. Bush is their manifestly false insistence that the attack on, and occupation of Iraq is of material importance to the security of the United States.

As in every other instance with this administration, the prime consideration...or the ONLY consideration with respect to policy has been the calculation of the political potential in any situation.

Why this is not written or spoken about more in the press and on radio and television is an enduring mystery and a monumental failure of "commentators".

Mark me well....Bush et al did Iraq for no other reason than to bring about an historic 2004 landslide for Dubya.

They DID think it would be easy and that it would be over in 3 weeks, and they DID think that all the American soldiers would be home by Christmas 2003.

None other than Sean Hannity indicated this to me in a phone conversation in February 2003. In answer to my skepticism about the impending attack, he said that he was regularly in touch with people "at the top" (likely Rove, since Hannity's program is a reliable transcript of Rove "information") and that they assured him that it was a done deal that the main fighting would be all over before three weeks, and that the troops would be back by Christmas that year.

This is a fact, though Hannity will likely deny it. It is, however, the blunt truth.

But even if this corroboration had not taken place, it is clear to me that Bush's political wing, which had sway over everything he did, also was pre-eminent in the planning of the attack and occupation of Iraq.

The point was to bulldoze low-information voters into seeing Bush as having avenged 9/11, and thereby to bring about an historic landslide in 2004 which would have given Bush the "political capital" to truly advance his domestic agenda of rolling back the New Deal.

Bear in mind, his first initiative after "re-election" was to vainly attempt to privatize, ie, END, Social Security. Well, if he had actually had the "political capital" he bragged about after barely squeaking by on election day 2004 by less than 2% ( the lowest re-election percentage by any president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916)he probably would have succeeded in castrating Social Security, and would have gone into Republican history (as opposed to actual history) as the man who redressed the "evil socialist" New Deal, and thereby restored "freedom" to America.

Bottom line: Bush knew Iraq had zero to do with the security of the United States. And Bush also knew that a quick kill in Iraq would trick huge numbers of uninformed voters into thinking he had saved them and saved the USA.

EVERY single US soldier, AND every single Iraqi civilian who has been killed since March 20, 2003, died because they were sacrificed to Karl Rove's "re-election" strategy for Bush in 2004.

Nothing else.

So God Bless Jimmy Carter.

And for that matter, I leave Bush to heaven and the merciful providence he purports to believe in.

Jay Diamond is a progressive activist and radio commentator, based in New York.

[Qikdraw]

They didn't. They went after him for purjury.

As Nackt said.. Clinton did not commit perjury. Perjury is a VERY specific charge.

per·ju·ry: the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

Perjury HAS to be a lie specifically to do with what brought the person to the trial. Lewinski was a side issue because they could not get him on anything else.


Most of the US House of Representatives thought otherwise. They impeached Clinton.

Proving themselves to be hypocrites. How many republicans that voted for that turned out to be having affairs themselves?

They may have 'impeached' Clinton, but he was only censured. Do you realise that a Republican controlled Congress spent more money on a bj than this Republican administration on the 9/11 commission? There's republican priorites for you.

Qikdraw

[Boreas]

Proving themselves to be hypocrites. How many republicans that voted for that turned out to be having affairs themselves?

Isn't that just a version of classic human behaviour? Point fingers and be relieved that the heat is not on your own crimes or flaws. The tapdance when the spotlight changes.

Politicians are generally VERY good at that. ;)

[Skinview]

As Nackt said.. Clinton did not commit perjury. Perjury is a VERY specific charge.

per·ju·ry: the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

Perjury HAS to be a lie specifically to do with what brought the person to the trial.Very true. The court found that he lied under oath. I think its debateable whether his lie was material or not. The prosocuter could have persued criminal charges, but chose not to, considering the sanctions and "substantial public condemnation" that came with the impeachment.



They may have 'impeached' Clinton, but he was only censured.No. He was found in contempt of court, fined, and his law license was suspended for some years and he was disbarred from appearing as an attorney before the US Supreme Court.



Proving themselves to be hypocrites. How many republicans that voted for that turned out to be having affairs themselves?That is absolutely irrelevent. Clinton succeeded in spinning the charge against him as a sex scandal. (Another typical Clinton lie.) That it had to do with sex was only incidental. The issue was that he lied under oath.

[Skinview]

Isn't that just a version of classic human behaviour? Point fingers and be relieved that the heat is not on your own crimes or flaws. The tapdance when the spotlight changes.

Politicians are generally VERY good at that. ;)Yes, and thats what Democrats did when Clinton got caught. Larry Flint lead the charge.

[Skinview]

Mark me well....Bush et al did Iraq for no other reason than to bring about an historic 2004 landslide for Dubya.Not. There were several reasons for going, and politics wasn't one of them. This is the first time I have ever even read the suggestion that politics was a factor, after listening to the anti war crowd whine for five years. BTW, the US SENATE authorized the war. If you want to point your finger at Hillery for voting for the war for political reasons, I'll buy that. The antiwar Democrats got burned when they opposed Desert Storm. Hillery had plans for the White House. Bush already had huge approval ratings after 9/11. Going into Iraq was a political risk, with nothing more to gain politically.

[usmc1]

Not. There were several reasons for going, and politics wasn't one of them. This is the first time I have ever even read the suggestion that politics was a factor, after listening to the anti war crowd whine for five years. BTW, the US SENATE authorized the war. If you want to point your finger at Hillery for voting for the war for political reasons, I'll buy that. The antiwar Democrats got burned when they opposed Desert Storm. Hillery had plans for the White House. Bush already had huge approval ratings after 9/11. Going into Iraq was a political risk, with nothing more to gain politically.

Sorry pal, but documented history has already begun refuting your assertion. You'll be interested also to learn that the earth is not flat and the sun rises in the east and the earth is not the center of the solar system.

Some things ought not be subjected to debate and the fact that everything, EVERYTHING this administration does is done for political reasons is one of those! All moves, all policies, all programs, all...as I said, everything, are measured against political impact.

If this is truly the first time you've heard this then you've really been lax in staying abreast of things.

[Skinview]

Sorry pal, but documented history has already begun refuting your assertion. You'll be interested also to learn that the earth is not flat and the sun rises in the east and the earth is not the center of the solar system.

Some things ought not be subjected to debate and the fact that everything, EVERYTHING this administration does is done for political reasons is one of those! All moves, all policies, all programs, all...as I said, everything, are measured against political impact.

If this is truly the first time you've heard this then you've really been lax in staying abreast of things.
Sadly, I have not been reading all the crank, left wing websites that you do. Bush also an alien from a planet orbiting Vega, who is preparing the Earth for an invasion. It "ought not be subjected to debate". Sounds a lot like "don't question my religion".

[usmc1]

Sadly, I have not been reading all the crank, left wing websites that you do. Bush also an alien from a planet orbiting Vega, who is preparing the Earth for an invasion. It "ought not be subjected to debate". Sounds a lot like "don't question my religion".

Dang old left-wing cranks over there at Meet The Press. Interviewing that dang old former left-wing crank National Intelligence Director about Bush politicizing the run up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCJz1_kzOiM

Skinview, you're in check in one move--your next move, regardless, puts you in checkmate...I'm waiting. Expectantly.

C'mon dude, you've taken an untenable position. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was all about politics and oil---that's all. This administration measures everything it does against political metrics. Don't try to defend the indefensible, learn from it and move on. You've been lied to and had your core beliefs betrayed by this administration--you ought not be trying to defend them.

Watching conservatives and Republicans to continue to deny and defend Bush is like watching some weird version of the Stockholm Syndrome at play. Bush and his mendicants has buggered everything that true conservatives believe in.

Day-by-day, people and documentation is coming forth which will provide the historic data for the proof of that.