Ultra-Conservative

So I watched this video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGHQ_EvMLEc

And I thought to myself, do ultra-conservative political regimes all have the potential to create fascist types of environments?

The tali-ban of Afghanistan, the communists of the USSR the communists of China, the Sunni Muslim of Iraq. as well as the Positive Christianity of the Nazi era. Each are a ultra-conservative regime, and all have created a very bad living environment for the people under it's rule.

Thoughts on the clip, or my question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

So I watched this video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGHQ_EvMLEc

And I thought to myself, do ultra-conservative political regimes all have the potential to create fascist types of environments?

The tali-ban of Afghanistan, the communists of the USSR the communists of China, the Sunni Muslim of Iraq. as well as the Positive Christianity of the Nazi era. Each are a ultra-conservative regime, and all have created a very bad living environment for the people under it's rule.

Thoughts on the clip, or my question?

---

Dear IDCrewDawg

With proper and due respect I must protest.

While the Taliban, were conservatives, the Sunni Muslims are not, they are fanatical which is not the same thing. Nazi's and Communists both of Chinese and Russian persuasion were revolutionaries with a progressive so******t (strangely the posting is not allowed to transcribe s o c i a l i s t, it comes out so******t try posting the word yourself ) agendas. They could only be called conservative after they had established their self propagating dictatorships and stifled all dissent to protect those dictatorships.

I suspect it is self righteous fanaticisms that breeds dictators. Self righteousness and fanatic belief in the cause are proudly displayed by activist from both the right and left with a near equal enthusiasm. If in doubt look no further than the nearest college campus a place where the term Politically correct came into being. The free exchange of ideas is regulated with speech codes but it's perfectly OK to shout down those you disagree with if they are say Clarence Thomas or Binyamin Netanyahu.

I suspect the willingness of fanatics from both sides to forgo the thoughtful exchange ideas for a set of involutely held beliefs is the real problem; labels like progressive and conservative are far less useful because at the extremes they have much more in common than that which separates them, they become simple reactionaries.

Yours Mad Lews

p.s. obligatory post script stating it is not my intention to enrage or defame persons named or unnamed. Nor do I mean to offend the Dexterous or Sinister. I am in fact left handed.

p.s.s. The clip was cute but sounded a bit like standard political propaganda, or maybe something made up for youtube

I think power breeds fascism. It's got nothing to do with ideology. Any political unit with too much power that isn't checked will end up fascist.

In USA the conservatists seem to focus exclusively on bullshit issues, like gay marriages. The result is of course that their power isn't checked, because nobody knows what they want. But US democracy is very healthy. If they would get out of line in a way the voters don't like, they're fucked.

edit: btw, the people talking had pictures of little multi-coloured babies on a picture behind her. That's classic fascist tactic. Whipping up emotions for your cause in a way that doesn't actually connect with the issue at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

I think power breeds fascism. It's got nothing to do with ideology. Any political unit with too much power that isn't checked will end up fascist.

In USA the conservatists seem to focus exclusively on bullshit issues, like gay marriages. The result is of course that their power isn't checked, because nobody knows what they want. But US democracy is very healthy. If they would get out of line in a way the voters don't like, they're fucked.

edit: btw, the people talking had pictures of little multi-coloured babies on a picture behind her. That's classic fascist tactic. Whipping up emotions for your cause in a way that doesn't actually connect with the issue at hand.

---

The U.S is not a democracy, it is a Republic and it is slowly turning into a socalist country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tazzinnc

The U.S is not a democracy, it is a Republic and it is slowly turning into a socalist country.

---

Don't be silly. That's just arguing about dictionary definitions. There are clear definitions what a liberal democracy is with or without your electors, and USA fits the bill neatly. Democracy is an attitude more than anything else. US citizens feel empowered, (obviously) and can make changes by having opinions. That's the key.

Whether or not it's turning so******t is another matter. The workers can vote in USA, which I guess can be argued is the dictatorship of the proletariat...but then again that would make any western country so******t...so I'm not sure. You need to work on your definitions.

he he so******m is censored. How about communism?

edit: funny. They're the same thing.

Simple point, ANYONE outside of Convicte Felons, in the Unites States have the right to vote, what I an trying to do determine and would apprciate any help from anyone is outside of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, or threating to kill our ..., what other country on the planet, overs it citizens, the right to speak their ind pro or against their own governemnt without fear of being arrested or sent to jail, what othr country on the planet allows it citizens to work in ANY field they so choose, without their government saying no, wha other country on our plantet, allows it's citizens to travels anywhere within it's own borfders at anytime for any reason without passports, or proper identification, makes basic necssecities for life avaiailbe,, never sawa life of eople in the United States, waiting to by brea, toilet paper ect.
No our Governemnt is Far from being perfect, we have alot of issues to deal with daily, inflation, racism, poverty,drugs, murder, rape, kidnapping kiddy porn ect .ect, the big difference with the United States is that WE asa Nation place our issues and problem in the "Front Window" so to speak for the whole world to see, there is no Utopian Socoairy that I am aware of, but i would dispite or issues here, rather live in the United States knowingI can travel as I like where I liie, when I like, buy what I want when I want, go to the school of my choice (not college) be allowed to PUBLIC express me feeling towards our governemnt, pub;icly DISAGREE with the Laws, and any element of our country, without fear of going to jail.
We may not be the greatest country on the planet, but I would choose The United States to live in over any other country I can think of right now for what I have as far a rights and freedoms then any other on eartht with the possible exception of Canada (or Australia) Plus I can write any Editorial I want for a paper in this country knowing it can be published, this I believe is called Freedom of Exoression, with the above stated limits
No the United States is not perfect as a Nation, and far from it, but from what I have seen we are way ahead of any others when it comes to basic human rights, freedoms and choices
Feel free to correct me if I have mis stated anything we enjoy inthis country that other enjoy as well
We even have freedom of Religion and in this cuntry if onereligion does not respect another, we dod NOT start Civil Wars over it, we sit down a human beings and deiscss or differences and try to find commom ground, without guns, RPS, roadside bombs kidnapings or car bombs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tazzinnc

The U.S is not a democracy, it is a Republic and it is slowly turning into a socalist country.

---

Beg to differ.. the US has not been a Republic since the Civil War.. do your history and find what being a Republic seperated that from now.

Actually the clear Definition of this country (USA) would be a representative democratic Republic. In a pure Democracy the will of 50.001% of the (voting) people would be the rule of the land. That would probably be a far greater hell on earth than a Dictatorship as you would have to bend to the ever changing whims of the mob.

As we are set up now, we are perhaps not the most democratic country, the most caring nation, or even the most reasonable. We are however, the nation that allows the greatest individual freedom and demands the most individual responsibility. We allow pot stirrers, troublemakers, and rouges to have their say and if they find followers, we shrug our collective shoulders and soldier on. In short we allow fools to be fools in the bright light of day as long as they allow us to be about our business.

It's true that of late we have started down the path of the "S" word that cannot be spelled out, but we still lag far behind the other western Democracies on that road. To that I say “thank god”, but that’s just my opinion.

It is interesting to note that when people from around the world vote with their feet, it is the "Western Democracies" they flee to, and if given a choice it is the good old "USA" that is their preferred destination.

AS to why this forum allows you to write Communist, right wing extremist, eco-terrorist, Satanist, or fascist without any qualms but feels so******t (s o c i a l i s t) is too provocative a word to allow, I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation somewhere. Any volunteers to dig out that story?

Yours (respectfully)

Mad Lews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

Beg to differ.. the US has not been a Republic since the Civil War.. do your history and find what being a Republic seperated that from now.

---

Wolfscout,

I'm curious as to why you feel the Civil War somehow turned the USA into a Non Republic. Most definitions of Republic are simply a form of Government with a chief of state that is not a Monarch.
I'd be curious as to what form of Government you think the first Republican president (Lincoln) left us with.

Respectfully

Mad Lews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

Simple point, ANYONE outside of Convicte Felons, in the Unites States have the right to vote, what I an trying to do determine and would apprciate any help from anyone is outside of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, or threating to kill our ..., what other country on the planet, overs it citizens, the right to speak their ind pro or against their own governemnt without fear of being arrested or sent to jail, what othr country on the planet allows it citizens to work in ANY field they so choose, without their government saying no, wha other country on our plantet, allows it's citizens to travels anywhere within it's own borfders at anytime for any reason without passports, or proper identification, makes basic necssecities for life avaiailbe,, never sawa life of eople in the United States, waiting to by brea, toilet paper ect.
No our Governemnt is Far from being perfect, we have alot of issues to deal with daily, inflation, racism, poverty,drugs, murder, rape, kidnapping kiddy porn ect .ect, the big difference with the United States is that WE asa Nation place our issues and problem in the "Front Window" so to speak for the whole world to see, there is no Utopian Socoairy that I am aware of, but i would dispite or issues here, rather live in the United States knowingI can travel as I like where I liie, when I like, buy what I want when I want, go to the school of my choice (not college) be allowed to PUBLIC express me feeling towards our governemnt, pub;icly DISAGREE with the Laws, and any element of our country, without fear of going to jail.
We may not be the greatest country on the planet, but I would choose The United States to live in over any other country I can think of right now for what I have as far a rights and freedoms then any other on eartht with the possible exception of Canada (or Australia) Plus I can write any Editorial I want for a paper in this country knowing it can be published, this I believe is called Freedom of Exoression, with the above stated limits
No the United States is not perfect as a Nation, and far from it, but from what I have seen we are way ahead of any others when it comes to basic human rights, freedoms and choices
Feel free to correct me if I have mis stated anything we enjoy inthis country that other enjoy as well
We even have freedom of Religion and in this cuntry if onereligion does not respect another, we dod NOT start Civil Wars over it, we sit down a human beings and deiscss or differences and try to find commom ground, without guns, RPS, roadside bombs kidnapings or car bombs

---

Were you mad when you wrote this?

For a list of places that don't allow religious freedom
http://www.uscirf.gov/mediaroom/pres...annualRpt.html

Nearly all of western Europe allows free travel without papers within the boarders, and very many allow travel inter boarder without papers. I know, I did it. It's a product of the European union.

As far as free speach goes...

Here is a list of countries and their policies on free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ech_by_country

Oh, and no, we are not the best in the area of Human Rights either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_R..._United_States
and to prevent a biased opinion
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

As far as starting a war over religion. It all depends on your point of view.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Quote:

---

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

Were you mad when you wrote this?

For a list of places that don't allow religious freedom
http://www.uscirf.gov/mediaroom/pres...annualRpt.html

Nearly all of western Europe allows free travel without papers within the boarders, and very many allow travel inter boarder without papers. I know, I did it. It's a product of the European union.

As far as free speach goes...

Here is a list of countries and their policies on free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ech_by_country

Oh, and no, we are not the best in the area of Human Rights either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_R..._United_States
and to prevent a biased opinion
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

As far as starting a war over religion. It all depends on your point of view.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

---

No I was simply using my freedom of speech to express my opinion. nothing more nothing less All i was trying to saY is The Unites States has many issues to do with we are not perfect nor anyhwere near it, bit I would preffer to continue to live in the USA over any other country I can think of anf enjoy ALL the freedoms I do over any other nation, just a point of view nothing else and I apprictate the comments you made

Ok, and I appreciate the comments you made. I asked if you were mad when you wrote it because you gave a view that sounded as if you thought your view was something completely accurate and factual.

I completely agree with you on not wanting to live anywhere else. There are MANY things about our country that other countries just don't do. Shopping 24/7 in a major store for example. That doesn't happen in any of the countries I visited in Europe, though I might have missed a store here or there, so I could be inaccurate on that. The ability to own hand guns and assault rifles is a freedom that doesn't exist in some other countries. Those are just a few examples of what I love about living here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

Ok, and I appreciate the comments you made. I asked if you were mad when you wrote it because you gave a view that sounded as if you thought your view was something completely accurate and factual.

I completely agree with you on not wanting to live anywhere else. There are MANY things about our country that other countries just don't do. Shopping 24/7 in a major store for example. That doesn't happen in any of the countries I visited in Europe, though I might have missed a store here or there, so I could be inaccurate on that. The ability to own hand guns and assault rifles is a freedom that doesn't exist in some other countries. Those are just a few examples of what I love about living here.

---

I apprciate your remarks, just 1 question for you, why would you need to own an assault rife?? what prpose in YOUR life wouls it serve, not a rife or hand gun but an assault rifie??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

I apprciate your remarks, just 1 question for you, why would you need to own an assault rife?? what prpose in YOUR life wouls it serve, not a rife or hand gun but an assault rifie??

---

mkemse ,

Actually unless you are a collector with some really hard to obtain licenses you can't legally own an assault rifle. What is commonly being called an assault rifle is a civilian version of a military weapon. the difference being the civilian version is not fully automatic. You can't just pull down on the trigger and empty a clip in 15 seconds. The clip size is limited but thats just silly and unenforceable, the clip is detachable and 30 round clips were legal for so long that it would be impossible to recover them all, no one is even trying.

An AR15 or its equivalent might be used for match shooting in open sight marksmanship.It is very accurate out to 400 meters, with a scope even farther. That might also be useful when hunting (4 legged) varmints. Then again it is a scary looking gun so you may just want it to discourage visits from the in laws or the neighbors.

There might be other useful reasons to own one but I'm blanking

Respectfully yours
Mad Lews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Lews

mkemse ,

Actually unless you are a collector with some really hard to obtain licenses you can't legally own an assault rifle. What is commonly being called an assault rifle is a civilian version of a military weapon. the difference being the civilian version is not fully automatic. You can't just pull down on the trigger and empty a clip in 15 seconds. The clip size is limited but thats just silly and unenforceable, the clip is detachable and 30 round clips were legal for so long that it would be impossible to recover them all, no one is even trying.

An AR15 or its equivalent might be used for match shooting in open sight marksmanship.It is very accurate out to 400 meters, with a scope even farther. That might also be useful when hunting (4 legged) varmints. Then again it is a scary looking gun so you may just want it to discourage visits from the in laws or the neighbors.

There might be other useful reasons to own one but I'm blanking

Respectfully yours
Mad Lews

---

Mad Lewis,

Thankyou for clearing that up for me, that is all i wanted to know,I was NOT trying to insight an arugment just was not sure what he meant, also not surw why anyone needs a rapid fire gun to hunt never say a duck or deer fire back

regards,

mki

I actually don't own any guns at all. It's the ability to have them I was referring to. Why anyone would want one, I suppose for the same reason someone would pay shit loads of money for art. What purpose in life does that serve? Same question, different item, same answer. 'because I can'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

I actually don't own any guns at all. It's the ability to have them I was referring to. Why anyone would want one, I suppose for the same reason someone would pay shit loads of money for art. What purpose in life does that serve? Same question, different item, same answer. 'because I can'

---

Thank for your reply

I've just started working in the UK, and it's the fifth country I've lived and worked in. The previous ones were Canada, the USA, Sweden, and Italy. I've spent no less than three years working and paying taxes in each one.

So I've seen the S-word in action. I've seen left-vs-right politics, rhetoric severely different from reality, blind spots, and the results of gun control, s-c-lized medicine, propaganda, and xenophobia on different cultures.

The most striking universal is that most people, like you posters above, prefer their own country. They will find any and all justifications as to why, though they'll often have very distorted information (or none at all) about other countries. So that's just human. And it's fine.

There's nothing wrong with it, but watching people argue that their own country is the best because of whatever information their own culture feeds them is very much like listening to religious people argue why their faith is not only true, it's logical.

My view at this moment is that the USA was, as recently as 1979 or so, all that. It was free in every sense, politically aware, highly educated, dynamically inventive, morally lofty, and the best country to get rich in, get sick in, have children in, or protest political injustice in.

These things are no longer true, but there's practically an entire industry of spin doctors now devoted to convincing its citizens that they still are true, and that anyone from outside who says otherwise has an agenda.

(I don't.)

And this makes me sad, since I admire that country for what it was.

At the moment, I'd much rather get sick in Sweden, get rich in Canada, get educated in England, learn politics in Italy. No country I've seen is best or worst, but the US is the only one right now that has such a large gap between its self-image and its current reality.

As a simple example, check out these privacy ratings for the land of the free:

http://www.privacyinternational.org/...5telegraph.jpg

Yes, you can point out that the UK rates even worse than the US. But the British realize this. (In fact this diagram is from a british newspaper.) The Americans will see this chart and see it as an attack, try to discredit me or its source. Anything but accept the assessment and work to correct it.

When the American people have the insight and courage to see their country accurately, this may be remedied. But right now, anyone who does is labelled "hates America". That's kind of sad. I hope it improves.

Clevernick,

My view at this moment is that the USA was, as recently as 1979 or so, all that. It was free in every sense, politically aware, highly educated, dynamically inventive, morally lofty, and the best country to get rich in, get sick in, have children in, or protest political injustice in.

These things are no longer true, but there's practically an entire industry of spin doctors now devoted to convincing its citizens that they still are true, and that anyone from outside who says otherwise has an agenda.

I agree 1005 and I fully expect all or most of this to change in November of 2008 whgen we finaly get to elect a President who's intrest is that of the Citizens of our Country and not the Major Corporations in this country

Point in fact, in 2000 When Bill Clinton left office, our government had a $500 billion dollar surplus, we are now over 1 trillion in debt do to our wars we are in enchaged in, also when Clinton left office gas was 1>50 per gallon 8 years later we have gone as high as $3.89 but it has tailed off to more like $2.80, it is hard to fathon that in 8 years that gas could cost almost $2.00 more then it did in 200, but the in 2000 a barrel of oil was roughly $5.00 now in Oct of 2007, it is almost double that
When we have a change in our nations leadership next November, I hipe and expect thinghs to slowly return to the way YOU saw them in the 70's and back to people who care about the commom man here and not the ricj and elite like they do now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

Clevernick,

My view at this moment is that the USA was, as recently as 1979 or so, all that. It was free in every sense, politically aware, highly educated, dynamically inventive, morally lofty, and the best country to get rich in, get sick in, have children in, or protest political injustice in.

These things are no longer true, but there's practically an entire industry of spin doctors now devoted to convincing its citizens that they still are true, and that anyone from outside who says otherwise has an agenda.

I agree 1005 and I fully expect all or most of this to change in November of 2008 whgen we finaly get to elect a President who's intrest is that of the Citizens of our Country and not the Major Corporations in this country

Point in fact, in 2000 When Bill Clinton left office, our government had a $500 billion dollar surplus, we are now over 1 trillion in debt do to our wars we are in enchaged in, also when Clinton left office gas was 1>50 per gallon 8 years later we have gone as high as $3.89 but it has tailed off to more like $2.80, it is hard to fathon that in 8 years that gas could cost almost $2.00 more then it did in 200, but the in 2000 a barrel of oil was roughly $5.00 now in Oct of 2007, it is almost double that
When we have a change in our nations leadership next November, I hipe and expect thinghs to slowly return to the way YOU saw them in the 70's and back to people who care about the commom man here and not the ricj and elite like they do now

---

No offense, but that is an unrealistic pipe dream!

America watches TV, gets their information from TV, and makes it's opinions based on TV. It's a sad fact, but it's still a fact. As a result politicians put huge amounts of effort into that medium. They also see the internet as an emerging platform in which to make their campaign. Don't believe me? Try going to digg.com and type Ron Paul into the search box, see what kind of results you get. You will return 140 pages of user submitted content related to the name. So to make headway in those political venues they must spend gross amounts of money. Where does someone get the money, from lobbyists of course, and who funds them, corporations of course. So if a candidate wants a snowballs chance in hell of being considered on one of the party tickets, they must show they have the ability to get the monetary support, that means being a puppet to the ones with money.

So, now let's take a look at the candidates, and who is doing what on the issues.

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

Take a look at the link, it has a chart with each candidate, and their stance on a particular issue. Most of the Dems are for phased pullout of Iraq, almost all of both parties are for the patriot act, hit and miss with military action on Iran (which would be a complete disaster). Our action with Iraq has cause us as a nation to look imperial in nature in the eyes of the world. Is there really a candidate that could fix that? Perhaps, but they wouldn't have the big defense contractors backing through lobbyist.

Clevernick is right, this nation used to be the goal of many nations. Now that just isn't so.

Electing a particular candidate it '08 has the potential to fix things, but it's taken us 30 years to achieve the disaster we are in, one president isn't going to fix it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

No offense, but that is an unrealistic pipe dream!

America watches TV, gets their information from TV, and makes it's opinions based on TV. It's a sad fact, but it's still a fact. As a result politicians put huge amounts of effort into that medium. They also see the internet as an emerging platform in which to make their campaign. Don't believe me? Try going to digg.com and type Ron Paul into the search box, see what kind of results you get. You will return 140 pages of user submitted content related to the name. So to make headway in those political venues they must spend gross amounts of money. Where does someone get the money, from lobbyists of course, and who funds them, corporations of course. So if a candidate wants a snowballs chance in hell of being considered on one of the party tickets, they must show they have the ability to get the monetary support, that means being a puppet to the ones with money.

So, now let's take a look at the candidates, and who is doing what on the issues.

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

Take a look at the link, it has a chart with each candidate, and their stance on a particular issue. Most of the Dems are for phased pullout of Iraq, almost all of both parties are for the patriot act, hit and miss with military action on Iran (which would be a complete disaster). Our action with Iraq has cause us as a nation to look imperial in nature in the eyes of the world. Is there really a candidate that could fix that? Perhaps, but they wouldn't have the big defense contractors backing through lobbyist.

Clevernick is right, this nation used to be the goal of many nations. Now that just isn't so.

Electing a particular candidate it '08 has the potential to fix things, but it's taken us 30 years to achieve the disaster we are in, one president isn't going to fix it.

---

I agree with you, but ANYONE has to be better then who we have in office now, anyone, yes it is a pipe dream buta dream non the less, i wouls rather "dream " of things getting better with a change, the know nothing will change after next November
Ah, the joys of the "Free" Political system we have

Ahh yes, the joys of a free political system. Dream all you want, I prefer my reality.

let's see what happens next November, it will not be a quick fix, it could be a start

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

let's see what happens next November, it will not be a quick fix, it could be a start

---

Every chance you have to insult the President, you take advantage of it. I suppose when any serious issue comes up, we will know already your point of view.Hate is a heavy burden. Did you ever think how you might feel if your party lost the 2008 election. I bet you predicted a victory in 2004. How did you feel after that election?

If insults to the President were enough to win the election, President Bush would never have been elected to anything. Hate does not work. People don't generally hate the person you say to hate. They do loose respect for the person who hates.

You may not understand this statement but here it is. I do hope it helps you. Just because you dance in the street, does not mean all other Democrats dance to your same step. If you figure that out, you'll know why the GOP won in 2000, 2004 and maybe in 2008. Keep up the good work. You are helping our cause a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

Every chance you have to insult the President, you take advantage of it. I suppose when any serious issue comes up, we will know already your point of view.Hate is a heavy burden. Did you ever think how you might feel if your party lost the 2008 election. I bet you predicted a victory in 2004. How did you feel after that election?

If insults to the President were enough to win the election, President Bush would never have been elected to anything. Hate does not work. People don't generally hate the person you say to hate. They do loose respect for the person who hates.

You may not understand this statement but here it is. I do hope it helps you. Just because you dance in the street, does not mean all other Democrats dance to your same step. If you figure that out, you'll know why the GOP won in 2000, 2004 and maybe in 2008. Keep up the good work. You are helping our cause a lot.

---

Ni Bush insults himself by his lack og interest in things

The GOP won in 2000 because the Election was DEcidedby the UnitedStates Suprmeme Court read your history thisis a FACT the Suprmem Court handed the White House to Bush plain an simple as fat as 2004, if you read your Unisted States History, never in the History of the United States has an Incumbent President Been Voted out while were at War
Please kndly list any President(s) who ran for relection while we were at War and lost?? NONE the only accpetion to this was LJB and he refused the nomination that year which was in 1968, he said he would not ru
I also never mentiond in any of my posts that I Hate Republicans, that is not true, and if nominated he would not accept he made that choice

And in NONE of my posts did i ever say i hated Republicans,I may not vote for them but HATE has nothing to do with that, their views are what I base my vote on not their Party please advice me where I said that, I said i would not vote for one, butthat does not mean i hate tem, i would support Ron Paul, among other and if Colin Powel ever ran i would or could support him as wel
PLease do not say i hate peoplewhen i never said that, it is puting wordsin my mouth as i said thereis a HUGHE difference between simply not voting for someone and hating someone


In 2004 i knew Bush would win becasue we were at War if no other reason i did vote for him in 2000 & 2004 YES but over the last 5 years he has lost my support as well as a good majority of the United States Electorate his approval rating is only 32% right now hardly all Democratic and it has been as low as 19%
Say what you will, But please do not put words in my mouth andsay I hate someone when i say i would not support them

With Gas going on $3.50 a gallon posslby $.00 but spring and summer, our Economy in or on the edge of a Recession, 2 Wars going on, no plan to end either, Inadequte Health Insurance In This Country, to many peole without and who can't afford it, ect ect I have no reason to vote Republican, the Teamsters Union, will not Vote Republican, they will campaingn for Obama, this is NOT a tiny in the hole Union
Would I support Hilary Clinton probably not could I support Ralph nader no to old at 74, Mccain si to much Like Bush
I have not decided who i wil vote for yet, but I can not in good concience after 7 years of what is going on living on disablity vote for someone or support someone who's mainintrest seems to be peole who earn over $150,000, The President in his Stimlus pakcake did not even want to include Seniors, Vets or those disabled like i am but he was willing to give $300+ dollars back to those who earn over $150,000-$200,00 a year, i need the money to make ends meet more then persoon who earns $150,000 a year+
Even Repubiulcans in the Housesaid that Vets, Senior and Te Disabled were intitled to a Rebate, but said if they included them he would veto the bill only to realze that there wereenough Republican In Thr House and Senate to help override the veto, so he signed it out of no choice

My monthly disability check is under $1,000 to which I have to pay rent and I live in low income housing as it is, it also has to pay for Gas for my car, food, electricity, laundry, medication, doctors bills, does leave me much at 30 days?? try it and see i do not qualitfy for Food Stamps my income is $2.00 over the state level YES $2.00 not $200 but $2.00 so i have learned to live on what i have and do without what i can't afford i do not like it but i am physical unable to work
Am i asking for a Shoulder to cry on NO, am I asking for Sympathy NO all i am asking for is peole to understand how increable hard it is today with our economy the way it is to make ends meet on a fixed incme
the our President say "Oh, our Economy is fine and Stable, maybe a bit weak but still ok and solid"
Warren Buffet even said we are in a Recession people do listen to him
Ben Bernake our Federal Reserve Chairman said the Economy is very shaking,
who else has to speak up so our Presidet see the light on our Economy, we have a HUGE Housing Forclsure issue, only after it rattled Wall Strret did WAshington do anytinng Bush even said initaly he had NO plans to have the Federal Governement pail people out, why should he, he did nog do anything for Katrin Victoms why should he on Forclosure he only finally agreed to affer help on foreclosuress when he saw the Stock Market Divedthe last Few months and hestill beielveweare ok, if Berneake feelswe are on the esdge of a Recesiion and Warren Buffetfeels we are in one, i believe these arwe 2 pretty good ecomnoic minds speaking up and Bernake isa Bush Appointee no less, do I respect Bernake, YES he at least speaks the trust, we make not like what he says but he is at least honest about it

Well, perhaps hate may be too strong of a word that expresses your feelings towards our President. I apologize for putting that word to how I perceived how you felt in your mouth. No you have not used that word and perhaps I should not use it either.

You must understand this, the majority if the voting public disagrees with facts you lay out to support you discontent with Bush. Most all Republicans disagree with you and many middle of the road Democrats, especially the new Blue Dog Democrats, think, perceive you are extreme. We had a discussion on the thread about the right to hurt another's feelings. As a part of freedom of speech, it was argued that it was your right to do so. But, is it smart to do so?

Every time you lay out your facts the way you do here, even if you were correct on each point, you hurt the feelings of many in that majority of voters that voted for Bush. They simply wait until it is time to vote again and then they get even with you without saying a word.

See, we disagree on many of the fact you spoke of but, on the other hand, you do have my sympathy. In my opinion you deserve double or triple more of an income than what you have. We need to join together, Democrat and Republican, to work to make that part of life better for you. You and I can do nothing about the stock market. The President and Congress can do little about it either. Why worry about things you are powerless to control?

George Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton were bitter political rivals, where they not? Yet, they made a terrific team in raising money for hurricane relief. They even discovered that they liked each other.

You are still blasting the Supreme Court for the election of 2000. You have a right to do.But, let's me and you try do something get better health insurance. After insurance paid my medical bills to day, the medical offices billed me for close to $200. That hit me kind of hard. It made me feel the pain for people that did not have the extra $200 and had to go without the medical care. I don't blame the Democrats or the Republican for this. Both parties have had ample time to fix the problem. The same is true with Social Security, Both parties, over the last three decades, have had the necessary majorities to be able to come up with something.

Here we are like a bunch of gamecocks fighting over the election of 2000 and whether or not Bush lied. People like you and me and some of the other political authorities on this forum need to march on Washington and threaten to throw the whole bunch of politicians out.

Your a good fella and I wish you well. (But get off Bush's back).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmrs2

Well, perhaps hate may be too strong of a word that expresses your feelings towards our President. I apologize for putting that word to how I perceived how you felt in your mouth. No you have not used that word and perhaps I should not use it either.

You must understand this, the majority if the voting public disagrees with facts you lay out to support you discontent with Bush. Most all Republicans disagree with you and many middle of the road Democrats, especially the new Blue Dog Democrats, think, perceive you are extreme. We had a discussion on the thread about the right to hurt another's feelings. As a part of freedom of speech, it was argued that it was your right to do so. But, is it smart to do so?

Every time you lay out your facts the way you do here, even if you were correct on each point, you hurt the feelings of many in that majority of voters that voted for Bush. They simply wait until it is time to vote again and then they get even with you without saying a word.

See, we disagree on many of the fact you spoke of but, on the other hand, you do have my sympathy. In my opinion you deserve double or triple more of an income than what you have. We need to join together, Democrat and Republican, to work to make that part of life better for you. You and I can do nothing about the stock market. The President and Congress can do little about it either. Why worry about things you are powerless to control?

George Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton were bitter political rivals, where they not? Yet, they made a terrific team in raising money for hurricane relief. They even discovered that they liked each other.

You are still blasting the Supreme Court for the election of 2000. You have a right to do.But, let's me and you try do something get better health insurance. After insurance paid my medical bills to day, the medical offices billed me for close to $200. That hit me kind of hard. It made me feel the pain for people that did not have the extra $200 and had to go without the medical care. I don't blame the Democrats or the Republican for this. Both parties have had ample time to fix the problem. The same is true with Social Security, Both parties, over the last three decades, have had the necessary majorities to be able to come up with something.

Here we are like a bunch of gamecocks fighting over the election of 2000 and whether or not Bush lied. People like you and me and some of the other political authorities on this forum need to march on Washington and threaten to throw the whole bunch of politicians out.

Your a good fella and I wish you well. (But get off Bush's back).

---

After Jan of 2009 when he leave the White House I will be more then happen to get off his back
I do not need sympathy, what I need is for the Federal Governemnt both side to realizr that in todays economy NOBODY can live on $1,000 a month let them try it
i know one story in thenew a few month back, 4 senetators 2 rebulican and 2 democrats decideed to check the"system out" they livedo n Socialk Security for 1 motn, and intrstnig enoughthey found when they shopped for food they had to acutaly open aloaf of brd to see how many sandwiches they could make once they founf food they could adford to make them wth

let us have EVERY Senator and rEpresentative live on this income 1 month, my guess is people lie me will see more income, whe nyou earn $125,00+ or as i said $150,000 you cannot imagine what living on $1,000 a month is like, i think after that test they ran they realizethat, my only question now is will they work to change things or leave them as they are??

byw my cost of living increase for 2008 was $19.86 or 2.3% much and well belowe the cost of living and rumor had it that in 2009 i wil only get 1.8-2.1%

Sympathy is not requested, understanding is

I will not get off Bushes back. He may not be solely responsible for the downturn of the American economy, but he is solely responsible for the many men and women who have died or been disabled for an illogical and unfounded mission.

Just because I (or anyone else) am not in line with him, does not make me a terrorist, or dance in the streets, doesn't make me hate him, nor does it make me unpatriotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg

I will not get off Bushes back. He may not be solely responsible for the downturn of the American economy, but he is solely responsible for the many men and women who have died or been disabled for an illogical and unfounded mission.

Just because I (or anyone else) am not in line with him, does not make me a terrorist, or dance in the streets, doesn't make me hate him, nor does it make me unpatriotic.

---

You are 100% correct in how you feel IDC and I was incorrect for telling mke to get off Bush's back. We have a right to criticize the President and I would have it no other way. My purpose for debating so strongly the points I have argued is that I have some very strong principles in which I need to express.

I have read the treads of a few others that have the same principles but seem to prefer not to share them fully and completely with this forum. I think they might feel somewhat intimidated from the ferociousness's of the rhetoric of the Liberal position on these threads.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are free to criticize each other but the name calling, disrespect for our elected officials, and the continual "gatch ye" game is extreme in politics. Of course, you know by now that I see politics from the conservative point of view. That's one reason I find it amusing to watch Hillary and Obama go at each other using their Liberal attack tricks on each other. Either Obama was caught red handed sending a message to Canadian officials that Obama wasn't serious about NAFTA or Hillary set him up. Either way this one thing coming the day before the election is all over the news and could determine the outcome. Obama is in great protest and Hillary is making the most out of it.

The Liberal Democrats knew President Bush did nothing improper in not showing up at his military post but that didn't stop Dan Rather from releasing papers with lies about George Bush's record, all written with type that wasn't invented when the violations were suppose to have occurred. Just out and out lies have not stopped. It was the New York Times with the General "be-trays" thing, and the John McCain alleged romance, and on an on.

It is a rare thing of the political left to ever own up to the fact that they cannot tell the truth. They don't say much but most Democrats do not like the Party to use these tactics. Many Democrats just think and then vote.

I knew if conservative voices were to participate here we would have to ignore all the Bush bashing or step up to the plate and play the game. Isn't it more interesting to get a glimpse of how the right counters the left.

One more thing. Our government is a Democratic-Republic with a constitutional form of government. When Al Gore gave up his fight in Fl., he knew we were a country of law. It is the willingness of the people to obey the law that keeps our country free. It protects us from the power seeker from taking over and ruling. What Gore was saying was that the will of the people was being serve although he lost.

That's the only difference between the USA and Russia. Russia does not accept the people's vote because they ignore their constitution. That is why both Democrats and Republicans should respect the President if not the man.

Have a good election day.:wave:

Quote:

---

Many Democrats just think and then vote.

---

Perhaps everyone should do this? Maybe we wouldn't elect someone with a personal agenda to office next time.

Quote:

---

the only difference between the USA and Russia. Russia does not accept the people's vote because they ignore their constitution.

---

Would love for you to cite a factual example of this, since it actually pertains to the topic.

Quote:

---

That is why both Democrats and Republicans should respect the President if not the man.

---

I guess you haven't noticed the laws bush pushed aside (4th amendment).

Nope, I can't respect the man, only the position he is in. As that is a lawful requirement for me. Then again, perhaps since I don't align with the democrat or republican party your statement doesn't apply to me.

Perhaps next time you could stay on topic?

Quote:

---

ICD: ... do ultra-conservative political regimes all have the potential to create fascist types of environments?

---

IMO all political regimes have that potential - even Britain's, where we have become surveillance-mad. We face the introduction of ID cards in peacetime, we are under constant surveillance by CCTV almost at the level George Orwell described in "1984" (the only difference is there are no cameras in private dwellings ... at least, not ordinarily so). England (not UK) already has the largest database of citizens' DNA in the world, and once you're on it, you stay there (it's intended to help fight crime), but it's 100% certain it'll be used for other things. You DNA goes on it if you're arrested for all but the most minor crimes - the non-recordable ones, and it stays there even if you're never convicted: even if you're never formally charged.

Is it for our own good? If I have nothing to hide, should I be worried?

Our Government is nominally left-wing, being controlled by the Labour Party. However, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown dropped the socia1ist policies espoused by this movement and moved "New Labour" to the right of our free-enterprise party, the Conservatives (Maggie Thatcher's party - you remember her? ... Gengis Khan re-incarnate). Under this government Britain has become one of the most "watched" countries in the world. How the Stasi would've envied what we have here!

So, I think this demonstrates the potential for any government to go off the rails. Meanwhile, what shall I do? Go to Canada? It has its appeal.


Socia1ism = communism? I regard myself as having socia1ist leanings, but I'm not a communist. I believe in help for the destitute, in pensions for the old, in free health-care, and I will gladly pay taxzes to bring this about. I don't see why USA should be apprehensive about becoming a more caring society, either. Certainly, USA can afford social welfare schemes more easily than any other nation.

Yes, I often think we Brits, as a nation of self-made men, do everything right and the rest of the world gets it wrong. That lifts a huge burden of responsibility off the shoulders of God! Jingoism is an easy trap to fall into. While it's limited to flag-waving and tub-thumping, perhaps there's no harm. But give it its head, and it's another step towards fascism.

There but for the grace of God ...

Insulting Bush ... count me in! (We used to have a regular satirical tv sketch over here, "The President's Brain is Missing". It was aimed at Reagan. Bush makes Reagan look good!)

TYWD

Final thought, You can't blame Bush for the economy. It's a world-wide depression. It happens every 7 years or so. Sometimes they are deeper than others. There's probably another cycle that determines how often the really deep ones occur. All Bush can do, if he's able, is to ameliorate the effects to some small extent or other.

Is anyone heree firmilar with the History of the Jews during their Exodux from Egypt?? yes this has to do withthe thread buti f no one is firiliar with it whati was going to post would be similar to Bush's 8 years in office, relatively pointless??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

i know one story in thenew a few month back, 4 senetators 2 rebulican and 2 democrats decideed to check the"system out" they livedo n Socialk Security for 1 motn, and intrstnig enoughthey found when they shopped for food they had to acutaly open aloaf of brd to see how many sandwiches they could make once they founf food they could adford to make them wth

let us have EVERY Senator and rEpresentative live on this income 1 month, my guess is people lie me will see more income, whe nyou earn $125,00+ or as i said $150,000 you cannot imagine what living on $1,000 a month is like, i think after that test they ran they realizethat, my only question now is will they work to change things or leave them as they are??

byw my cost of living increase for 2008 was $19.86 or 2.3% much and well belowe the cost of living and rumor had it that in 2009 i wil only get 1.8-2.1%

---

mm that is just excellent. That should be implemented in more countries than the US.
I am pretty darn sure that lots of politicians would get more "down to earth" and understand what is happening to the grassroots then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logic1

mm that is just excellent. That should be implemented in more countries than the US.
I am pretty darn sure that lots of politicians would get more "down to earth" and understand what is happening to the grassroots then.

---

I hope so i have never in my life had a hard a time making ends meet on my disbabiltiy check as i have the last 2-3 and evey year my cost of livingincrease goes down % wise and mony wise