as a libertarian who voted for neither dem or rep because they don't represent my values, i would urge all of you to not panic one way or the other.
my biggest concern for our short term future is not about abortion, gay marraige or even the iraq war.
its this red/blue state thing. some may chose to take it lightly but it highlights all that challenges us as a united nation. first, while the major media and the some dems talk about the need to heal the divisiveness, they play up the red/blue divide. if the blue states are so smart then they sure don't know how to "win friends and influence people". calling the red states "dumb" and "revenue suckers" will surely go nowhere toward national healing.
likewise the right thinks the blue states are "morally bankrupt" mostly due to faith based reasoning. i don't envy bush.... nor would i have envied kerry... to try to close the chasm. fortunately, i believe there is a sufficiently large "silent majority" to help steady the course.
as for those of you dissappointed at the election of bush, let me just say this. i have studied the psychology of the election of presidents in my lifetime fairly intently and my theory on who wins is simple. starting with kennedy-nixon, just think about which of the major party candidates has had the broadest appeal of being the "most regular guy". not necessarily the guy that YOU may have voted for.... but the one that the silent average joe/jane majority would vote for. here's the way i see the past elections in my lifetime:
kennedy/nixon.... kennedy clearly the more normal and charismatic
johnson/goldwater.... goldwater is the mad atomic scientist, complete with horn-rimmed glasses
nixon/humphrey... humphrey is a fruitcake and makes nixon seem more normal
nixon/mcgovern.... repeat of above
carter/ford... ford looks like a stumbler/bumbler, carter a down home guy
reagan/carter... reagan makes carter look impotent ( he was actually)
reagan/mondale.... reagan clearly more regular guy
bush/dukakis... the duke comes off as a northeast elitist
clinton/bush... clinton makes bush look like the northeast elitist
clinton/dole.... viagra anyone??
bush/gore.... gore the manequinn robot
bush/kerry... kerry the flip/flop northeast elitist.
so it's pretty straight forward if you cut through all the BS. this analysis works all the time. anyway you dowhheartwd democrats know what you have to do next time. unfortunately you will nominate 'billary' and lose again for the same reason. she won't look mainstream or normal up against hardly anybody.
i've gone on too long.... outa here... and let's help each other through all this OKAY?? all our collective futures and quality of life depend on it.
I do travel quite a bit and there is something that is pretty obvious to an outsider. Americans can bitch at each other all day but when push comes to shove there is a common ground that 90% of Americans stand on together.
The press exists on conflict so that is all you ever get on the news. Do you really believe that you'll ever see FOX News report that: " Everything went pretty well today. 99.99% of Americans were NOT shot, killed, mugged or got into violent political arguements. The weather sucked in Nebraska today but Nebraskans don't mind, they're used to lousy weather."
I can think of more than a couple of bars in the US that I could walk in to, grab a mic, and scream out the above rant. By the end of it there would be a rush to the can because people would be laughing so hard that they be pissing themselves.
Yes, you all have got some differences and some problems with your government but I don't see it being half as divisive as the press makes it out to be.
Now, I'll just fuck off and mind my own damned business. LOL. peace.
____________________
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams...John Barrymore
The major problem with this divisiveness is that it's based on moral values and faith-based ideals. I'm sorry but I don't want my president telling me that because I don't believe in his god, that I'm bad. That's not freedom. I think the major difference for me in this election was, yes both Bush and Kerry are religious, but only one of them allows his religion to use extreme bias and bigotry to justify his actions. And it isn't the Catholic (news flash there).
But on the other side of the coin here almost quite literally, Bush is trying to use the economic policy of "starve the beast" by vastly over spending while reducing tax revenue, the government will at some point be forced to reduce programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and others to pay the bills, and since the reduction or elimination of these programs has always been the Republican mantra Bush is willing to aggressively drive the country into insolvency in order to accomplish this despite the other problems that it may cause.
RPIJG wrote: The major problem with this divisiveness is that it's based on moral values and faith-based ideals. I'm sorry but I don't want my president telling me that because I don't believe in his god, that I'm bad. That's not freedom.
Freedom and bad are both relative terms. I truly don't understand how someone could give a crap about anything or anyone without believing in god first. Without god then humans are no more than worthless piles of matter. No different than plants and moral values would make no sense. There would be nothing wrong with murder, theft, rape, etc. So morality provides restrictions to life and therefore less freedom.
You want freedom? Prove so much that there is no god that no one could not believe you, get rid of government permanently, and remove all firearms and explosives and the means to produce them. You'd then have the freedom to provide for yourself, protect yourself, and believe whatever you want without repercussions.
And I don't want my president taking my money to provide for weaker and/or incompetent and/or lazy people. I fend for myself. Let them.
Side note: Anybody know how to make chocolate covered peanuts like the ones in the store. Not just pouring melted chocolate over peanuts on a pan.
hey codger.... i welcome your input and perspective on us americanos.... please don't f**k off! i agree with you that we americans have always banded together when things got rough.... but times are a changin'...these last 2 election cycles have even created tensions within families that didn't exist before including my own. i'm confident that we will overcome this but it will involve compromise from both extreme positions and i don't see anyone wanting to concede anything to the other side any time soon. hoping i'm wrong.
RPIJG, i agree that there are religious fanatics that don't understand how one cannot believe. however, i think the number of these people is smaller than most assume. there are many, like myself, who would put our moral and ethical character up against anybody's, but are not religious. and you are right that bush is a fiscal disappointment as a conservative. but do you really think that a democrat would be better at balancing the budget? they want to give more to many. clinton lucked out with a good false dot.com bubble but really provided no leadership to create surpluses, they just happened. until americans quit viewing things like healthcare as an entitlement, we will be running deficits forever. and that brings me to ......
Captain J, i agree that we should all be more self-sufficient and i have done that for myself. but there are those that need help and should get it. i find it interesting that you appear to espouse a personal belief in god and yet would apparently allow someone to die, for example, if they couldn't afford to pay out-of-pocket for a prescription drug. that is an extreme position no different to me than the left elitist saying that religious people are dumb sheep.
anyway, i am a firm believer in people being encouraged and rewarded for using their talents to promote a better condition for themselves and society as a whole. i realize that it takes all levels of intelligence and physical skills to create all that we collectively want. we can't all be "rich" doctors or lawyers, nor should we want to be. to me my roofer is as important as my doctor to my overall well being. so all we can do while we take up our space on this rock is try and treat each other with dignity and respect no matter an individual's "position" in society nor their personal or religious beliefs. that isn't too much to ask... OR IS IT?
Last edited on Wed Nov 17th, 2004 02:07 am by FLAZX5
FLAZX5 wrote: hey codger.... i welcome your input and perspective on us americanos.... please don't f**k off! i agree with you that we americans have always banded together when things got rough.... but times are a changin'...these last 2 election cycles have even created tensions within families that didn't exist before including my own. i'm confident that we will overcome this but it will involve compromise from both extreme positions and i don't see anyone wanting to concede anything to the other side any time soon. hoping i'm wrong.
Tension, even within families is a great start. I'm not trying to be a jerk. You can usually dismiss the opinions of just about anyone. You can't dismiss the opinions and ideas of people that you love. Talking with family, arguing with family, as long as you don't lose track of the fact that you all matter to each other you'll share your thoughts, opinions, beliefs and maybe learn from each other, maybe compromise a bit. For my money that's a helluva a good start to figuring out what's wrong, come up with solutions and then maybe go and do something about it. Common ground. When you can can figure it out at home then go out the front door and see who else you can share your thoughts beliefs and opinions with and maybe learn from. This is not a trivial situation that your country finds itself in. But Americans don't seem to be much for self destruction or civil wars so you ought to be able to straighten this out as well.
The amount of talk about why shrub did this or shrub did that doesn't amount to anything. At the end of the day the only one who knows truly why anyone does anything is the person doing whatever it is. Frankly, who cares if shrub has been listening to God or a garden gnome. Just take a look at WHAT is being done and go from there. Good luck.
____________________
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams...John Barrymore
Do I really think a democrat would have done better...yes, and here is my reasoning.
Republicans are staunch supporters of reducing taxes, however, they have also historically driven up the national deficit because they don't understand what seems to me to be the simple fundamentals of fiscal policy. Don't spend much more than you take in. Bush has instituted 2 enormous tax cuts during a time of war, and has not once... NOT ONCE vetoed any spending bill that crossed his desk. Discretionary spending during his first term was 24% higher than it's ever been in history while he was cutting the governments revenue by 18%. We are starting to see the stress of this type of fiscal policy, we are seeing interest rates creep higher as the governments risk for insolvency increases, and we are starting to see inflation creep higher (or leap if you consider it's never risen as it did last month in a long time). Bush continues to spend money frivolously without regard to what the country brings in. And the $7.3 trillion deficit isn't even taking into account or long-term liabilities, the $7.3 trillion is merely our current liabilities, if you figure in the total liability (current + long-term liability) of the US it comes close to $44 trillion!!!!!!! With record deficits on the table with more to come things can only get worse. A democrat may not have solved the problem, but they at least seem to understand the basic principal here, if you spend more money, you need to raise taxes. The only republican president to understand that was GHWB, and he paid the price for understanding it, when you campaign with the slogan "read my lips no new taxes" and then you go to war, and at least understand that a war costs money, so you raise taxes. He did what he had to, and he was ousted, I don't place full blame on our policymakers, the American people can't decide for themselves anymore how to dig themselves out of holes they themselves made.
When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa — probably later this year — should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?
It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada's ineffectual laws in line with the rules of the new International Criminal Court. While never tested, it lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign leader like Bush could face arrest.
In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime, even outside Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war crime? According to the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by "customary international law" or by conventions that Canada has adopted.
War crimes also specifically include any breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, such as torture, degradation, wilfully depriving prisoners of war of their rights "to a fair and regular trial," launching attacks "in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians" and deportation of persons from an area under occupation.
Outside of one well-publicized (and quickly squelched) attempt in Belgium, no one has tried to formally indict Bush. But both Oxfam International and the U.S. group Human Rights Watch have warned that some of the actions undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, particularly in Iraq, may fall under the war crime rubric.
The case for the prosecution looks quite promising. First, there is the fact of the Iraq war itself. After 1945, Allied tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo — in an astonishing precedent — ruled that states no longer had the unfettered right to invade other countries and that leaders who started such conflicts could be tried for waging illegal war.
Concurrently, the new United Nations outlawed all aggressive wars except those authorized by its Security Council.
Today, a strong case could be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg principles by invading Iraq. Indeed, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already labelled that war illegal in terms of the U.N. Charter.
Second, there is the manner in which the U.S. conducted this war.
The mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison is a clear contravention of the Geneva Accord. The U.S. is also deporting selected prisoners to camps outside of Iraq (another contravention). U.S. press reports also talk of shadowy prisons in Jordan run by the CIA, where suspects are routinely tortured. And the estimated civilian death toll of 100,000 may well contravene the Geneva Accords prohibition against the use of excessive force.
Canada's war crimes law specifically permits prosecution not only of those who carry out such crimes but of the military and political superiors who allow them to happen.
What has emerged since Abu Ghraib shows that officials at the highest levels of the Bush administration permitted and even encouraged the use of torture.
Given that Bush, as he likes to remind everyone, is the U.S. military's commander-in-chief, it is hard to argue he bears no responsibility.
Then there is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. says detainees there do not fall under the Geneva accords. That's an old argument.
In 1946, Japanese defendants explained their mistreatment of prisoners of war by noting that their country had never signed any of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese were convicted anyway.
Oddly enough, Canada may be one of the few places where someone like Bush could be brought to justice. Impeachment in the U.S. is most unlikely. And, at Bush's insistence, the new international criminal court has no jurisdiction over any American.
But a Canadian war crimes charge, too, would face many hurdles. Bush was furious last year when Belgians launched a war crimes suit in their country against him — so furious that Belgium not only backed down under U.S. threats but changed its law to prevent further recurrences.
As well, according to a foreign affairs spokesperson, visiting heads of state are immune from prosecution when in Canada on official business. If Ottawa wanted to act, it would have to wait until Bush was out of office — or hope to catch him when he comes up here to fish.
And, of course, Canada's government would have to want to act. War crimes prosecutions are political decisions that must be authorized by the federal attorney-general.
Still, Prime Minister Paul Martin has staked out his strong opposition to war crimes. This was his focus in a September address to the U.N. General Assembly.
There, Martin was talking specifically about war crimes committed by militiamen in far-off Sudan. But as my friends on the Star's editorial board noted in one of their strong defences of concerted international action against war crimes, the rule must be, "One law for all."
____________________
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams...John Barrymore
I would say yes, provided the canadian government wants to take responsibility for firing the first salvo of what could become WWIII. so i really hope they (you) don't.
RPIJG wrote: Do I really think a democrat would have done better...yes, and here is my reasoning.
"A democrat may not have solved the problem, but they at least seem to understand the basic principal here, if you spend more money, you need to raise taxes"
i disagree. you can't tax yourself out of debt and recession. that would have reduced overall tax revenue as more peolple were forced out of work and cause the debt to rise anyway. no, bush did right by gambling that things will get better and you can pay the debt down later. any of us would do the same on a personal level. for example if your expenses rose because of a short term medical problem, you wouldn't ignore the problem but borrow against future hope of income to treat it.
no different from what the government has been doing. of course, if we weren't the the greatest country on earth foreigners wouldn't cover our excesses but they do so we can run it up some.
i do agree that this must be turned around soon though. and bush has no excuses because he has control of the house and senate. so let's see what these so called conservatives do with this power they think they have.
I would say yes, provided the canadian government wants to take responsibility for firing the first salvo of what could become WWIII. so i really hope they (you) don't.
I think that it's pretty much been decided that Canada doesn't want the hassle.I don't even think what it would cost just to secure the trial venue.
____________________
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams...John Barrymore
FLAZX5 wrote: RPIJG wrote: Do I really think a democrat would have done better...yes, and here is my reasoning.
"A democrat may not have solved the problem, but they at least seem to understand the basic principal here, if you spend more money, you need to raise taxes"
i disagree. you can't tax yourself out of debt and recession. that would have reduced overall tax revenue as more peolple were forced out of work and cause the debt to rise anyway. no, bush did right by gambling that things will get better and you can pay the debt down later. any of us would do the same on a personal level. for example if your expenses rose because of a short term medical problem, you wouldn't ignore the problem but borrow against future hope of income to treat it.
no different from what the government has been doing. of course, if we weren't the the greatest country on earth foreigners wouldn't cover our excesses but they do so we can run it up some.
i do agree that this must be turned around soon though. and bush has no excuses because he has control of the house and senate. so let's see what these so called conservatives do with this power they think they have.
Hell of a crap shoot. I'm wondering if anyone in Washington is watching the move towards the Euro as the primary currency? If OPEC does make the move completely out of the US$ and to the Euro it's going to completely change the landscape at that particular table. To carry the analogue further, playing at a table where the rules are being changed and the chip values change every hand wouldn't be a game that I'd be sitting in on. The absolute lack of any controls over outsourcing is like having to call the pot and throw an equivalent amount over your shoulder. 7.4 trillion dollar table stakes. WOW.
____________________
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams...John Barrymore
