4 More Years!

[someone]

Canadians, help me out here.............. how can we in the US defeat the radical right? What do we need to do? I am at a loss.
When half the people still believe it was Saddam who attacked on 9/11, how can I have a rational discussion with them? Any ideas are appreciated.........Jeb Bush looms on the horizon in 2008.

First, I am not sure if I like your refering to Bush as "right" as he is not right on economic issures (e.g. a balanced buget, etc.)

However, in response to your question, if his record over the last 4 years was not enough to defeat Bush, I can't see any hope. Maybe if things get really bad people will wake up. Maybe if the U.S goes so far into debt that foreigners stop lending them money? However, if the last four years were not enough to wake Americans up, I really don't know what is.

P.S. excuse the typo on my last post.

 

[onthebottom]

True but at least you can't say that a majority of Canadians were foolish enough to vote for him. You can't say the same for a Majority of Americans.

A weakness in your system.

OTB

 

[papasmerf]

True but at least you can't say that a majority of Canadians were foolish enough to vote for him. You can't say the same for a Majority of Americans.

ummmmmmmmm

we limit our election to citizens, that would explain why Canadians can't vote in it. Myself I am pretty happy about that.

 

[irlandais9000]

First, I am not sure if I like your refering to Bush as "right" as he is not right on economic issures (e.g. a balanced buget, etc.)

However, in response to your question, if his record over the last 4 years was not enough to defeat Bush, I can't see any hope. Maybe if things get really bad people will wake up. Maybe if the U.S goes so far into debt that foreigners stop lending them money? However, if the last four years were not enough to wake Americans up, I really don't know what is.

P.S. excuse the typo on my last post.

Someone, you do make a good point regarding the use of the word "right". I only use that word since it is the commonly used term in the US.

Traditionally, the "right" has been more fiscally conservative than the left, and I did vote for some conservatives when I first started voting. However, the right in the US has become the most fiscally irresponsible, and the tradition no longer exists. The Republicans don't give a damn about running record deficits and turning over the treasury to their biggest contributors. True conservatives have nothing in common with this Republican party.

 

[papasmerf]

wonder is Connie Rice will be VP before 2008???

that would be a kick in the ass to the libs, for a Republican to be the first black woman to serve as VP.

 

[irlandais9000]

You never addressed my main question, regarding the 10 examples I gave. What do you think about those examples, are they intelligent arguments to you? And if you don't think they are, how is it possible to have a discussion when people rely on cliches and slogans so much? If you asked me why I think you should vote for Kerry, and I said because he is a good man, would you think that I really answered your question? How come the Republicans get a free pass in this area? Still looking for answers................

I'm not interested in debating these points with you.
I'm just pointing out that your insinuation that those who voted for Bush, all 51% of the American population, are irrational is foolish and weakens the rest of your argument. [/B][/QUOTE]


So, you misstate and oversimplify my arguments, and then announce that you aren't interested in debating my main point. This is exactly the kind of thing I was lamenting in my original post.

 

[Ranger68]

No, I was taking exception to your application of the term "irrational" to the majority of the US population.
That's all.
It's perfectly clear what you said. If you meant something else, perhaps you should be more careful what you post.

 

[irlandais9000]

wonder is Connie Rice will be VP before 2008???

that would be a kick in the ass to the libs, for a Republican to be the first black woman to serve as VP. [/QUOTE

Papasmerf, I suspect you are absolutely right about this. It would be sad, however, as she is no more trustworthy than her boss.

She is the one who testified, regarding the 8/6/01 briefing to the President, that the memo was about possible attacks outside the US and was only historical in nature. This, despite the fact that the title was about attacks inside the US. If you have any doubt about what I am saying, refer to the 9/11 commission report, available in many bookstores. The memo clearly is about attacks INSIDE the US, and mentions hijackings and federal buildings. But, of course, Bush and Rice for 2 years denied any specific warnings, and then when this memo came to light, they mischaracterized its contents.

 

[papasmerf]

wonder is Connie Rice will be VP before 2008???

that would be a kick in the ass to the libs, for a Republican to be the first black woman to serve as VP. [/QUOTE

Papasmerf, I suspect you are absolutely right about this. It would be sad, however, as she is no more trustworthy than her boss.

She is the one who testified, regarding the 8/6/01 briefing to the President, that the memo was about possible attacks outside the US and was only historical in nature. This, despite the fact that the title was about attacks inside the US. If you have any doubt about what I am saying, refer to the 9/11 commission report, available in many bookstores. The memo clearly is about attacks INSIDE the US, and mentions hijackings and federal buildings. But, of course, Bush and Rice for 2 years denied any specific warnings, and then when this memo came to light, they mischaracterized its contents.

since you brought it up

please provide the proof of spacific warnings pertaining to the 9/11 attact and naming of targets.

Anythiong less the sunstanciated proof will show you are repeating the same crap that move on did.

You brought it up

 

[irlandais9000]

No, I was taking exception to your application of the term "irrational" to the majority of the US population.
That's all.
It's perfectly clear what you said. If you meant something else, perhaps you should be more careful what you post.

Again, my focus is on irrational and simplistic arguments, and you are ironically oversimplifying my post. I think I brought up some valid points, such as wondering how it can be half the people in this country think there was clear cut proof of Saddam involvement in 9/11. Perhaps I could be more careful in what I post, as per your recommendation, but then again, I am not interested in boiling everything down to one easy sentence.

 

[Ranger68]

*Don't* boil things down to one easy sentence. That was your problem.
Clear?
Anyway, good luck with your argument. I hope that works out for ya.

 

[irlandais9000]

since you brought it up

please provide the proof of spacific warnings pertaining to the 9/11 attact and naming of targets.

Anythiong less the sunstanciated proof will show you are repeating the same crap that move on did.

You brought it up

Actually, I am not referring to Moveon, I am referring to what the 9/11 commission said, which by the way was bipartisan and came to unanimous findings in the end. You may refer to the Authorized edition of The 9/11 Commission Report, with the memo in question on pages 261 to 262. It is in the chapter titled "The System was Blinking Red" on pages 254 to 277. I would urge everyone to read the entire chapter to ensure the proper context for the memo.

Papasmerf, I don't believe anyone should take for granted what Moveon has to say, since their agenda is obvious. Nor should anyone take for granted what Fox news has to say, as their agenda is obvious also.

 

[irlandais9000]

*Don't* boil things down to one easy sentence. That was your problem.
Clear?
Anyway, good luck with your argument. I hope that works out for ya.

I believe my post was considerably longer than one sentence, as will be evident to anyone who read the original post. Perhaps we are talking about a different post.

 

[someone]

A weakness in your system.

OTB

Actually with the electoral college system you can also have a president elected even in cases of only two candidates. Moreover, there is nothing in the American system to rule out four strong candidates which would make a similar outcome just as likely. However, at least in the Canadian system, a vote break down such as the one the liberals got usually produces a minority putting a check on the candidate (Of course it is mathematically possible to have a Majority government with well less than 25%
of the popular vote when there are for parties but that is unlikely).

 

[someone]

ummmmmmmmm

we limit our election to citizens, that would explain why Canadians can't vote in it. Myself I am pretty happy about that.

I admit that my typo made my original post a big unclear. Nonetheless, if you read the post I was responding to, I think you will see that I meant that only a minority of Canadians were foolish enough to reelect a dishonest government when a Majority of Americans did the same.

 

[langeweile]

wonder is Connie Rice will be VP before 2008???

that would be a kick in the ass to the libs, for a Republican to be the first black woman to serve as VP.

Why not on the top of the ticket? I think the USA is ready for a female president.
What an interesting choice.

 

[someone]

Someone, you do make a good point regarding the use of the word "right". I only use that word since it is the commonly used term in the US.

Traditionally, the "right" has been more fiscally conservative than the left, and I did vote for some conservatives when I first started voting. However, the right in the US has become the most fiscally irresponsible, and the tradition no longer exists. The Republicans don't give a damn about running record deficits and turning over the treasury to their biggest contributors. True conservatives have nothing in common with this Republican party. [/QUOTE

I find that the word “right� means different things to different people. In economics we usually use it to mean a greater reliance on market forces as opposed to government. I.e. a limited role for government. However, many others do use it to mean strong government in terms of a police state. I find it easier just to stay away from the term as these two meanings are opposed and thus create confusion..

Even in the days of Reagan, I thought that it was a strange alliance between those with classical liberal views (which is more or less how I see myself) and religious social conservative types. However, it seems to me that the religious types have completely taken over the Republican Party. Classical liberals may not like big government (in terms of taxes and spending). However, it now seems to me that the Democratic are the least worst choice for them today.

 

[Asterix]

No, they were pretty much on the receiving end. That they could hold in position until relieved while having the shit kicked out of them was remarkable - and I pointed this out in my post.
Hilarious. I actually go to the trouble of outlining the situation, then have people tell me what the situation was. LOL
Anyway, I was pointing out to DQ, who still doesn't get it, that if you're going to threaten physical violence (which is a pretty immature and retarded thing to do on the Internet), you may want to pick an analogy more appropriate.

Clear?
Good.

Oh, and technically, the 101st was an *airborne* division, not a light division - although after the jump in support of D-Day it was certainly treated like a regular infrantry unit, not an elite para unit. (Not that I think you understand the difference.) And a Panzer division IS a tank division, so I guess you'd better go back and figure out your numbers. Just some more advice.

The 101st airborne is often referred to as a light infantry division when talking about Bastogne. which is what I thought we were doing (and, yes, I do understand the difference, but thanks for the condescension anyway). As far as Panzer divisions, of course you are correct. My mistake. I should have said the attacking Panzer Corp had two tank divisions and one volksgrenadier division.

The 101st was more than just a punching bag getting the shit kicked out of it while waiting for help to arrive. By the end of the battle they had inflicted on the Germans three and a half times as many casualties than their own, and destroyed 200 tanks and armored vehicles. If the 101st got the shit kicked out of them than the Germans got the shit kicked out of them even worse.

Not really interested what you and Don were going at each other about, but hey, thanks for the explanation. Apologies to the others in this thread, and now return it to the main topic of rant.

 

[someone]

Someone, you do make a good point regarding the use of the word "right". I only use that word since it is the commonly used term in the US.

Traditionally, the "right" has been more fiscally conservative than the left, and I did vote for some conservatives when I first started voting. However, the right in the US has become the most fiscally irresponsible, and the tradition no longer exists. The Republicans don't give a damn about running record deficits and turning over the treasury to their biggest contributors. True conservatives have nothing in common with this Republican party.

I should really be more careful of my typos. I am reposted the following to avoid confusion. Sorry.

Even in the days of Reagan, I thought that the Republican Party was a strange alliance between those with classical liberal views (which is more or less how I see myself) and religious social conservative types. However, it seems to me that the religious types have completely taken over the Republican Party. Classical liberals may not like big government (in terms of taxes and spending). However, it now seems to me that the Democratic are the least worst choice for them today.

 

[Drunken Master]

irlandais: don't worry about Ranger. He doesn't debate ideas, just semantics. Splitting hairs makes him feel special.

As much as I've said the left needs to do some serious thinking, I think the right might be in for some as well. Our old ideas about what makes a fiscal- and foreign policy-conservative no longer seem to apply.