BS: And the next US President will be

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:56 PM

It sounds like the "Tweedledee - Tweedledum" theory is in full swing. It must be time to elect a third party.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:49 PM

They win, usually, when enough people get fed up with self-serving dramatization and crony-based opportunism. So they change over and elect someone with a "truth, justice, and the American Way" mind set, for a change. And they get cronyism. But it's a kinder and gentler cronyism.

A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:11 PM

*grin*...thank you, Ebbie...I was trying to decide whether to write a LOOOONG critique of some of these 'interesting' views, but your comment will do JUST fine.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 10:43 PM

I must say that some of you people have a strange perception of the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 09:49 PM

"I have no idea about the Reagan administration's involvement in moving cocaine that you mentioned, but it wouldn't surprise me. It sounds like the sort of thing that would fit right in."

                   LH - It had something to do with funding the Contras in Nicaragua I think. Which point up the fact that you can also finance wars with drug money.

                   So if you want to have an unlimited amount of money to go on whatever military escapade you want, it's imperative that you make sure drugs stay illegal in countries where there is enough unattached capital to buy them.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 09:38 PM

I think that the Democrats lose because they are so arrogant. It takes brass balls to tell the American people how greedy, bloodthirsty and rude they are and, then, expect them to vote Democrat. The posts, on this forum, are replete with stereotypes of Southern and Mid-Western white males, corporate arch-criminals and everyone else who doesn't vote the Mudcat way. When the candidates start listening to the voters, instead of lecturing them, they will run stronger campaigns.
Democrats do very well in local and state elections. That is because they have to deliver services and they are subject to closer scrutiny. Republican "free enterprise" and "rugged individualism" have little mening when it comes to picking up the garbage and running the schools. Even cities in red states, have blue administrations. It is in the larger, more philosophical areas that the voters seem to choose what they believe to be the American Dream.
The Democrats, relly, dropped the ball after 9/11. They, seriously, misjudged the mood of the country. They missed the fear, the panic, the anger. The left was so bust defending the "innocent" Arabs and telling us that we were to blame for what happened that day. Oh yeah, that's gonna play well in Podunk. It is astounding that the Democrats, occasionally, win.

                   Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 08:54 PM

Mike,

It isn't that the Dems blow themselves up but that they have to rerly on a perfect storm to win... The Southern Strategy (which now includes most of the midwest) is tough to crack in presidential elections...

Yeah, I know it may sound simple but really, it ain't too hard... The same old stuff get used every 4 years that the Dems haven't been able to figure out:

1. The Dems are for flag burnin'...

2. The Dems is baby killers...

and...

3. The Dems want your kid to marry a queer...

That's the Trifecta that the Repubs roll out and then they sprinkle in a little current events like:

* The Dems will let bin Laden take over our country...

* The Dems wnat to bus yer kid 2 hours to school...

* The Dems will raise yer taxes

Same game, different elections... Intertwined are pokes at5 anyone who bothered to get a college education, folks who teach and of course, the liberal media...

Never anything new...

This is all it take to get Souther and Midwastern white men to the polls and it works almost to perfection...

The only reason that Clinton busted up the ball game is that he was able to do his awww-shucks stuff just enough to carry a couple southern states, as well as his own...

I don't think John Edwards would carry North Carolina afetr a steady barrage of all of the above listed Repub. tricks...

So, unless something real strange happens, inspite of the working classes disallusionment with the Rebups, enough in the South and Midwest will go fir the same ol' Repub bait and we'll get our 2nd movie actor prseident...

Sorry, Ebbie, and other folks who have this hope that it won't turn out that way... And I hope it doesn't.. The last one was a terrible president...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 06:19 PM

By the way, Amos, you also said: "Religion itself, in its organized form, is often not about religion (except in some of its inner cells). It is almost always about money, and the power it brings, and perhaps sex."

That is a brilliant statement, Amos, dead right, and it deserves a thread all its own.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:16 PM

I believe you are quite right about that, Amos. Religion is just the excuse used to rile up people and get them to go out and fight.

Rinslinger - You asked, "I wonder why they're so successful in keeping it going?" For the same reason the Romans were successful...they have the strength, the will, and the resources to do it...and there is a huge MARKET out there for it! Where a market that hungry exists, the product WILL be supplied...by he who has the greatest firepower to control the turf.

The Romans did grotesque things too...such as their gladiatorial circuses and their mass crucifixions of people who resisted the Empire. Empires usually do whatever works to maintain their control of things...regardless of whether it is morally repugnant or not.

The CIA does not have to disclose its financial activities to anyone. They can thus effectively launder multi-billions of dollars of money into the US economy, and they do. It's drug money, and it is probably the most lucrative single business operation in the world. Wars have been fought over it, and further wars are going to be fought over it, but the national media will never make a peep about the real reasons for those wars.

I have no idea about the Reagan administration's involvement in moving cocaine that you mentioned, but it wouldn't surprise me. It sounds like the sort of thing that would fit right in.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 03:05 PM

It is never about religion, even when it is said to be. Religion itself, in its organized form, is often not about religion (except in some of its inner cells). It is almost always about money, and the power it brings, and perhaps sex.


A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,ibo
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 02:18 PM

MICKEY MOUSE

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:52 PM

"The so-called USA's "War Against Drugs" that you may hear about in the media is NOT a war against drugs at all, it is a war against competition in the moving of those drugs."

            You would think that would be pretty obvious to anyone who looked into it. I wonder why they're so successful in keeping it going.

            Also, do you think there was any truth to the rumor that the Reagan Administration was directly marketing crack-cocaine to inner city black youth in the 1980's, in order to control that population?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:28 PM

Regarding Vietnam: there was a gigantic illicit drug trade being done out of Southeast Asia to the western world, just as there is now out of Afghanistan and Colombia. The CIA moves the drugs.

The so-called USA's "War Against Drugs" that you may hear about in the media is NOT a war against drugs at all, it is a war against competition in the moving of those drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:24 PM

It's so predictable that it's almost inevitable.

Another thing you don't want in a society is a lot of unemployed former soldiers wandering around in a foul mood. It's not good for public order. And that's another strong reason for not disbanding military units unless you absolutely have to. Better to send them off to fight somewhere and get payback on your investment.

Look what a can of worms the Americans opened for themselves by disbanding the Iraqi army after the war. That was a gigantic mistake.

The Romans wouldn't have done that. They would have turned those local boys into fresh legions in service of the armies of Rome, and paid them and armed them well. That was the standard Roman technique for converting "barbarians" into useful citizens of the Empire. ;-) Then you send them off to kill more barbarians for you in some other "lucky" place....

The inevitable end of such an aggressive expansionist empire is this: it finally becomes so huge and unwieldy that it can no longer administrate itself effectively. Corruption sets in. Public confidence wanes. The economy falters. There are shortages of vital resources, leading to riots. The troops lose their fighting edge and their morale goes down. Rebellions occur in many places. The government loses touch with reality, while its leaders party and get drunk. New foreign foes sieze the opportunity and strike from many directions. The Empire slides into decline and disorder, and finally, it falls.

And something new rises out of the ashes.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:06 PM

LH - Yes, it sounds too familiar.

          I was never able to grasp what the US was able to get from Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:02 PM

Oh, and here's the really ugly part of it:

Maintaining huge military forces is VERY expensive. That in itself will presently drive the owner of those forces to either...

1. disband much of the military (which is a very hard pill to swallow, when you spent all that good money building them up)

or

2. launch new invasions of your weaker neighbours to raise much-needed cash (Thus putting your glorious military to the use they are intended for and gaining valuable experience for your troops and raising their morale and making the folks at home feel GREAT! And increasing the government's popularity too!)

You can see why option # 2 is much more appealing. ;-)

All you have to do is make sure you don't LOSE the war.

Any of this sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 12:51 PM

Yes, I agree, it had much more to do with economics than with religion. The religious identities just were a convenient asset in exacerbating the divisions between people...for those who wanted to do that. This has been a favored technique of fomenting wars for a long, long time...while the wars were in fact generally really about control of land, money, and resources.

I have had an interesting time playing computer games of the Roman wars lately. Those wars are always about the same essential things:

land
money
resources

Land and resources are a relatively slow, but very reliable and long term source of money and power. You have to have powerful armies to hold them. Siezing and plundering neighbouring lands is the fast way of raising a lot more money, which enables you to build a bigger army so you can prevent others from doing the same thing to you later.

It's totally ruthless pragmatism, masquerading as a desire to spread "culture" and spiritual truth and raise other people out of the morass of their ignorance and false beliefs. (ha! ha!)

No population is ever very appreciative of such outside cultural assistance. ;-) Consider the Iraqis, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 07:50 AM

"The Serbs have been, in effect, a Christian nation for a long time...both before and after their stint under Communism."

          You're right to point out that the conflict between Muslim and Christian factions goes back hundreds of years, but the point I was trying to make was the recent conflict in Kosovo had more to do with economics than religion. The Clinton Administration seemed to want to go the extra mile to play down the religious aspects of the struggle because they didn't want to be seen as being on the wrong side. I think they were, but not for religious reasons.


         "Riginslinger, taking that analogy just a step further, I couldn't criticize Mexico if it tried to take back California!"


          Okay, well they're trying, in a very big way.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 12:43 AM

It is not the job of the parties to nominate the most qualified candidate. Their job is to nominate the most electable candidate. This has been the watchword of the Democrats for years. They, mistakenly, believe that an identifyable leftist is unelectable. They point to McGovern and Humphry but they forget that Harry Truman was re-elected after he integrated the army, no small feat in the 40's. How do you htink he would handle this don't ask, don't tell nonsense? I think that Goldwater would have been a lot like Truman. He, too, was a very principled man.
Thompson will be nominated because he is the most electable candidate they have Besides, the party needs to appease its base and Thompson is conservative enough for them.
If the Dems were smart in 2004, they would have nominated a fringe candidate with some attackable ideas. Someone like Harrison Wofford or Ralph Nader. This year, they have some, potential, stars. They will, again, disdain substance for style but, this time, their style is more stylish. What a delightful choice, a Negro, a famous
lady and a grieving husband with movie star looks. I can't wait to see how the Dems blow this one.

                            Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 12:24 AM

Here's some info about Kim Campbell, Canada's first and only female prime minister. She won the leadership of the governing Conservative Party in June, 1993...thus automatically being appointed as Prime Minister. Her time in office till her defeat at the polls lasted only until November of the same year.

Campbell's career was characterized by some as "a quick rise to fame from a relatively unknown cabinet member to prime minister." In fact, she had served in four cabinet portfolios prior to running for the party leadership and had more experience than eleven of the 18 men who preceded her as prime minister, including Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney, who had no cabinet experience at all, and Pierre Trudeau, who had served only one year as Minister of Justice. Campbell had developed a considerable profile during her three years as Minister of Justice and garnered support of more than half the PC caucus when she declared for the leadership.

Like John Turner before her, Campbell's term as Prime Minister would be almost entirely dominated by an electoral campaign. Initially she was very popular[4]- and became the eponym of "Campbellmania," just as one of her predecessors, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, was the subject of late-1960s Trudeaumania. For a while, she appeared to have a chance of repairing her party's reputation, which had been badly damaged after a number of scandals during the Mulroney government.

Campbell did extensive campaigning during the summer, touring the nation and attending barbecues and other events. By the end of the summer, her personal popularity had increased greatly, far surpassing that of Chrétien.[5] Support for the Progressive Conservative Party had also increased, and they were only a few points behind the Liberals, while the Reform Party had been reduced to single digits.

Campbell also became the only Canadian Prime Minister not to have resided at 24 Sussex Drive since that address became the official home of the Prime Minister of Canada in 1951. Initially, Campbell's predecessor Brian Mulroney remained at 24 Sussex while renovations on his new home in Montreal were being completed. Campbell instead took up residence at Harrington Lake, and did not move into 24 Sussex after Mulroney left.


The 1993 election
When an election was called in the fall of 1993, the party had high hopes that they might be able to remain the government and, if not, would at least be a strong opposition to a Liberal minority government.

However, Campbell's initial popularity soon declined due to public-relations mistakes committed after the writ was dropped. When she was running for the party leadership, Campbell's frank honesty was seen as an important asset and a sharp contrast from Mulroney's highly polished style. However, that backfired when she told reporters and a Rideau Hall event that it was unlikely that the deficit or unemployment would be much reduced before the "end of the century". During the election campaign, she stated that discussing a complete overhaul of Canada's social policies in all their complexities could not be done in just 47 days (the time allotted to an election campaign). However, a reporter truncated this comment to "an election is no time to discuss serious issues."

Campbell appeared to have troubles relating to "regular" Canadians, and many felt that she had an overly condescending and pretentious tone. In addition, she was criticized as carrying much the same attitudes and positions of her widely detested predecessor. She was frequently greeted by the activist chant "Kim, Kim, you're just like him."

Some have attempted to point to her gender as a major contributing factor to her historic loss, but there is scant evidence to support that assertion. Analysis of the press coverage of the campaign reveals that a constant theme of the coverage itself was its unfairness. Journalists wrote openly about the double standard applied to Campbell, but there was little or no attempt to analyse why this was the case. Scholarly analysis by experts such as Richard Johnston of the University of British Columbia asserts that Campbell's "47 days" comment, (a response to a journalist's attempt to charge her with a hidden agenda) was not the key factor in the vote decline, but was made after the trend had shifted. Rather, the attempt to attribute a hidden agenda on social programs to her in and of itself reminded voters of what they believed about Mulroney - that he would say one thing but do another. Without time to establish a new record for her government, Campbell remained vulnerable to the negative perceptions people had of her predecessor.

The Conservatives' support tailed off rapidly as the campaign progressed. By October, it was obvious that Campbell and the Tories would not be reelected. All polls showed the Liberals were on their way to at least a minority government, and would probably win a majority without dramatic measures. However, Campbell was still personally more popular than Liberal leader Jean Chrétien. Knowing this, the Conservative campaign team put together a series of ads attacking Chrétien. The second ad appeared to mock Chrétien's Bell's Palsy facial paralysis, and generated a severe backlash from all sides. Even some Tory candidates called for the ad to be yanked. Campbell claims to have not been directly responsible for the ad, and to have ordered it off the air[6] over her staff's objections. However, she didn't apologize and lost a chance to contain the fallout from the ad.

The ad flap was widely regarded as the final nail in Campbell's coffin. Conservative support plummeted into the teens, all but assuring that the Liberals would win a majority government short of a complete meltdown in the dying days of the campaign. Canadian humourist Will Ferguson suggested that this incident meant Campbell should receive "some of the blame" for her party's losses, though "taking over the party leadership from Brian (Mulroney) was a lot like taking over the controls of a 747 just before it plunges into the Rockies."[7]

The Somalia Affair took place during her "watch" as Minister of National Defence and became a handicap during her subsequent period of public life. When the Liberal Party of Canada took power, the incident became the subject of a lengthy public inquiry, aimed further at embarrassing Campbell and the PCs.

On election night, the Conservatives were swept from power in a massive Liberal landslide. Campbell herself was defeated in Vancouver Centre by rookie Liberal Hedy Fry. It was only the third time in Canadian history that a sitting prime minister was unseated at the same time that his or her party lost an election. In 1921, Arthur Meighen was unseated in his Manitoba riding at the same time that his Conservatives were defeated; this recurred in 1926 to end his second brief tenure as prime minister. Mackenzie King led the Liberals to victory in the 1925 election, but lost his seat and had to win a by-election to get back into Parliament. Except for Jean Charest, every Cabinet member running for re-election lost their seat. With few exceptions, the Tories' previous support in the west moved to Reform, while the Bloc Québécois inherited most Tory support in Quebec. In some cases, the Bloc pushed Cabinet ministers from Quebec into third place.

The Tories still finished with over two million votes, taking third place in the popular vote, and falling only two percentage points short of Reform for second place. However, due to quirks in the first past the post system, Tory support was not concentrated in enough areas to translate into victories in individual ridings. In contrast, the geographic concentration of support for Reform in the West and the Bloc in Quebec garnered them significant numbers of parliamentary seats. As a result, the Tories won only two seats compared to Reform's 52 and the Bloc's 54. It was the worst defeat in party history, and the worst defeat ever suffered by a governing party at the federal level.

Campbell faced hurdles that she blamed as being insurmountable despite evidence to the contrary. Mulroney left office as one of the most (and according to Campbell, the most[8]) unpopular prime ministers since opinion polling began in the 1940s. He considerably hampered his own party's campaign effort by staging a very lavish international farewell tour at taxpayer expense and staying in office until only two and a half months were left in his mandate. Under the circumstances, Campbell came into office with almost no room to make mistakes. Nonetheless, Campbell's pre-election summer tour did put the Progressive Conservatives back up in the polls to only a few points behind the Liberals. Her finger-pointing after the massive loss has been seen by some as more evidence of her lack of fitness for the position.

By the time she dropped the writ for the 1993 election, she was only a few days from becoming the first prime minister to allow a Parliament to expire. Another factor was that the race was a five-way contest with Reform and the Bloc competing with the three traditional parties for votes. There was no issue like the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement five years earlier to make support for such parties seem risky.

Soon after the defeat, Campbell resigned as party leader; Charest succeeded her.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 12:08 AM

By the way, my impression is that the big machine that runs both parties and is behind the whole election thing in the USA wants Hillary Clinton to be the next Democratic candidate for president, and wants her to win the next election. If I am right, then it's almost certain she will be, and she'll win. I'm not at all sure who they will groom as the Republican candidate (or as Hillary's VP), but if they have decided that they want Hillary to win, it hardly matters...they'll pick some schmoe who will go down to defeat just like he's supposed to. Time to change the curtains on the White House again...the plebes are getting restless.

It would be surprising to me that they would even consider electing a woman to the presidency, given the huge weight of past American tradition against it, but maybe they think it's time now.

We've had one female prime minister in Canada...briefly. She started out looking VERY strong, and then politically self-destructed so rapidly and completely that I don't expect to see the parties here risk another try at that for a long, long time. They'll go the safe route, and pick male party leaders.

The above was not her fault, by the way, it was just a set of larger political circumstances around her, that's all. She really had no chance, in my opinion.

As far as Hillary goes, I have a rather high opinion of her on a personal level. I think she's a very smart and capable person, maybe even a brilliant person. I do not have a good opinion of the massive forces that stand behind her and use her as their face to put in front of the public. From them...I expect nothing but more of the same corruption and imperial ambitions...regardless of whom they advance to the next coronation ceremony in Washington after the votes are "counted".

Just my best guess. We'll have to wait and see if I hit the bullseye or missed the whole danged target... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 11:37 PM

Thanks, Little Hawk. Succinctly put.

Riginslinger, taking that analogy just a step further, I couldn't criticize Mexico if it tried to take back California!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 11:33 PM

The Serbs have been, in effect, a Christian nation for a long time...both before and after their stint under Communism. Tito may have discouraged religion some, but I don't think he ever tried to stamp it out. The Serbs are predominantly Eastern Orthodox Christian, the Croatians are predominantly Catholic, and then you have the various Muslim people in that area as well, which I guess are mostly the Bosnians and the Albanians, if I remember correctly.

And if I don't, be sure to correct me. I won't get mad. ;-)

Anyway, the religious divisions in that population have been VERY significant in contributing to their many wars with each other, and their wars with each other go a long way back. Long, long before Communism came and went.

When the Germans went into Yugoslavia in 1941, they found willing allies in the Croation Catholic community, and bitter enemies among the Serbs. The Croatians formed their own Axis-allied forces, and their own local administration, and they gave the Germans much help fighting the Serbs....they had the back luck when they did that to back the losing side in WWII, but in 1941 the Germans looked like the winning side. That sort of thing happens.

I place no particular judgement on the Croatians for the decision they made at that time...after all, the Pope was in Rome, right, and Italy was allied with Germany at the time. So of course the Croats sided with the Germans against their traditional Serb enemies.

It was as inevitable as Finland siding with Germany against Russia. These things are always driven by pragmatism and alliances of convenience...as well as by traditional grudges between former enemies.

Only Tito was able to hold together all those people and make them put their grudges aside for a few decades. For that, he deserves some credit. He did a better job with Yugoslavia than anyone else ever managed to.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:40 PM

Ebbie - I don't think Serbia could be called a "Christian" nation necessarily. It was one of those eastern block countries that took a dim view of religion for a very long time.

             Nevertheless, the media in its drive to hype absolutely everything made the point about the differing religions continually when the conflict was going on. I don't think the whole thing got a fair airing, however, because Serbia felt justified, I think, in driving out alien elements from part of their homeland.

             It would be a similar scenario if the US decided to drive illegal aliens out of California, and NATO came into the conflict on the side of the aliens, and all of that resulted in California being awarded to Mexico when it was over.

             I think that's the way the Serbs must feel about it, especially the ones who now live as minorities in Kosovo. I doubt very seriously if the Albanians treat the Serbs any better now than the Serbs treated the Albanians before the whole thing started.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:31 PM

Well, looks as if the Repubs think that the Dem. ticket will be Clinton/Obama...

Any thoughts on a Clinton/Obama ticket???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:17 PM

My point is that there were those who objected to the western world combatting the 'christian' nation of Serbia and protecting and supporting Kosovo.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:58 PM

No, I understood what you meant. I don't think the religious elements had a lot to do with it either. It was just a convenient way to divide the factions for the sake of reporting, I think. Kind of the like the Orange and the Green in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:40 PM

The religious issues in the Balkans were not what I was referring to when I said, "I tend to agree." I take no sides in the religious divide there between the various Christian groups and the Muslims.

What I meant was that I agree that that NATO's adventure in that region was a mistake.

But I'm quite prepared to listen to someone tell me why it wasn't. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:35 PM

"- that when we went to war we were on the wrong side, no matter what the Serbs were doing."

            Ebbie - Yes, that's exactly right. That's why Madeline Albright had to discover that she was Jewish in order to make it all right to invade.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:23 PM

I'd have to look it up to make sure but isn't Serbia a 'christian' nation and the Kosovars Islamists? I believe that was one of the objections that the western world had- that when we went to war we were on the wrong side, no matter what the Serbs were doing.


grrrrrrrrrrrr

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:23 PM

I tend to agree.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:11 PM

It was a great windfall for Albania, and a bitter loss for Serbia.

            A more worldly view of the outcome might be, Albania has an undereducated population largely addicted to the ancient superstition of Islam. Therefore they turn their backs on birth control and family planning, and have a runaway population growth.
            Sebia, on the other hand, has a more educated population, more willing to deal with reality and has had a more stable population growth for many years.
            For the world, then, I would say that NATO's adventure in Kosovo was a net loser and detrimental to the planet. It got Monica Lewinsky's picture off the front pages of the newspapers, at least for a while, but it was the wrong thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 12:12 PM

Just wondering........ do you consider Kosovo a success or not?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 10:46 AM

Speaking of spotless, if Monica Lewinski had used a good dry cleaner,....

                      Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 08:03 AM

War seemed to be a big thing with the New Deal Democrats. FDR had WWII, Truman had Korea, and LBJ had Vietnam.
                     If Clinton hadn't gone into Kosovo to get Monica Lewinsky's picture off the front pages of the papers, his record would be spotless.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 11:37 PM

Whether Bobert is right or wrong, his evaluation is useless in predicting the next president. The personality of the candidate is no indication of his ability. Both Carter and Ford were seen to be decent, moral gentlemen who were overwhelmed by the responsibilities of the office. Ronald Reagan's sincerity and likability was undeniable, even to those who questioned his ability and intelligence. LBJ, a New Deal Democrat, waged a war that makes the Iraqi debacle look popular. You, just, never know.

                Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 10:13 PM

When I think of Ronald Reagan, I think of this line from a song I know: "the porch light's on...but there's no one home..."

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:40 PM

Bobert - I agree, Ronald Reagan was the worst thing that's happened to America since the Great Depression, maybe since the Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 06:49 PM

Being a Greenie, I find no fault with LH's logic... The Dems kinda lost me after Jimmy Carter, who IMO, was the best president the country has had since FDR... But poor Jimmy kinda got the job in the worst of times and wasn't "political" enough to use fear mongering to escape his situations... These are different times and the ad-men/propagandists/corporatists have changed all the rules... If Jimmy Carter had had a Karl Rove and unlimited publicly funded--as in my tax dollars-- PR firms on the job he would have stomped Reagan into the ground...

But times have changed and America is in a bad slump when it comes to electing/selecting it's presidents... Since Carter we have had an actor who almost bankrupted our country and three really mediocre presidents who really didn't have the mental capabilities do figure out how to leave the country better than when they came in...

Okay, some will argue that Clinton did preside over a roaring economy but there's no hard evidence that he had anything to do with it... No, economies kinda march to their own drummer... I don't give too much credit or blame to presidents for the shifts in the economy...

I do blame presidents for the choices they make in foriegn policy and budgetary matters and that's where I find fault with all the presidents since Carter... They have all been to political and poor leaders... Leaders lead the country... Not political bases...

As for who the next one will be??? It almost certain, given our history, it will be more of the same...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 05:39 PM

I'm still counting on Chongo Chimp. But I don't know who he should take on as V.P.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 05:35 PM

I think we'll see a Mitt Romney/Tom Tancrado ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 04:56 PM

Paranoid has been described as being a centerist on Mudcat.
If we can't laugh about our politicians, we would have to kill them and who has time for that?

             Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 01:47 PM

I'd say that Ike was a reasonably good president, and a rather likeable man, I just wish Adlai Stevenson had got the chance to try the job. I agree with JFK and FDR were great speakers, as was Clinton in his own way. Clinton was a genius at relating to people, he just had trouble controlling certain...impulses. ;-)

Nixon's many talents were fatally compromised by has paranoid sense of persecution. He thought he was surrounded by enemies, and in the end, he was.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 12:06 PM

Eisenhower's 'military-industrial complex' warning is frequently cited. I'm glad that he did it, but notice that he had had 8 years to warn the people before. And didn't.

It is kind of like the parade of people out of office who line up at microphones detailing how abused they were during their tenure, how officious or ineffectual their bosses were, and all other manner of expose. Why weren't they brave enough to speak up when it mattered?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 10:09 AM

The Hawk is right about Calvin and Hobbs. Every kid deserves a tiger of his own. Oddly, Eisenhauer turned out to be a honest, intelligent president who faced down Gov. Faubus in Little Rock and was the first to identify, and name, the "military-industrial complex. Adlai may well have been the more qualified candidate but Ike has never recieved his due. he may have been late in taking on McCarthy, but he, finally, did. I, recently, heard a recording of presidential speeches from Taft to Bush, the first. Eisenhauer stood out, as did JFK and FDR. Truman was waspish, Nixon was snide, Reagan was vapid, Bush was wooden and, great disappointment, Carter sounded frustrated and rudderless. when you really think about it, we are lucky that any of the people we elect are qualified.

                      Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:43 AM

Surprise! I'm up at 9:32 AM. ;-) Gotta keep people guessing.

Interesting summation of past presidential races, Mike. You're quite right that Kennedy won solely on charm (and good looks)...plus, I think some votes were laundered in that one for the Democrats by the Chicago machine and the Mafia. Nixon may really have won it, but been robbed.

Be that as it may, I'm glad that Kennedy won, although we'll never know if Nixon would have done better.

The one example of yours that I'm not sure I agree with is Clinton. I think he was a strong candidate in his own right, because like Kennedy, he had a lot of charisma. He would have beaten most opponents at the time. So when the Democrats picked Clinton, they piced a winner...but they are quite talented at not picking winners most of the time.

It's just downright incredible that the American public would have TWICE picked Dwight "dull" Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson. Unbelievable. It tells you a lot about what is electable in the USA.

It's the kiss of death in that country to be seen as an intellectual if you want to run for office. That's very sad. I blame it on 50 years of John Wayne movies and other such macho tripe... ;-)

*****

Back to Calvinism. I've been reading more about it. YECH! What a dreadful spiritual philosopy. The mere fact that Ron Davies thinks I am a closet Calvinist perturbs me. What could I possibly have said to lead him to think that? ;-) Well, I guess I am a Calvinist in one, and only one sense....I LOVE "Calvin & Hobbes"! Best comic strip in the last 25 years.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 01:47 AM

I'm glad someone brought up the Calvinist issue. I am Calvinist in that I was a fan of Calvin MacLeash, a pitcher for the Cleveland Indians in the mid 50's. I thought I was frank in explaining that my predictions are not the same as my preferences. Here's the hostoric skinny.
Polls, in early 2004, had Bush's approval rating at around 40%. He was at his lowest point of popularity and it wasn't, just, Iraq. The economy was tanking, there had been scandals and his Vice President was polling worse than he was. But, without benefit of economic spurt or good news from the front, by the time the Democrats had finished shooting themselves at their convention, Bush was the favorite. A Democrat hasn't won on priciple since Truman. JFK won on charm, alone. LBJ won to honor JFK. Carter won because people were furious about the Nixon pardon and, besides, Ford lost some concervative support when he pardoned the draft resisters. Clinton, the only one who won twice, ran against the sour, dour, depressing Bob Dole. That was the only election, I can remember, where the Republican was more qualified than the Democrat. Well, maybe JFK vs Nixon. But look at the other results.
A brilliant, progressive, experienced Adlai Stevenson is, twice, defeated by an inexperienced war hero. Two well credentialed Democrats were soundly whipped by an reactionary actor. A well liked, sitting president is taken by a former CIA chief and the less said about his son, the better. The question should not be, why do I think the American voters will not turn against the Democrats, once again, but why do you think they won't.

               Mike aka calvin

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 12:58 AM

Ron, I am an absolutely free being within myself, living in a somewhat unfree society full of weird hierarchies and customs in which I do not believe. It started in Grade 1, perhaps even before that. I've been faced with it all my life. I'm no more or less a pawn than anyone else, though. I am in the same boat as billions of other people, but better off than a great many of them by virtue of living in a pretty peaceful and prosperous country, so you might say why should I complain, right? And you'd have a point if you did say that.

I know little about Calvinism. What I do know of it does not attract me at all. It seems very dour and strict, and it's sectarian. I tend more toward Taoism. I believe in free will. I do not believe in systems or in a plethora of rules, but I put up with them, because that is the sensible thing to do. A Taoist does not seek confrontation, he learns from Nature, and then like flowing water or like the wind, he finds the harmonious way....he passes by unseen, because he attacks no one.

"by opposing something, you give it strength"

He who opposes a huge social system stimulates from it a massive response, generally to his own utter defeat, despite all those Hollywood movies proposing the contrary for dramatic purposes...there's a long list of such movies.

I can recommend an excellent work on Taoism. Well, two excellent works...

1. The Tao of Pooh
2. The Teh of Piglet

Read those two books and you will have a fairly good idea of at least some of what I believe in.

Here's the rub, though. If I was a really accomplished Taoist, I wouldn't burn up all this time arguing contentiously with other people like you on Mudcat about things like this, because by opposing any of you, I give you strength, and I deplete some of my own energy in the process...to no useful purpose. I stimulate a counterattack of some kind. ;-) No, if I was a true Taoist, I'd just leave people alone to believe whatever the hell it is they want to, and they'd never even notice me. I would not react to what they say, and they'd never have a reaction from me to react back to. They'd be arguing with someone else instead. You'd be arguing with someone else instead.

I would pass by quietly, unseen, doing what is meaningful and joyful to me, hurting no one, and life would go on.

That's what I believe in. "Live and let live."

*****

You said up there somewhere above: "Nobody is in favor of war."

Not so, Ron. NO friggin' way! I have personally met a number of people and heard a number of people who are violently and passionately in favor of war, as long as it is launched on somebody that they hate. They lust for vengeance and destruction. They're in a minority, but it is a vocal and significant minority. Some of them write newspaper columns. The editors of the Toronto Sun, for example, just pant for war. They dream of it. They are never happier than when the USA decides to bomb someone new into the stone age, as long as it is a Republican administration that makes the decision. ;-) The only time I can EVER recall the Toronto Sun not enthusiastically cheering for a war before, during, and after it happened was when Bill Clinton went into the Balkans against the Serbs. They figured that if a Democrat was doing it, it must be a mistake...they just HATE Democrats, liberals, socialists, etc...you know, those people.

Oh yeah, Ron, you'd just love the Toronto Sun... (joke!)

******

Say, I just looked up some stuff on Calvinism. Nope. It doesn't sound like a set of beliefs I would subscribe to at all. It seems utterly wrongheaded and deeply opposed to much of what I believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 09:48 PM

From the one film clip I saw, Osama Bin Laden's wildest expectations for that operation were far exceeded.

A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 08:45 PM

Mike--

1) Please give your evidence that in 2004 the US public was "60% opposed to the war." Nobody is in favor of war. Therefore that's a meaningless statement.

2) Still also patiently waiting for evidence, as distinguished from empty pontification, that Fred Thompson is the one for 2008. It's by no means clear he will even get the Republican nomination. Among other things, he did work for a pro-abortion group--and anti-abortion groups are not exactly forgiving on that score.

Also, as I said, US voters either vote their pocketbooks or vote on the basis of a hot war. In 2004 Bush convinced the electorate ( enough of it) that the hot war in Iraq could be won--since the Iraqi government would be able to take over Iraq's defense in the forseeable future. Now it's patently obvious the public was sold a bill of goods---and the Maliki government will fall soon--certainly before 2008. And the "Iraqis"-- (the Kurds, for instance, who never wanted to be part of Iraq),-- are busy breaking up Iraq.   Do you think once that happens, the US public will be happy to support the next Iraqi government, no questions asked?

So, as you noted before, the time to leave Iraq was immediately after the Victory banner in 2003. Bush was stupid enough not to do that--so all US (and Iraqi) deaths since then will be laid at his door. So anybody who still supports that war will pay the price in 2008.   That seems to be all leading Republicans.

Salesmanship will not save them this time.

Or would you like to explain why it will--and specifically why Fred Thompson, master salesman, will be the beneficiary?


LH--

Hope you enjoy being a helpless pawn.of the $ystem.   Some of the rest of us would prefer a different role. And don't believe in your latest version of predestination. Are you sure you don't have Calvinist tendencies?