Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[Jester]

I would like to state, for the record, that, within the context of this "for us or against us" formula...

... I am against you.

Jester

[Jester]

"While we can have plenty of far lefties and far righties in the legislative branch."

Far lefties in the US legislative branch. That's gold.

If this was anywhere but the US, your legislative branch would look like someone chopped the left wing clear off just slightly left of centre.

Jester

[Rhydderch Hael]

Yeah, I think he mixed up the names.

Funnily enough, I have seen Ronny Cox play the role of an American President before, in that horrid Captain America movie made in the 80's. The kicker is, the President he portrayed then was a pretty nifty and resourceful guy, fighting the good fight. It's a bit weird to see Ronny Cox play quite the antithesis of such a man in the guise of Senator Kinsey.

Weird, though, the episode: it came off as if the events in "Foothold" were hushed up, even from the NID. The trick is, it was an NID strike team that rescued the base from the alien incursion, so by rights the NID should have known about that particular incident all along.

[Sir_Die_alot]

1: Did you ever read Rush Limbaugh? If not you are taking from one side and not the other. One sided bias in, one sided bias out. I've heard from other Canadians on Bush and Moore is often referred to as the source of negative view of him. For the life of me I can't understand why people take this fat conspiracy theorist with poor personal hygiene more serious than the average crazy begger on the street.

If you really want to only look at one extreme side of an issue you should read how great north korea is :lol:

2: We have been in debt for decades blaming it on Bush is another "____ is all Bush's fault."

3:

He and his administration virtually cut off all negotiation with the U.N. on invading Iraq and decided to go into Iraq with out U.N. security council unnaimous approval.

He wasn't going to get it. As I recall the French were threatening a veto. Remember this war is unpopular only with non-Iraqis, if anything Bush saved the UN some face now that Iraq is liberated. As for involving the UN we tried giving them a minor humanitarian role. They got bombed, tucked their tail between their legs, and left. Now their "Iraq operation" is handled in another country. <_< On a nationwide scale that would have been disastrous for Iraq.

I'm not talking about the French or the Germans. The Canadians, Russians and more than likely several more nations were unhappy at best at the decision.

And they have not been forced to come along. If they are unhappy with the results, well, that's just sad.

The cheif U.N. weapons inspector did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction in the country and requested more time.

When was the first war? 1992? More time? I think 10 years is a good round number. N.Korea has more time, let's see if they use it as poorly as Saddam.

I did not sense or believe that Bush and et al. were in the slight bit interested in what any one else thought they were in a big stick weilding mood and forget what the rest of the freaking world thinks about were going in.

9/12/01 the world went on notice. Saddam pish poshed that and paid for it. Nobody is afraid of a paper tiger, the myth of the US paper tiger has been proven just that. And now we have kicked the ass of the best they had to offer. Do you really think Kaddafi decided WMD was a bad idea because the UN? I would say he saw that at least a few countries were serious about this war on terror thing.

This smack of out right arrogance of the first degree.

I couldn't agree more. But take a step back who else was arrogant? Give me 1 way Iraq has been a bad thing for the UN and Iraq war detractors other than a blow to their ineffective egos? Iraq was a problem nobody argued that. Bush solved it, thanks UN for trying. No I think residual malcontent on this issue is just damaged ego.

I'm the Sherrif and Judge and you done wrong you're going to be strung up. No trial no right of defense other than force of arms.

We gave him a chance to declare what he had and what he had done to dispose of what he shouldn't. We know for a fact he lied on both counts, but let's give him another 10 years. This is not a man who should have had wiggle room yet that was just what was going to be given to him, again.

I can't believe that anyone in the United States feels that was justified and right. Given your belief in the rule of Law. My god even the worse mass murder in your country gets those rights.

Funny you should use the word "mass murder" since that is exactly what was stopped. The whole let Iraq rot polocy of the UN still stinks of something to me. I'm not sure if it's racial, financial, or just simple cowardice.

4: Thank god. Just what we need, to sign our rights over to everyone else. Our problems, our rules, our justice. Don't like? Bomb Canada so you can go to the world bureaucracy... I mean court. Just because something is international doesn't automatically make it a good idea. Americans by and large are too independent to submit our justice to a "world court". The last thing I want is international law handled like the UN's peace keeping expos. :ph34r:

Bush just pushes all the wrong buttons for me. He's arrogant, he seems to be a puppet for others and seems bound and determined to follow and adgenda that may not be in the best interest of the American people.

Remember Bush had no interest in invading Iraq or Afghanistan. North Korea was a minor issue. The 2000 elections were solid national issues and "international experience" was just a generic point for Gore to run on. Pre 911 his biggest action of international interest was hosting barbeques for the Russian president to improve relations. Any agenda beyond that has been forced on him by subsequent events. So unless you believe every word Mr. Moore says and think 911 was known about before hand (don't worry I don't belive you think that :D ) the above statement doesn't really hold.

And yes die I do form thoughts and opinions with out help from outside sources but when I speak them I know that I have looked into some of what I want to say.

I'm not trying to insult you Life. :( However when I see a frequently used inaccurate talking point like "unilateral" I'm pretty sure it's not the person talking, it's them repeating. Another one: the chant "no blood for oil" comes to mind. :wacko:

I believe that Bush is just wrong for the world let alone the people of the United States.

Name one thing, just one, that to date is a definite bad idea. Free Afghanis? Free Iraqis? Dictators afraid for their power? Sounds like a great state of things. 5 years ago if someone told you we would have Saddam Hussein behind bars would you have belived it? His meathods may ruffle some feathers but you can't argue the results.

The sooner the United States realizes that it is better to work in and with the world instead of acting like we are the big bad ass of the world don't mess with us approach the sooner the united states will see unprecidented benefits all around.

It's a bad idea to let people walk all over us as well. When America looks weak the civilized world looks weak. That was Al quieda's thinking in the first place; America is a paper tiger and the UN is a bunch of ineffective bureaucrats. Both will be easy to take down. They thus far have been proven wrong on the first point, only partially wrong on the second.

Any wonder that they can't get a peace treaty firmly entrenced in any location that they've tried to do that recently?

This sounds like a specific event that I am unaware of. Or perhaps N. Korea? (That's the only significant "peace treaty" I know of we are working on :unsure: ) We had one, they broke it. Being skeptical about making another is only natural.

[Sir_Die_alot]

If this was anywhere but the US, your legislative branch would look like someone chopped the left wing clear off just slightly left of centre.

Everything is realitive. :mellow:

[Sourskunk]

I've a question. Does your country have multiple parties and do you have a party that might be more right wing on average than ours as well? I know that many other countries support multiple parties while we've stalemated into two.

[Sourskunk]

Against who? I assume you mean Bush, just the "you" was a bit unclear on context =p.

[Freepaperclips]

Seeing as "velvet gloves" get called "scandals" every five minutes I wouldn't bring that up. Iran Contra anyone?

[eppie]

QUOTE&nbsp;
The cheif U.N. weapons inspector did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction in the country and requested more time.


When was the first war? 1992? More time? I think 10 years is a good round number. N.Korea has more time, let's see if they use it as poorly as Saddam.

of course there were no more WMD in Iraq. Everything was destroyed, something Bush knew because (US government words) Iraq was full of american spies.
That even now they still think there might be WMDs is just ridiculous. If Saddam had them he would use them this time.

Remember Bush had no interest in invading Iraq or Afghanistan.

No the ones with interest are just his friends who own oil en building companys. The american tax-payer pays the build-up of Iraq and these companys take the profit. It would all have been a lot easier if they just had raised the fuel prices :blink: .

Name one thing, just one, that to date is a definite bad idea. Free Afghanis? Free Iraqis? Dictators afraid for their power? Sounds like a great state of things. 5 years ago if someone told you we would have Saddam Hussein behind bars would you have belived it? His meathods may ruffle some feathers but you can't argue the results.

The result is not under discussion, with nobody. The fact is, and I hope you can understand, that the rest of the world is thinking " who is next". If the US-economy goes completely down the drain, new victims have to be found. And with americas highly superior weaponry nobody stands a chance. At that point I say, thank god there are some other countries with nuclear weapons. I know this is highly unlikely, but so is for example the idea that Libya or North Korea would attack another country. I mean Khadaffi en Il can at least think for themselves (on their own) :D

I think the most important thing in our modern world is dialog between the US and other countries (like europe). We need a president who knows something about other countries, not one for whom his visit to washington was the first time "abroad". :D

[Freepaperclips]

I just visited his site and I still can't tell you his issues. The only ones I can make out from under all the bull won't work.

His "Service for College Plan" will raise tuition not lower it.
His “State Tax Relief and Education Fund” puts us further in debt.
His "A Principled Foreign Policy" is a mess without definition.
And his "Access to Affordable Health Care" is just more taxes to get caught up in endless bureaucracies.

Go Kerry, go!
(please forgive the overt sarcasm)

[nobbie]

Seriously what does everyone (especially if you live in the US and are of voting age) think of this guy?

Although I'm not American, I always had the opinion that Carrey should be president of the U.S., JIM CARREY that is! :P

[TaMeOlta]

:lol: I'd rather Dennis Leary and Dennis Miller as pres and VP , w/ George Carlin in charge of the FCC , Jim Carrey can be in there somewhere though :lol:

..... sorry , getting carried away ...... no , really ....... :blink:

[kandrathe]

The truth of that, I don't know, and I don't think you do either.

I just like to pass rumors by the rationality test. That one doesn't pass my test.

about Iraqi soldiers killing babies.

Just as outrageous, and would call for an extensive investigation whoever perpetrates the crime.

Dismantling Clinton's Scaffold of Executive Orders -- Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D. -- Monday, Jan. 29, 2001 I don't like Executive Orders from any President, as they are the whim of one man and smack of imperialism. We have another mechanism called "laws", which I prefer, where they are debated and where I have representation in Congress.

Also, the argument "Oh, yeah? Well, where were the Democrats?" doesn't really apply to people who don't live in the States.

That was in response to the charge that Bush harmed the economy. Since the economy was failing in early 2001, the obvious cause was from the prior administration. While I don't believe that Presidents can affect the economy, the Federal Reserve and Congress can. But, I suspect the faltering economy in early 2001 was due to something wreaking in the run away tech sector, which many investors were seeing at that time. I call it the realization that "The Emperor is Naked" or these internet companies have no strategy for earnings. So, where was government in popping the bubble before it became an implosion?

Nor was he reciting the "tax cuts for the wealthy" criticism, valid as it may be. He was pointing out an obvious truth that the US government will find very oppressive soon: there are only so many taxes you can cut before your government goes broke, and only so many years your creditors will look the other way as you sink further into debt to finance your artificially low taxes. Even small governments need money.

Deficits are a concern, but a thriving economy is more important. Our mistake and weakness was Congress (and the people of the US) not having the fortitude to pay back the deficit during boon years.

So you think we are under taxed? I don't. I pay plenty, in fact about 30% of my income goes to my State and Federal government. My tax burden has been lessened durning the Bush administration, but I still pay more than my fair share. How many countries in Europe have lower corporate income tax than the US? How many countries in the world have zero corporate income tax? We can get into the tax debate; but I suspect we are probably at extreme poles on the subject. My belief; Tax fairness means that I should only have to pay for State and Federal spending that benefits me, and those who are incapable of taking care of themselves. Also, that the Federal and State governments should always try not to spend my money when it can be avoided, and should only be spent on things that are within their mandate from the people. I believe that taxes should be levied on consumption, rather than production. Don't penalize earnings, penalize consumption. So, I whole heartedly agree on taxing gasoline and oil at high rates, food and clothing at lower rates, and manufactured products based on their raw materials.

Scandals (that I know of): Nixon had watergate, clinton had Monica-gate, is it just me or is the first one a tad more severe?. Disrupting a whole country for a year just to accuse somebody form having sex with an intern? That is something his wife should have done not the republican party.

I could comment on this, but I agree. The republicans were on a witch hunt throughout the entire Clinton administration, from Whitewater land deals to illegally firing the White house travel office employees to then Monica. It was childish, and in response to the same hounding democrats gave Reagan, and Bush the elder in the prior administrations. As a political tool it was effective, because it made the last 4 years of the Clinton administration seem a fiasco, which he was as a Lame Duck anyway.

[Sourskunk]

of course there were no more WMD in Iraq. Everything was destroyed, something Bush knew because (US government words) Iraq was full of american spies.
That even now they still think there might be WMDs is just ridiculous. If Saddam had them he would use them this time.

I never quite understood this line of reasoning. If I may ask, when were they destroyed?

No the ones with interest are just his friends who own oil en building companys.

Oh dear lord, not this again. If we wanted oil without the risk and with a helluva lot less political risk we could have "seized" Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Realistically, we could have pushed harder to dig in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve.

The fact is, and I hope you can understand, that the rest of the world is thinking " who is next".

Of course we understand this. It's the whole point! Or maybe a picture helps explain it. We want Libya calling Berlesconi (apologies for spelling) saying "I saw what happened in Iraq and I was afraid". Now he's dismantling. Iran, in its infinite wisdom has not and is playing games because it knows Bush is currently a lame duck on foreign policy and there is a chance that Kerry will win.

However, there's a deeper point. Let's call it like it is. We want you afraid. Read that sentence again. We want you afraid. Our "allies", via Oil for Food or straight up sanction violations either looked the other way while their businesses sold illegal tools to Iraq (recall the Russian controversy of the sattelite jammers just before the war?) or were actively complicit in it themselves. I'm confident that Bin Laden wasn't the only one that thought we were a paper tiger. The reason we attacked Iraq, despite the assurances from such impartial sources as France and Hans Blix, is because we knew of these relationships which were accelerating and we couldn't risk our "allies" further enabling Iraq all while claiming he was "contained".

We want you terrified because we refuse to remain that way ourselves. We're forging new alliances due to the reality on the ground and waving goodbye to certain older alliances. Under the table of course, we'd never fully admit it, but we're marginalizing certain countries until they get with it. You don't like it and we don't care. We prefer to live, thanks.

But hey, if you want to stay rankled on it, chew on this. Are you sure you know who you're supporting either? For full disclosure, Newsmax is a conservative website.

[Sourskunk]

Heh, or for a really crazy idea, we could have another actor be governor of California!

[Sourskunk]

When on the surface it appears that the U.S. has unilaterally decided the fate of a soverign state

Given what happened in Spain a couple days ago, it revitalizes a point. Why was Spain attacked by terrorists?

[Life]

It is apparent that those that do not like Bush and his group as really that is what I'm talking about are not being well received here. I have no desire to malign the American people. Remember at least 49% of you did not want Bush as the president.

Perhaps an example is in order here. I paraphrase: If you, that have responded to my posts, really review what you have said in your answers you are primarily suggesting and or stating emphatically "we want you to be all scared of us". " We want you to be aware that we are marginalizing you because you don't feel the way we do about the world." " We want you to be so frightned that we can do what ever we want to you and get away with it.... and forget about you having any rights or freedoms because only ours matter." Forget about growing old because if we want something you have if you get in the way claiming its mine you can't have it I'll kill you." I mean really is this fostering a world wide feeling of lets get together... or it is suggesting that you have allies because they are too scared of you and want your protection so that they can persue your adgenda further. Sure the world changes and old allies can become enemies. Especially if you treat them well (tongue in cheek here).

I mean regarding Sadam, if I remember correctly, putting blame on Russian, German and french interests as proping him up and causing problems is just so hollow. Sadam was there primarily because the U.S. put him there. As they did with Noriega and countless others. I would not be surprised to learn that Kadafii was put in place by some mysterious alignment of the planets and a willful U.S. policy somewhere. I suspect the French and Germans got the elements for the parts that they were sending to Iraq from the U.S. My god who is the world's largest trader in Arms? I'll wager the United States.

Now think on this... In every school there are bullies.... in Columbine some of the bullies created two very evil people. They took many of the non bullies lives people who may or may not have even met these two. Is it a stretch to suggest that perhaps these two individuals had terrorist tendencies in as much as they definitly terrorized the people in that school.

Now in the world, like it or not, the United States is being seen by many by the actions that they have taken (forced into or otherwise) as being one of the bigger bullies of the world. Is there any surprise out there that some people have taken to terriorist activities against you. *sadly I'm not surprised. I'm not pleased and very much in favour of battling this threat until its gone. I"m definetly not sure what the proper action plan is. I just know in reading many of the responses here (with my jaw dropping I might add) that you do not get it and probably never will.

Acting like bullies in the world is not like acting like enforcers.

*sigh So many things you would consider differently if you did not live in the United States and you weren't American. I'm sorry you all feel this way. I'm sorry for the world as well. I'm not saying the world is perfect or right even. I'm just saying that to have a single minded view point like " we are all powerful and you should all be afraid of us is just not going to fly .... perhaps it will for now but someday it will come back to bite you in the butt."

My reference to all the great empires that have gone before you means that like it or not you have an empire there in the U.S. to call it anything else would be naive. You have an empire by virtue of the influence you have over the world if nothing else. Perhaps, and time will tell, it will last a long time... I hope it will... but eventually it will change or fall. History tells us this will happen.... who knows when.

In creating many computer components reverse engineering is useful. Perhaps Americans can reverse engineer what they believe the world should look like in 100 years time and build back to the present day... if you can it would be an interesting feat.


In summation I guess you'll carry on as you always do... I guess what the rest of us need do is sit in our houses and quake in fear and learn to live with the George Bush's adgenda for the rest of our lives. (self defeatist? perhaps well at least it fits in nicely with your world wide plans for us all.) I just hope its not with George Bush or anyone remotely like him leading you.

Life

[Jester]

Well, there's two categories, "For us" and "against us".

Presuming the "us" to refer to some nebulous conglomerate, the Bush administration's idea of themselves/the american people/their allies, the "you" would refer to precisely whomever the "us" boils down to.

It's "you" because, regardless of how you define the group, it's clearly not me.

Jester

[Jester]

(The rise of Buchanan, Perot and Nader make for obvious exceptions to the "two party" formulation, just to get that on the table.)

Canada has, currently, four major political parties. The farthest right of these would be the Conservative Party of Canada, newly christened from the historical Progressive Conservatives and the further right Canadian Alliance (nee Reform Party).

The Canadian Alliance had many elements, but each of their three leaders would fit quite comfortably into the religious/social conservative element of the Republican party (Preston Manning, Stockwell Day) or into the marketist, neo-conservative wing (Stephen Harper, Manning to some extent).

So, in answer to your question, yes, Canada's furthest right party was approximately equivalent to the Republican party, although it has moved ever so slightly to the centre since merging with the Progressive Conservatives.

Jester

[Jester]

"I never quite understood this line of reasoning. If I may ask, when were they destroyed?"

They destroy themselves. Chemical weapons typically have a shelf-life of only a few years before deteriorating beyond a usable state. Biological weapons are even more fragile. uclear weapons, well, he would need to have them to destroy them.

In absence of any way to rebuild these weapons they would have been useless by the mid-90s, at the latest. Use 'em or lose 'em, and he lost 'em. Any pretense to the contrary was (apparently) just a terribly misguided attempt to preserve his fearsome reputation, that "Hussein Cachet" with his neighbours and people.

Jester