BS: And the next US President will be

Subject: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 08:53 PM

Barack Osama

I seen this graffiti on a wall and laughed too much; error or not it says it all. The aging US population with a dyslexic limited attention span swamped with endless advertising would not know the difference, and hey the most likely winner is the name of the person the voter remembers on the day.

Long live Baracks Osama

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 09:08 PM

The next President will be someone other than George Bush and Dick Cheney will not ever get elected to anything again. SO, whoever the next President is--even a dead and rotting dog--will be a giant step up.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 09:19 PM

Someone else, if it isn't already.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 09:29 PM

It's Hillary's to lose, but I am kinda hoping she does, at the Convention. Then, who knows. The Republicans don't have a man in full to offer and the pseudomen have been all punched full of holes by their associations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 09:49 PM

Chongo Chimp! It's time to put a REAL chimp in the White House, not just a poor imitation of one!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 09:52 PM

I'm still in the running, and my platform remains the same. I'll even put it in writing, and here it is:

1. I will resign the minute I'm eligible for the retirement benefits.
2. I will try not to screw things up too badly before I resign.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 09:56 PM

Amos, I have given up all hope that any nomination, either party, will ever again be decided at the convention. In fact, the nominees of the parties will probably have a nine month lead time in preparing to take office, having amassed the requisite delegates for nomination by February or March of 2008.
If the nominee currently holds office, s/he will be effectively AWOL from that office until the actual election.
Yes, I am pretty cynical of the whole process as it has evolved in the past half century.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 09:59 PM

Bill Maher, the smart-ass comedian....who must be smart, because he is finally getting around to saying stuff I have been saying for a couple of years....says that an Edwards/Clinton ticket will win for the Dems...but that the only sure losing ticket would be Clinton/Obama. He thinks THAT combo would be too much for some folks to swallow....I dunno. Anyway, I doubt it'll come to that.

What I fear is that if Fred Thompson runs, all the Republicans will say, "YES!, anyone who is not Guliani, McCain, Romney or Brownback!"....and vote for him 'just to be Republican'.

What I hope is that many of those who have switched to Independent will end up voting against Republicanism in protest for supporting the war.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Alice
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:06 PM

I'm hoping Edwards pres and Obama vice pres.

To see how the candidates match your own beliefs, go to:
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

I actually had Obama come up as my top match, almost 100%, but I think he'd make a better v.p.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:07 PM

Right now I'd vote against Republicanism in protest against the damage that's been done to the US since 1980.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:09 PM

Gods, not Brownback!! Even Kansas hates him!

I'd consider voting Obama/Clinton...or the other way round. I'd also consider Edwards/Clinton, or honestly, almost anybody the Dems can front.

I too have NO faith in the Convention thing. Haven't for a long time.
What do you suppose Dole/Dole would do for the Repubs....No, I thought not either, LOL. Guiliani is a possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:13 PM

I think Obama should pay a late visit to Colin Powell.

But it ain't gonna happen. Powell has sworn off politics, claiming it is "not in my genetic makeup." I sympathize, me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:17 PM

Boy, I sure hope the Democrats aren't stupid enough to run Hillary Clinton this time.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:18 PM

Now that is a HELL of an idea, Amos! You really think the voters would go for it even if Colin did? He never did like politics much.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:24 PM

My nomination. Smarter than Bush, loyal and when she barks an order . . .

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:29 PM

"Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day." As we mentioned, JetBlue is sponsoring a far left hate web site. And I didn't know this until yesterday, but one of JetBlue's initial investors was far-left financier George Soros. Aha! But not so fast.

It seems that Soros has been dumping stock recently, selling almost two million shares. Since the stock is way down, Soros is getting out on the low end, which may be ridiculous, but maybe the guy knows something we don't.

—You can catch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the FOX News Channel and any time on foxnews.com/oreilly. Send your comments to: [e-mail]"

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:33 PM

The aging US population with a dyslexic limited attention span swamped with endless advertising would not know the difference

Don't hold back, sorefingers! For feck's sake!

For the record, I'll take any Demo, but I think an Edwards/Obama would be great!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 11:19 PM

It's going to be Hillary as President and Bill Richardson as VP in order to balance the ticket. Obama's turn will come 8 years later when he gets a little more seasoning.

                                                SOL

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 11:51 PM

I read that, in a recent poll of likely Republican voters, "none of the above" came out ahead of all of the current Republican contenders. Sounds good to me.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bert
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 12:33 AM

Now you know that the Republicans are going to run some well known and generally respected actor who will win by a landslide if they keep their voting machines.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 12:49 AM

"Soros is getting out on the low end, which may be ridiculous, but maybe the guy knows something we don't."

                     You can be sure he knows something we don't:)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 12:58 AM

I would like Edwards/Obama. A great combo.

However. I think it's going to be Fred Thompson.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 01:36 AM

So we really could end up with a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton run then? Maybe Chelsea Clinton should marry Jeb Bush and start another dynasty.

Excuse me if I don't get all excited. The only thing likely is that we'll still end up knee deep in the kack regardless of who is elected to office.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:29 AM

Like it or not, Fred Thompson will be the next president.
People don't vote FOR; they vote AGAINST. Thompson is a seasoned actor, just like Reagan was, and he knows how to play to the camera. All he needs is a collection of one liners that are written by someone else, and he's in.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:32 AM

The person who buys the most votes of course. America is after all a meritocracy plutocracy not a democracy.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:40 AM

we will NOT elect a Republican!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,Darowyn
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:42 AM

Are you sure you mean meritocracy John?
That would imply that the people at the top deserve to be there.
Plutocracy- rule of the very rich seems a better term.
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 08:23 AM

Correct Dave, my mistake there, I got me ocracys mixed up.
G

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 08:39 AM

Even the Republicans out here in Deep Scarlet Land are getting tired of Republicans.

I think an Obama/Edwards, Obama/Richardson, or Edwards/Richardson ticket would be unbeatable. Clinton brings too much "East Coast baggage" with her to play well East of the Potomac or West of the Truckee.

It's not just going to be about Iraq. It's going to be about health care, veteran's care (even the American Legion is going to push that one), education, college costs, and the US falling behind more and more in so many fields.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 08:48 AM

Rapaire,

I agree with all of your comments, BUT...

Since the Democrats can be depended on to pul defeat from the jaws of victory, I expect a Clinton nomination, or someone else that will mobilize the Republican base to vote against them.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 08:58 AM

The Democrats must also stay on target and not be lead astray by non-issues blown up big, such as gay marriage, illegal immigration, and abortion. Yes, these are important, but they should instead hit and keep hitting on health care, veterans care, the cost of education, and how the rich get richer and the poor and middle class are getting the shaft.

Bill Clinton had it right with his "It's the economy, stupid!" hammer. Otherwise, it'll be divide and conquer all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:02 AM

But I truly doubt that they WILL.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:10 AM

Yeah, I know.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:15 AM

Granted that politicians are changeable creatures...and that they all lie...but Bill Richardson has been very vocal here (in New Mexico) lately that he would not give up being governor for the vice presidency. I'd bet he would to be secretary of state, though.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Pseudolus
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:15 AM

"we will NOT elect a Republican!"

Yeah but even when we don't they still win!!!

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Alice
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:30 AM

If the Democrats nominate Hillary, the next pres will be a Republican.
She has too much baggage even for some Democrats. It will be just like the
Swift Boat attacks on Kerry, they will dredge up everything about Whitewater
and smear with it all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 11:49 AM

Well, folks, I am sad to say it, but I think if you elect the Democrats, regardless of who they nominate....they will betray you.

On the other hand, you'd have to be crazy to elect the Republicans again.

Hell of a bind, isn't it?

Well, I guess if I was an American I would hold my nose and vote Democratic next time...in the faint hope that it might be an improvement. Yeah. You never know, right? There's no chance for a third party to win in that country. The vested interests are too powerful to allow it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 11:55 AM

Obama the Sin Laden, with Clinton as Vice-President (Bill I mean, he's proved he can do the vice).

Or how about Abe Lincoln, with Robert Kennedy as VP? What, they're dead? nobody tells me nothin.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 12:26 PM

I suppose several of you have seen the news headline about the Clinton camp's major donors reimbursing the great bulk of a competitor's campaign debt when he withdrew and threw his support to her. I forget his name.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 12:54 PM

So who was it?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 01:05 PM

It was former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 01:33 PM

Thanks. I looked it up and have now read the story.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 02:15 PM

Sorry to tell some of you folks, but the American people do not like any of the top Democrat candidates,

The Republicans have three potential candidates who have proven great ability as executives: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and George Pataki. One of these three will be the next president of the United States.

John McCain is the Republican most preferred by the news media and the Democrats, but his recent stand favoring amnesty for illegal immigrants has ended his viablility in the Republican party.

Fred Thompson is hugely popular in rural America. He is a true populist and therefore will be rejected by the entrenched interests in borth parties.

I'm almost certain the nominee (and therefore president) will be Mitt Romney. He has the best head of hair.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 02:54 PM

"the American people do not like any of the top Democrat candidates"

Who are "the American people", pdq? You and your local barbecue club?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 03:38 PM

NPR reported this morning that a guy in Massachuesettes wanted a ballot option of "None of the Above" and if NOTA won a new election was mandated.

I can fully support that, provided that all the candidates were new AND the current office holder(s) still had to leave office when their term expired.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 03:55 PM

So could I!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: RangerSteve
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 04:26 PM

It's too early for me to decide. I'll wait until after the conventions, when there's only one candidate for each party. Then I'll decide that one is too conservative, the other too liberal, and I'll be too disgusted with the whole thing to give a damn. It's the same every year.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 04:55 PM

"I'll decide that one is too conservative, the other too liberal, and I'll be too disgusted with the whole thing to give a damn. It's the same every year."

Naturally. Standard divide and conquer tactics, RangerSteve. It's a very clever $ySStem you have in the USA, because it appears to offer a genuine choice. We have a similarly clever $ySStem in Canada, but we appear to have 3 or more choices of party to vote for. Same BS, slightly different approach. Same end result.

The real alternatives are not there to vote for. The $ySStem makes sure of that by managing everything from the top down. The political parties are balanced building blocks in a single, money-controlled monolith. They play the "liberal/conservative" game to keep people mesmerized and divided against one another.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,Jaybo
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 05:09 PM

Ron Paul I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 06:23 PM

What I'd like to see in the next US President is wisdom, a quality in which the current one is sorely lacking. In fact, I haven't seen much in the way of wisdom coming from the middle-aged white men who've occupied the Oval Office in quite some time. Perhaps it's time to tell the middle-aged white men that they've had their chance and blown it, and that it's time to choose our leader from different stock. Personally, I'm leaning toward changing the "white" part, but if more folks think changing the "man" part is a better idea, I can live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 06:27 PM

There IS an alternative, at least in the US:

...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 06:34 PM

The electorial deck is so heavilly stacked in the favor of the Repubs that I reckon that my fears of another Clinton in office ain't worth satying up at ngiht over...

Personally, I would love to see John Edwards win...

But realistically, the Dems still haven't broken the Southern Strategy so...

Fred Thompson... Who, BTW, will be a great improvement over the current lieing crooks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:00 PM

Fred Thompson is just another old white man. Fuck him!

NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:12 PM

Ah, but it is mostly old, white men who run.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:44 PM

We have two fine exceptions in the current lemming run, one a white woman and one a black, or at least tan, man. Either one would be an improvement over the current crop of thieves and liars, IMHO.

A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:47 PM

Are you talking the media president or the real shadow president?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:48 PM

Not even Bill Clinton had enough security clearence to be fully informed on UFO phenomenon.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 08:03 PM

Now, Beezer, don't be that way...

I mean, htis is a very corrupt political system we have there an' we ain't gonne get a good president... That is a given...

So all we can hope for is the leastest of the evils... Yeah, if I had my druthers, it would be Dennis Kucinich and Oboma... As a compromise, yeah okay Edwards and Richrdson/Oboma... But I fear that ain't what it's going to come down to... By Feburary it will most likely be decided between Clinton v. Guiali or Thompson...

Tell ya what... If I'm right I think I might just go vote for the County Clerk of the Court who is my next door neighbor, vote against the corrupt Sherrif and abstaine for the rest of the bull...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,Ron Paul for President
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:10 PM

Ron Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:14 PM

Yeah, I would consider Ron Paul... He opposed this stupid war since the very beginning...

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 10:56 PM

Seen on a vehicle in New Hampshire: "Of course it hurts! You're being screwed by an elephant!"

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 10:45 PM

I would predict Obama..I think he would be excellent domestically but oops there goes Boston..there goes Atlanta...blown to smithereens...I don't think he would be good in a standoff, but I do think he would be good in other international facets of the job. I didn't like what he said about genocide...too bad for them...but it is true we are allowing other genocides to go on...mg

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 11:00 PM

mg, I don't understand the Atlanta and Boston comment. What is the connection that I'm missing?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 11:49 PM

I know nothing of Atlanta but being a native Bostonian I don't see it either. Any further explantion about this comment?
My preference is a Hillary/Obama ticket.
At this point the presidency belongs to the Democrates unless they manage to really blow it in the stretch.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 01:07 AM

Bill Clinton.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 01:23 AM

HA! The next President will be Dick Cheney. He's a real Dick. Bush is going to get things checked out. After Dick has had his faew hours in the sun, the President after that will be--yes, you guessed it, George W Bush. (Personally, I think it's got to do with replacing his batteries.)

Join us soon for another game of "Name that President"!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 11:21 AM

Oh dear, and if George kicks the bucket during the 'proceedure' - due to a faulty heart and bad reactions...

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 11:57 AM

Tom Tancredo

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 04:18 PM

I say we try something non human.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 04:19 PM

Wadda ya got now?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 05:47 PM

That is precisely why I suggested Chongo.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 09:22 PM

Yeah, I don't understand why Obama would blow up Boston or Atlanta.... Maybe I missed something???

Actually, I don't think Obama wants to blow up anything but maybe I'm wrong???

Maybe mg would like to elaborate???

Maybe not???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 10:37 PM

I think Chongo did blow up the clubhouse of Chicago's   Northside Gorillas one time...

But he was provoked.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 11:49 PM

Oh, but that's different.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 12:41 AM

Different member of the same ruling elite as ever. What does it matter who the exact person is.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 12:58 AM

Assuming the opposing party gets in, I'm not giving up on the notion that things can be different.

Maybe a president is in office too long. It is my belief that people who are drawn to politics, by and large, go in with the desire to change things, to make a difference. It is only, according to my thesis, that #1, they discover that it is far harder to change entrenched things and #2, that there's a LOT of money to be made if they are willing to go along.

As they say, new brooms sweep clean. We need a new president.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 09:21 AM

In his last few months of Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura was going around trying to make the case that the presidency should be changed to one six year term. I think he was right. The way it is now, the president spends most of his first year campaigning for a second term.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 10:33 AM

I hope folks will take a serious look at , Governor of New Mexico. If you go to his site, be sure to watch the "Stand Up" video.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 11:07 AM

Bill Richarson is a very qualified man, kat... Problem is that the American people don't have a good track record on electing folks who are not only smart but come into the job with big resume's...

Yeah, in a perfect world, we would be electing people who are qualified... Bill Richarson, of all the folks out there, is the ***most*** qualified to lead our country...

That's MO...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 11:49 AM

I had hopes for Richardson, but he is not competent to run the wrold's largest economy. Google Bill Richardson Peregrine, or check this . I'm sorry to say he was brought down by the most foul man in California "politics."

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 12:25 PM

heric,

You say: I'm sorry to say he was brought down by the most foul man in California "politics."

Can you be more specific. There are so many slimeballs in California politics to choose from.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 12:37 PM

Sorry John Moores of Peregrine.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 12:42 PM

Not a politican but a player. Power buyer / broker.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 12:49 PM

I think you're right, Ebbie, that many people go into politics with high ideals. They hope to change things for the better, to make a difference. Then the $ySStem gets hold of them and it grinds them down and beats them into submission. It forces them to compromise themselves. The problem is the $ySStem itself, not the individuals who go into politics.

The $ySStem is a living thing (like all organizations). It was made artificially by people in the first place, but it's alive...like a computerized robot that never turns off. It operates to preserve and enlarge itself. It uses the various people who enter it the way a machine uses a pulley or a gear, and replaces them when they are worn out. The $ySStem lives longer than any of its human servants.

The problem is that the $ySStem has no heart, no soul, no real intelligence of its own...it simply has an appetite, and it has the will to perpetuate itself by whatever means possible. It's a mindless animal, in other words, and a dangerous one.

This is probably true of all large humanly-created institutions (governments, corporations, professional associations, churches, armed forces), and it is the bane of those idealists who attempt to work within them.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 01:01 PM

But then, too, a man has got to know his limits. George Jr. should have declined, no matter how well the table was set for him. He is responsible for that.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 01:05 PM

I am ready to throw my fedora in the ring. Just say the word. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 03:24 PM

The election (if it should happen) of either Clinton or Obama (in either order) would be beneficial long-term, in that it would open up a vast reservoir of potential candidates for the future, either women or "blacks". Then the barrier to overcome would be the acceptability of a Hispanic candidate.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:46 AM

I saw a Cheney-Voldemort 08 bumper sticker...

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 11:30 PM

I heard someone say in all seriousness that the next president will be Fred Thompson....

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 12:30 AM

Hmmmm Truebrit, read up top. There are several of us saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 12:46 AM

Yes -- I did read it earlier. But this was a face to face conversation recently which seemed to bring it into better perspective.......well,there was one actor, maybe another wouldn'tbe so bad.........couldn't be worse than the status quo.....

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 07:50 AM

"...well,there was one actor, maybe another wouldn'tbe so bad..."


             As terrible as the first one was, why would we want another?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 04:37 PM

I agree with Riginslinger. Reagan opened a door to nasty things.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 05:22 PM

"couldn't be worse than the status quo....."

Well, there must be millions of Americans of which that could be said.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 11:39 PM

I really think that the next president will be Fred Thompson. My reasons are few but time tested.

He is an old time conservative who will own the "base" and yet, like another proud Right Winger, his image and folksy speaking skills will charm America, just like Ron did.

His image, to Americans, is linked to his role on Law and Order. There, he is the voice of conservative, practical reason. He is on the side of the good guys. He is the boss of the good guys.

The Democrats could screw up a wet dream.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 12:05 AM

"...like another proud Right Winger,"

            There could be no proud Right Wingers. They're all
crooked.

                "He is on the side of the good guys."

            Whoops! I thought you said he was a Right Winger.

      
            "The Democrats could screw up a wet dream..."

          The Republicans are a wet dream.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 02:17 AM

I was referring to Fred Thompson's role on television as "on the side of the good guys". This gives him a positive image and, in politics, everything is perception.
I didn't say he was my choice. He is my prediction. My choice is for the 76ers to win the NBA finals. My prediction is somewhat different.
That the Democrats could "screw up a wet dream" has been shown over and over again. Since 1952, their election record is atrocious. These clowns were to busy fighting among themselves to defeat the least popular president of modern history, in the middle of an unpopular, unwinnable war during hard times. You can claim the election was rigged, all you like, but it was just the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot, again.
The American populace is not well represented in this forum. Americans, in general, are more conservative than Mudcatters. That's how Bushes and Nixons and Reagans get elected. The chance of a real progressive being nominated, by either party, is teeny.
So, get ready to call whoever wins "the worst president in history", which you will, although the incumbant has raised the bar to new depths.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 08:01 AM

I think the 2004 election was rigged in a different way than the corporate media reports it. Going into Iowa Howard Dean was a shoo-in for the nomination. Somehow Kerry won. I don't think this all has to do with Democrats. The international corporate powers wanted to make sure that if their Bush puppet didn't win, they'd have a Democrat puppet to take his place, so they selected the weakest candidate in the field and financed him.

                     I really think they did more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 08:57 AM

Seems like old times. I am so glad to read Riginslinger's posts. Folk hasn't been blessed by such imaginative conspiracy rants since Dave VanRonk got solvent. The "international corporate powers" are gettin' together again, are they. I've heard they are being financed by the Elders of Zion but I don't want to start any rumors. It is true that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are bridge partners. I wonder what Mr. Riginslinger will make of that.

                Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:48 AM

I think it was Warren Buffet and the lady who used to own the Washington Post but died who were bridge partners. I think any sane person would be afraid to play bridge with Bill Gates.

                   In addition to that, I was unaware that Dave VanRonk had gotten solvent--are we talking paint solvent here (acetone maybe)?

                   And yes, the dead Washington Post lady would fit right in witht the Elders of Zion. Maybe that's where we should begin our search.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 04:32 PM

That "dead Washington Post lady" was Katherine Graham and she would have been ineligable for membership in the dreaded Elders of Zion by gender, liniage and philosophy. Warren Buffet is a decent amateur bridge player, Gates is more of a novice.
The Elders of Zion would have no time or interest in our politics. They are too busy grinding up the bones of Christian children to make matzos for the seder. Most Jews have never heard of the Elders of Zion. They are more involved in amassing money and power and mongrelising races. Sometimes, I wonder when the find time to sleep.

             Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 05:47 PM

Yes, that's the lady. My understanding was, she was a pretty good bridge player, but personally, I don't know the first thing about the game.

       As far as what the Elders of Zion and the Jews are doing, I guess that's their business. But getting back to the 2004 presidential race, I think the financial powers in place thought that because Kerry was married to that Heinz woman, they could turn the whole thing into a race between oil and ketchup.
       The fact that they were unable to come up with the mantra--"The 57 Varieties of John Kerry"--only speaks to their lack of imagination.

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

Actually, they hoped that his ketchup connection might make him easy prey for Col. Mustard, in the kitchen with the cleaver.
What the Jews are up to is much too meaty a topic to be ignored by the watchful conspiricy community. I wonder how we keep giving ourselves away. Maybe, it's this reading from right to left thing.
Kniht uoy od thaw?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 09:09 PM

Yeah, I gotta agree with the Rig-ster...

The media/corportists were scared to death of Dean 'cuase they weren't at all if and how they might control him...

"The Scream" was such a joke... Goerge Bush has made "The Scream" so much part of is act that Dean's 'The Scream" seamed almost amatuer-ish...

Yet the media/corporatists jumped all over Dean as if he was some kinda friggin' alien from outter space...

Yeah, this was a hatychet job by the medain/corporatists... But they have gotten real good at it... Let Obama get a little closer to the prize and they will jump him like a snake on a mouse... Hillary??? Nah, she is one of them... Edwards??? Hmmmmmm??? I think Edwards might put up a decent defense aginst a media/coprporatists attcak but I don't think Edwards is far enough outta of the mainstream for them do do a hatchet job on him... But ya never know...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 10:41 PM

Good for you, Bobert. The Rigger needs backing like a sparrow needs dung. And you can't be the only two paranoids out there. Let's hear it from the fringe. Rational thought is for sissies.
Others may jeer. Bobert, but I welcome you to the fray.

                  Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 11:25 PM

"like a sparrow needs dung" ????

Now, there's an odd simile.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:10 AM

I can't help it, Hawk. My similes droppeth like the gentle rain from heaven, only with a higher acid content.

                Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:32 AM

Mike--

Since you, correctly, see the importance of image, why do you not also believe in the effectiveness of propaganda? If you have a frightened population looking for villains and scapegoats, all you have to do is tell them who to hate and fear.   At this--though nothing else-- the Bush "team" has proven its mastery. In 2004 as well as the runup to the Iraq invasion.

"Here in-- (your town, USA)-- a dirty bomb could be exploded" (strong implication--unless you vote against Kerry).

And homosexuals will marry--which will of course threaten YOUR marriage.

Don't you remember those wonderful days?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 01:04 AM

Remember Bill and Opus's great campaign slogan?

"THIS TIME....WHY NOT THE WORST?"

I miss those guys.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 09:19 AM

"...Let Obama get a little closer to the prize and they will jump him like a snake on a mouse..."


                     That's an interesting observation, Bobert, and these folks who seem to think there's nothing going on behind the political scene are naive in the extreme. But reflecting on what happened to Harold Ford in Tennessee, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the financial forces would just let him run, if they thought he could get the nomination. Just imagine what a bunch of Swift-Boaters could do to him.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 09:31 AM

"What the Jews are up to is much too meaty a topic to be ignored by the watchful conspiricy community."


                   If you're talking about Joe Lieberman, I don't think you'd need to be a conspirator or the member of a community to figure out what he's up to.


    "...Kniht uoy od thaw?"

             And the reason the "h" and the "a" have been placed in reverse order is becasue it's encrypted so only the Elders of Zion can make it out.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 09:37 AM

Yeah, I miss 'em, too, but what we really need is Walt Kelly.
Here's the poop on propoganda. In a free society, everybody gets to use it. It is just advertising. Only the losers call it propoganda.
The Republicans were able to sell an unpopular war because, after 9/11, the country was scared and they knew that the Democrats were offering no solutions at all. It is important that the left understand the moods of the people. The Iraq war is not unpopular because it is morally wrong or expensive. If Bush had, simply, bombed the piss out of Iraq left them there to fix it themselves, he would have been called a hero and reelected by a landslide.
But, does the left understand this? Nooooooo. They are too busy telling us how wrong we are. Telling your customers that they are wrong, evil or, worse, dupes is not good sales strategy.

                      Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 10:35 AM

Mike--

Absolutely right about bombing Iraq and leaving--Bush would have been called a hero.

But you left out a bit about propaganda in this case. As you know, it's actually more than advertising. In advertising you're not usually starting a war by choice--or tarring the opposition as evil, just not as good a product as yours. The Bush "team" sought--with wonderful success--to portray the opposition as unpatriotic. And sought to justify an unnecessary war they wanted by refusing to consider any information which didn't fit with their decision to go to war.

I have to admit something I thought I never would--you've topped me in the cynicism department. I don't think Fred Thompson has a chance. I think the US public is capable of learning--you evidently don't. I think we'll demand more than advertising this time. Anybody who continues to support the Iraq war has no chance--and I believe that he does support it. This time people will vote on substance--the war.

I hope to hell Hillary does not get the nomination--I don't trust her any further than I can throw her. But if the Republican is one of the current crop--the leaders all support the Iraq war--he can hang it up--no chance.

In a presidential election in the US , I've been taught, people either vote their pocketbooks or if there's a hot war, they vote on that basis.

Either way the Democrats now have the clear advantage--and are not likely to lose it. Even Hillary.

Unless of course there is a terrorist attack on the US--on the scale of the WTC-- before the election.

But just warning of such an attack will not save the Republicans this time.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:36 AM

"Unless of course there is a terrorist attack on the US--on the scale of the WTC-- before the election."


                      Maybe they'll stage one, or stage another one, or...

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: DougR
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 06:24 PM

Democrat candidates I would like to see get the nomination: Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Mike Gravel. The best of the Demos? Joe Biden who doesn't have a prayer.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:23 PM

Ron, propoganda and advertising are one and the same. Some of the main movers and shakers in the GOP come from the advertising world.
A candidate is sold just like any other product. I. too, wish it were not so but I can't ignore history.
Every once in a blue moon, we elect a good president and it is amazing that we do so, so often. Well, maybe this war will do to the Republicans what Viet Nam did to LBJ but they survived 2004 so, who knows.

                   Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:38 PM

"...maybe this war will do to the Republicans what Viet Nam did to LBJ..."

               While I'm no fan of LBJ, the result of his political demise brought us Richard Nixon. We didn't see the oval office occupied by somebody who really cared about the welfare of the American public until Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 11:40 PM

I keep dreaming of a president who is NEITHER a Democrat NOR a Republican.

But it ain't gonna happen. They have it all sewn up tighter than a drum. You get Tweedledee or you get Tweedledum.

And they call that "democracy".

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 12:30 AM

LH - You'll get no argument here!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 08:39 AM

LH--

Sorry, but wrong. Do you think Kerry would have behaved exactly the same as Bush in his second term? Not likely. Bush is sui generis. Not that he would even know what that means.

Mike--

You're absolutely right that some of the most effective members of Bush's "team" came from the advertising world.   I remember reading recently--in the WSJ, I believe-- how the Bush campaign narrowly targeted its campaign literature in 2004. They trumpeted No Child Left Behind to Hispanic housewives, for instance, since they had found they were particularly concerned about education. Of course they somehow left out the fact that NCLB is yet another underfunded mandate.

And Bush raised his percentage of the Hispanic vote from 2000 to 2004 by about 5%. Which, combined with the "dirty bomb" and the "your marriage will be in danger" campaigns, the latter made possible because of stupid idealism on the part of homosexual activists--warned against by that pillar of the religious Right, Barney Frank--resulted in Bush's 2004 election.   

However, if you think Fred Thompson, who is at bottom an empty suit, is a shoo-in because of Lawn Order, I believe strongly that you are mistaken. This is not 1980. And the incumbent's party is not the Democrats.

Would you like to explain in detail why Fred Thompson will win, despite his support of the Iraq war?

There is a hot war going on in Iraq. And there's no question which party got us into it--and still believes in it.

Obviously, we'll see how it pans out in 2008.

But unless the self-defeating cynicism of "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" is dominant, the Republican candidate will be hanged by the Iraq war.

And. of course, unless there's another WTC-scale attack on the US before the 2008 election. And though I'm convinced Bush is despicable enough to sell the Iraq war by exploiting 9-11, he's not evil enough to have caused it. That's just the typically overheated imagination of the frustrated Left. Which as usual is wasting its energy--and lots of Mudcat bandwidth--with absurd nebulous predictions.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 09:45 AM

"However, if you think Fred Thompson, who is at bottom an empty suit, is a shoo-in because of Lawn Order, I believe strongly that you are mistaken. This is not 1980. And the incumbent's party is not the Democrats."

                It's too bad we can go back to 1980 and do that election over. There was a difference then, and it's obvious now that the American public made the wrong choice.



    "But unless the self-defeating cynicism of "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" is dominant, the Republican candidate will be hanged by the Iraq war."


         More likely he/she would be hung by taking the wrong side of the illegal immigration issue. McCain finally figured this out and just reversed his course--Tweedledee and Tweedledum it is.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 10:47 AM

The winning candidate will be the one who gets the most votes. How he/she gets them is not part of the equasion. The Republicans could nominate an empty pair of pants and still win. They did just that in 2000 and 2004. They are just better salesmen. They understand the dreams and fears and needs of their customers and, believe it or not, they are as sincere, in their beliefs, as you are.
And, while we are at it, let us admit that compassion and empathy, alone, do not make a great leader. No one, on either side of the aisle, questions the kindness and dedication of Jimmy Carter and no one thinks he was an effective president. (I don't know if you remember the campaign in 1976 but Carter ran as a self describe conservative. If I'm lyin', I'm dyin')
So, unless Sam Waterson is the Democratic nominee, my money is on his boss.

                        Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 11:14 AM

Frankly, I think history will eventually exonorate Jimmy Carter as a president. But the point I was making was that Ronald Reagan was a much worse president than Carter.

                And you have a very good point about the Republicans being better salesmen. The Democrats seem to be stupid enough to expect the public to be able to make informed decisions. All of that would explain why the Republicans continue to attack public education, they dumber they can make the American voter, the better chance they have of getting elected.
                And, if they have to have software engineers, they can just import them from India.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:16 PM

"Do you think Kerry would have behaved exactly the same as Bush in his second term?"

No, Don. I think he would have done a slightly different set of stupid things that served the general purposes of the huge financial interests who control both the Democratic and Republican parties...and who use those parties as a phony stage play to trick you Americans into thinking you still have a real choice and that you still have a real democracry...which you do not, in my opinion...although you may have it at the more local level, of course. Local politics are by their nature more subject to genuine public scrutiny and input than national politics.

What you have at the top of the $ySStem is an oligarchy of incredibly wealthy bankers and industrialists and media people, and your two political parties are an empty construct that they use to maintain their power and fool the public. Those parties are set up just like the final two teams in the World Series at the end of a baseball season. It really doesn't matter much which one of those two baseball teams wins the series...although they both try like hell to win, of course, because there are rewards for winning. The rewards are both psychological and financial. So it matters to the players and team owners and managers who wins. But it is an effectively meaningless event in the lives of the public, unless they decide to believe the hype, and they give it meaning by their belief.

It's the same for the Dems and Repubs...they try like hell to win, by any shady tactic...because they too will receive psychological and financial rewards if they do.........BUT........they both serve the same masters who rule them from the top down. The serve "the League"...same as the baseball teams do. Their business is to keep the League rolling in money and power. They're a couple of arbitrary teams, selected to entertain the masses, and trotted out at regular intervals to battle with each other just like baseball or football teams. And you suckers believe in it!!! ;-)

It's total bullshit. But you all believe in it, because you have nothing else to believe in, right? It's the only choice you are offered.

Look, if a bunch of pigs are standing at the trough, and they're hungry, they will eat what the farmer puts in the trough, right? If the farmer offers them two types of food, then they will choose one or the other....but they are still prisoners, and the farmer is still running the show.

The two types of food you people are being offered at the political trough are "elect a Democratic candidate" or "elect a Republican candidate", but the farmer controls both.

Yes, Don, there are differences in flavour and texture between the two types of food you are being offered. There HAVE to be. If they were exactly the same, the illusion of choice would no longer hold up, and people would stop believing they HAVE a choice! And that could lead to serious trouble...perhaps a total collapse of confidence in the $ySStem. People might begin to feel like helpless prisoners.

Now, Don, I really don't see why you are worried by my cynical opinion in this regard, because if I was an American, here's what I would do, come next election:

I'd go right out and vote Democratic to register my extreme displeasure with the past two terms of idiotic rule by the Republicans!!!!! So, Don, I would vote the way you seem to want people to. So what's your worry?

I would not, however, for a moment forget that the Democrats, once in power, are about as likely to betray the people who elected them as the Republicans are....only they will do it in a slightly different way, because they are a different flavour of pig chow.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:21 PM

Dennis is my choice. All the others, Obama,Hillary,Edwards,...have all talked about going into Iran. Their war-mongering is not off the table.

Fred Thompson may be the Ronald Reagan of the 2000'ths. Americans seem to love their actors.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:48 PM

Little Hawk, I'm never quite sure how I want to respond or react to one of your diatribes. On the one hand, you present it as a reasoned, dispassionate, objective view of America - but imo it is tremendously insulting and, I think, quite demonstrably false.

We have people on the local level who believe quite sincerely and effectively in the party of their choice- the same party that you denigrate as swill on the national level.

pppttttooooeeeee!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 04:57 PM

...as George Burns said:


             "Too bad all the people who know how to run this country are busy running taxicabs or cutting hair."

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:20 PM

LH--

1) Get to know the gang--it's not Don you're talking to, this time. Or maybe I'll let Don answer next time.

2) Your "$ystem"---Tweedledum and Tweedledee-- is the classic self-defeating attitude of the Left. And if you don't like the system of representative democracy, remember what Churchill said about the subject.

Ebbie told you what you need to hear--not that it will change you one iota, of course.


Mike-

I note with interest you have not managed to find time to tell us why the Iraq war will not trump everything else this time. And people don't seem to be that confident of their own economic situation--tends to put them in a "throw the bums out" mood. Starting at the top.

And therefore sales ability of those who like to wave bloody flags of the never-ending "War on Terrorism" and "your marriage will be in danger..." will not be the deciding factor.

But perhaps you have some actual logic to give on why you still think Fred Thompson is the one.

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

Ebbie and Ron...the problem is very similar in Canada. Almost identical, in fact. We have several parties, that's the only difference, so it doesn't seem quite as blatant and futile as in the USA, but it works the same way. The parties serve the moneyed oligarchy that funds them, owns the news media, and disseminates their election propaganda. They have to. They have no other option. So why would you think I am insulting just the USA's political $ySStem, when the problem is endemic in all large modern party systems?

The modern political party systems are largely phony, in my opinion. They're window dressing. Of course there are deeply sincere people at the local levels who belong to those various parties, and who are trying to serve the public. There are here too. I've met them. This is true everywhere. Also, many of the political candidates are deeply sincere people who wish to serve the public, but to do it they've got to play the game...

The game is bigger than them, and it ends up controlling them.

It's a pyramid system. It's controlled from the top down. How? By money. You don't get to vote for the men who control the purse strings, and they control the $ySStem. The same is true in Canada, and in the entire western world.

And outside the western world? It's that bad...or considerably worse.

So clearly we in Canada, the USA, and the UK, for example, are still relatively lucky, comparatively speaking.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:51 PM

For a change, Little Hawk, I wasn't objecting to your pronouncements only as referring to the United States, but to your view of the whole political process and outcomes.

I believe that your view, while perhaps valid as seen by a god who is ruminating on a specific period of history, is not accurate or even helpful on a day to day basis.

If I truly believed what you are saying, I would give up.   Instead, while keenly aware of the implications and ramifications of modern elections, I prefer to take a more focused look.

Your views, imo, would be as valid in 1776 or 1890 or 1930 as in the year 2000something. In other words, not helpful at all.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:53 PM

The reason, by the way, that we Canadians worry so much and talk so much about the American political system is simple...

It's about 150 times more powerful than ours is, and it directly affects the entire world.

That's why we worry about your elections. You'll very seldom find an American who worries about any Canadian election... ;-)

You must expect, when your country is the equivalent of Imperial Rome on the modern stage, to have it critized and analyzed by people in other parts of the world, specially people who live right next door to it.

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

We cross-posted there, Ebbie.

Yes, I do look at it from a sort of point of detachment, just as I probably would have in the 1700s or 1800s.

There was a time when I was young, inexperienced, idealistic, and not nearly so disillusioned about our political systems as I am today, but that time is long past. I still vote, but I don't expect much from it.

I believe in individuals. I do not believe in systems. I wouldn't join or work for any political party under any circumstances I can imagine.

For those of you who wish to....I say all power to you. Everyone should get right out there and work at whatever they honestly believe in, I figure. I have a friend, a folkie and a schoolteacher, who became a candidate for Canada's socialist party (the New Democrats) in the last election. She's very motivated. I respect that and I respect her. The New Democrats have NEVER won a seat in this riding, and I very much doubt that they ever will, but she's doing what she believes in, so good for her.

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

We may have crossposted, LH.

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

"The parties serve the moneyed oligarchy that funds them, owns the news media, and disseminates their election propaganda."


               And good public education might not help to get you out of this situation, but you'll never get out without it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:27 PM

Of course the silly, expensive and devisive Iraqi occupation should be the deciding factor in 2008, but I call your attention to the polls that were taken in 2004. The public was at least 60% opposed to the war and, yet, Bush won. Not by much, but he won. Until the Democrats can come up with a salable anti-terrorist plan, the voters will stick with the hawks. Far too many, on the left, tend to take a multinationalist view and defend the Islamic world that most Americans believe want to kill us. It is basic psychology to dehumanize our enemies. You can say that Bush's adventure in Iraq has weakened our position but, to most Americans, it was better than doing nothing. We were, and are, angry at being attacked. We are in no mood to hear the bleat of the left, that it was all our fault and we got what we deserved. Those, of you, who blame the US for everything from global warming to bad television, are entitled to your opinion but don't be surprised that it doesn't endear you to the public. The result of 9/11 is not what the terrorists hoped it would be. The mood of the country was toward unity and a kind of patriotic circling of the wagons. I've said it before, this war is unpopular because it is unwinnable. Nobody gives a damn about morality and ethics when they are being attacked and, until, the Democrats understand that, they will keep right on losing elections.

                   Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:54 PM

yes, you will find plenty of Americans who worry about Canadian electons..every time Quebec threatens seccession leaving heaven knows what on the eastern side, we get worried. mg

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 08:15 PM

Okay, mg. ;-) Nice to know that some of you worry on our account.

Mike, you said: "The result of 9/11 is not what the terrorists hoped it would be."

To the contrary, I believe the result of 9/11 turned out to be EXACTLY what the terrorists hoped it would be: a united and very angry America, willing to go to war in distant places. In that respect, it was a brilliantly planned and conceived operation.

It all depends on who you think the terrorists are, that's all...

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?

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:23 PM

I tend to agree.

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: 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: 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 - 05:58 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:24 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: 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: 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: GUEST,ibo
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 02:18 PM

MICKEY MOUSE

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:04 AM

Big difference between "the Democrats" and many left-of-center Mudcatters. If there weren't, Democrats would never get elected. What with burning issues, to Mudcatters, of "under God" in the Pledge, 10 Commandments plaques in courthouses, the evils of organized religion, and an amazingly absurd self-defeating conviction that there is no difference between the political parties. I could go on, but I'm sure you can also add more to the list.

And Mike, I suspect you know there's a huge difference between some Mudcatters and "the Democrats" but for your own inscrutable purposes choose to ignore it.

Not that we'd ever want to accuse you of being "arrogant", since that's your word, in your own postings. Heaven forbid.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:23 AM

Mike, I really don't follow you on that last diatribe....about "It takes brass balls to tell the American people how greedy, bloodthirsty and rude they are and, then, expect them to vote Democrat..."

Look, private people on Mudcat may say that stuff like that....

But for gosh sakes, Democratic candidates who are running for office sure as hell don't say anything like that!!!!!!!!!!!! They do not say anything resembling that. They don't have that kind of guts. So why would people vote against a Democratic candidate on account of something they heard some private person say...unless they're simply irredeemably prejudiced already by their own past mythology.

Democratic governments have been just about as ready to go to war in the past as Republicans....maybe even more so. So it IS mythology, mister. The Democrats normally serve the military industrial complex just as faithfully as the Republicans do, despite Republican propaganda to the contrary.

It's just a general impression of Democratic weakness to defend America that is created by people like Karl Rove, and the impression is total BS as far as I can see...both those parties serve the imperial agenda with absolute devotion.

By the way, a significant proportion of the American public IS greedy, spoiled, ignorant, bloodthirsty, and rude, if you compare them to the public in most other western democracies. They're infamous all over the world for that. They live in another friggin' reality all their own. So if it takes brass balls to say it, pal, it's for one simple reason: it takes brass balls to speak the truth in a neo-fascist society.

Yeah, you bet it does.

But you will NEVER hear a democratic candidate with balls enough to state that truth. No siree, they will state the usual patriotic platitudes and rabble-rousing nonsense...as if nothing that ever happened to America was caused by anything except vicious, democracy-hating foreigners of one variety or another... ;-)

So the Democrats, as a party, are not guilty of what you accuse them of. They're just as jingoistic and USA uber alles gung ho as the Republicans are, and the whole world outside the USA knows it, but the conservative movement in the USA has managed to make the American people think they aren't.   Quite a propaganda coup, that is. I think it must have all started with Richard Nixon, who made a fetish of depicting Democrats as "soft on Communism". What a load of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:27 AM

Ron,
   Arrogant? Mois? Cynical, maybe, and scarcastic, for sure, argumentitive, unfortunately, and pontifical, no doubt. But my arrogance is just a guise, a ruse to amuse, a ruse by any other name.
Of course, there is a difference between the Democratic party line and the usual Mudcat portside rant.
These little discussions we have are excercises in faceless arrogance. I dis you, you dis me and we all go to the seashore.

                   Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:30 AM

True enough, Mike. Kind of laughable isn't it, when you think about it?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:09 AM

Leedle Hawk, what on earth would you do without the Americans! Sometimes you are funny.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:31 AM

M'sieur Hack, he eez jus' bloviating, Ebb. No worries, 'ow you say.


A

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:52 PM

oui

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:58 PM

I am in the classic position, Ebbie, of a Gaul or a German or a Greek living in the shadow of the Roman Empire in 32 BC. ;-) That accounts for how I feel about the USA...as a Canadian, living in a protectorate of the Empire...just like the Greeks were a Roman protectorate much of the time. It was not what they really wanted, but they had no choice about it.

Then too, I had the experience of living from age 10 to 20 in upstate New York in a redneck little town that voted solidly for Barry Goldwater, and where "n*ggers", socialists, and leftie folksingers (and other total undesirables like that) were never even seen, only discussed by the good folks there...like one might discuss a dangerous disease. Those childhood memories really stick...

I would probably like the USA a lot better if I'd grown up in the Pacific Northwest instead.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 02:12 PM

Thank you for that bit of critical self-assessment, LH. I wondered things of that nature but thought it would be presumptuous to so state.

But guess what there are (lots of) ignorant alcohol abusing prejudiced "rednecks" on the west coast, too, north and south of the 49th parallel. Surprise!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 02:33 PM

Oh, yes, I realize you have them out there too, and I have them in Orillia, Ontario as well...but are they in the majority??? No. I don't mind them that much as long as they don't totally dominate the local scene.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:49 PM

Mon cher Hawk,

   Bigotry is more temporal than geographic. Racial division is, and was, a problem in every area of our country and, alas, the world, in general. As for the sympathy for lefty folkies, I suggest you view the election results over the last forty years and check out the New England record vs. the rest of the country. Small towns are like big families. They are hard to break into and they tend to distrust change. They are, in a word, like countries. Canada is a beautiful land with great, natural splendor and with as horrendous a treatment of their natives as ours. Canada spends a pittance on defense, compared to the US, but, then again, they don't have to. Isolated from the madnesses in Europe and Asia and protected by the might of American armed forces, Canada has managed to remain the largest small country in the world. Hell, if it wasn't for your crappy weather and your rotten baseball team, I would move there in a New York minute.

                     Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:18 PM

Yeah. ;-) You and a lot of others.

Militarily speaking, we are a minor satellite of the USA. We don't need a very big armed forces, as you say, because of our geographical position. The only nation which can do a land invasion of Canada in any practical sense, is the USA (I don't envision the Russians trying to send an army across the North Pole. ;-) The USA tried invading Canada once, back in 1812-1814, but they weren't a superpower then, and Britain was, so we stopped them. There would be no way of stopping them if they tried again in modern times, but there would be guerilla warfare just about forever, I expect, until the occupying forces left.

However, I think there is little danger of that happening in the forseeable future. It's much more profitable for both of us just to do business as usual...and the USA can get what it wants through economic pressure on Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:27 PM

How many descendants of the people who fought for the North now live in the South and how many descendants of those who fought for the South now live in the North? The answer: One HELL of a lot. That historical artifact sheds no light on current events and issues and does not inform us about relations between (or the nature of) groups of people today.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:31 PM

There were even a fair number of Canadians who fought for the North or the South in War Between the States...for a great variety of reasons, some familial, some political. One of my distant Canadian relatives fought in that war, but I don't recall for which side.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: heric
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 07:45 PM

mine of a couple back was 200

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 07:51 PM

"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."

Really? Somalia!

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 07:58 PM

Yeah! He was smart enough to get out of Somalia.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 08:01 PM

Wasn't smart enough to get out soon enough.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 08:01 PM

Bill Clinton did some major bombing in seven countries. I believe they were Serbia, Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, and Sudan. Not one of these acts of war was declared as such and Congress never gave approval. In fact Congress was never asked for it's opinion. It was "Worthless Willie" Clinton in peak form.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 08:05 PM

"The Defeat of Task Force Ranger
On the afternoon of October 3, 1993, a U.S. force took off by helicopter to capture Aideed. Major General Jim Garrison, the U.S. Army commander in Somalia, had asked for Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to bolster the strength of his fighting forces, but was turned down by Les Aspin's Pentagon. The raiding force — composed of Army Rangers and Delta Force operators — was some of the best we have. A rocket-propelled grenade brought down a Black Hawk helicopter, setting in motion a battle in the streets of Mogadishu that raged through that night and most of the next day. The fight dragged on because Garrison had no tanks or heavy vehicles that could penetrate blocked streets and incessant fire where the helicopter had gone down. Paki-stani and Malaysian troops — who had tanks and armored vehicles — took hours to decide if they would brave the streets of Mogadishu to rescue the trapped Americans.

Eighteen Americans died in the battle and dozens were wounded. Television footage showed a howling mob dragging the body of a dead American soldier through the streets. Two days later, Clinton announced a reinforcement of the Somalia deployment, this time — he said — under American command. He didn't even know the original force had been under Garrison's command. Shortly thereafter, Clinton announced that American troops would withdraw from Somalia by March 1994."

Let's not whitewash Slick Willie, ok?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 08:23 PM

Unless one reads the entire article, from which this excerpt is cut, one may not be aware that 'Slick Willie' inherited the problem from the sagacious (?) GHW Bush, and the entire operation was under the UN banner.

Don't whitewash but let's not slime, either.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 09:13 PM

Here's a link to the entire article. You try reading it. I already did. Don't whitewash Clinton in this.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 09:15 PM

AND, Clinton is on record as saying he felt Somalia was the biggest failure of his administration. So please go argue with Slick.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 09:58 PM

Hey, I always said the Democrats like making war just as much as the Republicans do, didn't I? ;-) That's why it's such a laugh when the Republicans pretend to be more macho, like John Wayne or Clint Eastwood or Arnold with the big muscles. It's an equally big laugh when the Democrats pretend that only Republicans are reckless and immature, and only Republicans get the country into stupid wars.

They both (at the top level, I mean) serve the same grand imperial policy. Never forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 10:46 PM

Hey, Hawk,

I wanna hear some more about this "..grand imperial policy". Where is Jim Garrison when we need him? If you are trying to say that wealth has a disproportionate influence on both parties, what, else, is new? Wealth has the means to deliver its message but, so what? Underfunded candidates with a salable idea can win the voters. Voters are not the mindless sheep you guys think they are. If the Democrats had run an issue candidate, like Nader, they might have won. Check the results and see who, actually, voted in 2004. It, sure, wasn't the left. Low voter turnout means that an issue oriented candidate will draw his supporters out. I don't blame the voters for Bush. The Democrats thumbed their noses at their own base and nominated an empty suit whose best asset was that he wasn't Bush.
It was insulting to Nader's positions to suggest that America wouldn't agree. In fact, not only would there have been a national debate on issues, dear to liberals, all those who favor Universal Health Care, would have gone to polls with bells on.

                      Mike

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:17 PM

The National Review whence the article, has a different slant than many other resources.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:20 PM

" If the Democrats had run an issue candidate, like Nader, they might have won."

Agreed. That's probably what they should have done, Mike, but they didn't, and they very seldom will. I think that's because the big interests that stand behind the Dems and Repubs don't want an issue candidate like that in front of the voters...except on certain rare occasions when they want one specifically so he can lose on his issue, thus killing it dead for awhile.

They want business as usual, and they do not want to address the kind of real issues that might change things too much.

When I say that America has a grand imperial policy, I am simply stating what happens with any great power at the height of its power and influence. Before the USA it was Great Britain. Some short term upstarts arose in Germany, Japan, and Italy, but they overplayed their hand, gambled, and lost, so their hour of glory was very short indeed. No thousand year Reich. ;-)

The Russians have also been practicing grand imperial policy since the end of WWII (if not long before), but the USA outproduced them, so their policy didn't do as well.

Saddam Hussein was practicing petty imperial policy (it no doubt seemed grand to him), until he got in the way of USA grand imperial policy.

Any country that arms itself to the teeth, gets into a lot of foreign wars, and engages in occupations of other people's land is engaging in imperial policy on some scale. In the case of the USA...they're doing it on the biggest scale now, and have been since the end of WWII, with Russia as the runner-up. The UK tags along with the USA, thus retaining some of the perks it once had when it owned about half of the world map.

The British and the Romans, so far, have been the world's most successful practitioners of grand imperial policy...they did it the best, and managed it for the longest.

The USA is simply the latest. As such, I like to criticize them. If it was 100 years ago at this moment, I'd probably be a lot more inclined to criticize the English...although, America was already well on the way with their opportunistic wars with countries like Mexico and Spain.

Anyway, I do not say that the USA is the only one who does it...by no means! They just happen to be the biggest imperial power right now, and I don't much like imperial powers, because they always pretend they're conquering for all kinds of wonderful idealistic reasons. They're not. They're doing it for the money, the resources, and the power. Just like Rome did.

I would have loved to see the Democrats run Ralph Nader. I wish.

"The Democrats thumbed their noses at their own base and nominated an empty suit whose best asset was that he wasn't Bush."

Yeah, I agree. That's because they don't give a shit about their base or what their base truly wants. They care about the established policy which I alluded to. They are not serving the people, the people are serving them. They pick the "suit"....you vote for the suit...or you don't.

The problem is very similar in Canada. The $ySStem, as it is, does not serve the people, it serves itself, and it has elections mainly so that the people won't realize how completely they've been had. They can't vote the $ySStem OUT!

(But really, most people here do realize it. Hence the general cynicism about what goes on in "Ottawa" or in "Washington". Just listen to the standard jokes about politicians anywhere.   Only...hope springs anew in people with every new election call. They figure it'll be different this time. It's kind of touching. I watch it with interest, and I vote with a roll of my eyes...usually for the candidate I figure is most independent and least beholden to the powers that be. Such candidates are NOT likely to win, because they usually don't have much financial backing.)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:21 PM

By the way, a significant proportion of the American public IS greedy, spoiled, ignorant, bloodthirsty, and rude, if you compare them to the public in most other western democracies. They're infamous all over the world for that. They live in another friggin' reality all their own.

------
And what possible good comes out of speaking like this? Assuming that would be a goal as opposed to spreading hatred. I do not, in my daily encounters, meet people who are bloodthirsty or even rude. mg

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:27 PM

True. But when Clinton said he thought Somalia was his administrations and his own biggest failure, I doubt he was quoting the National Review.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:33 PM

I don't meet them much either. I don't hang out at the right places, I guess...

You're making an error, mg, to take what I said as having anything to do with you personally...or with a lot of people that you know.

I said, "a significant portion" of the American public. That could be anything from 10% of the public on up, I figure. Do you doubt that 10% of your public is ignorant, greedy, etc.? I don't. It's the "nuke 'em till they glow" types I am referring to. They exist. More of them exist in the USA, per capita, than in my own country, and there's no doubt about that whatsoever. Look at some polls if you don't think so. The USA has a more politically aggressive population, far more inclined toward violence as a way of solving international issues than most western populations are. I've lived in both countries (USA and Canada), and I can see the difference quite easily. It's blatantly obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:34 PM

Mike-

As long as you don't expect to be taken seriously--in totally off-base predictions like Fred Thompson winning in 20008, to pick a purely theoretical example.

Now that we know you just like to run off at the mouth just to see the words on your screen, I'm sure we'll all get along fine.

So I won't bother asking again for some actual evidence for your prediction.

As for my reasons the Republicans will lose the presidency in 2008-- (unless they were to pick a sensible person like Lugar)-- they center on the fact that the 1980 situation is actually a good parallel--but this time the shoe is on the other foot. Electorate disgusted with the leadership provided by the president--in a huge number of areas---so takes it out on his party.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 12:34 AM

Little Hawk, I can hardly begin to tell you how utterly I reject your hypothesis of government.

I assume you are saying that 'they' are a hydra-headed monster that is replenished annually by more tentacled venomous beings. But your "they" is an amorphous creation that has little - very little - to do with real human beings.

And it is real human beings who are in government. Human beings with ideals and pragmatics, human beings who are inefficient and shortsighted as well as on blessed occasions capable of glorious plans and outcomes, human beings who try and fail and sometimes stop trying, human beings who are selfish and sometimes selfless, human beings who stumble and fall, human beings who struggle on valiantly.

You prefer to believe that these same human beings are vicious characters interested only in power and wealth. I assume you would say that they enter government with fairly clean skirts but then discover how the "real world" works and abandon everything except the pretense of service.

No. I reject it.

Not only that- I think my understanding of human beings in government is greater than yours because it is more believable.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 02:01 AM

Point to something in the following article that smacks of serving the public interest. The article is painfully accurate:

The top ten advances towards tyranny in the United States during the tenure of the Bush administration...

1) The USA Patriot Act

The Patriot Act was the boiler plate from which all subsequent attacks on the Constitution were formed.

2) Total Information Awareness

"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database," infamously wrote New York Times writer William Safire , announcing the birth of Total Information Awareness, a kind of Echelon on steroids introduced a year after 9/11.

3) USA Patriot Act II

...The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship....   The second Patriot Act was a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves.

4) Military Commissions Act

Slamming the final nail in the coffin of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror in passing the Military Commissions Act and officially ending Habeas Corpus.

5) John Warner Defense Authorization Act

The Bush Junta quietly "tooled up" to utilize the U.S. military in engaging American dissidents after the next big crisis, with a frightening and overlooked piece of legislation that was passed alongside the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act , which greased the skids for armed confrontation and abolishes posse comitatus.

6) Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program

"Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials," reported the New York Times on December 16, 2005

7) Expansion of Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program

The administration has a 6 month window in which to impose any surveillance program it chooses and that program will go unchallenged and remain legally binding in perpetuity - it cannot be revoked. Under the definitions of the legislation, Bush has been granted absolute dictator status for a minimum of 6 months.

If he so chooses, and so long as it's implemented within the next half year, Bush could build a database of every website visited by every American - and the policy would be immune from Congressional challenge even after the "surveillance gap" legislation reaches its sunset

8) Martial Law Presidential Decision Directive 51

New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power .

9) Destruction of the Dollar

Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no,".

Stiglitz agreed that the process of hijacking and looting key infrastructure on the part of the IMF and World Bank, as an offshoot of predatory globalization, had now moved from the third world to Europe, the United States and Canada.

10) Amnesty & The North American Union

The open plan to merge the US with Mexico and Canada ... has finally been reported on by mainstream news outlets.

The framework on which the American Union is being pegged is the NAFTA Super Highway, a four football-fields-wide leviathan that stretches from southern Mexico through the US up to Montreal Canada .Coupled with Bush's blanket amnesty program, the Pan American Union is the final jigsaw piece for the total dismantling of America as we know it.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/tyranny_timeline_recent_history_police_state_legislation.htm

If the above actions by Bush are so odious to Democrats, why aren't the actions being repealed? Because "good" people are NOT in charge. And none of this was done through "incompetence." Americans elected Democrats in 2006, hoping to stop the destruction of the country, but the destruction has accelerated. Democrats expect to take over the upper levels of government now, so they're doing nothing to reverse what the Bush regime has done. The Democratic leadership wants the social control the spying will lead to, and they want the dictatorial powers.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 11:30 AM

"True. But when Clinton said he thought Somalia was his administrations and his own biggest failure, I doubt he was quoting the National Review."


         But obviously he couldn't admit that Kosovo was his administration's biggest failure, because it was engineered to get the public's attention off of Monica Lewinsky.

         And the best thing he could have done about Somalia was to never have gone there in the first place, which is probably why nobody is in such a big rush to help with problems in Africa today.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 11:55 AM

Yeah, observer, that's one heck of a tool box full of goodies that Bush and Co. have worked so hard to accumulate only to very possibly having to turn over to Hillary Clinton...

Ouch!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 12:11 PM

the best thing he (Clinton) could have done about Somalia was to never have gone there in the first place

I think you will find that George (H.W.) Bush was the one who authorized troops be sent to Samalia.

Otherwise, you may have a point. Claiming that "Somalia was my biggest failure" is classic Clinton. The Kosovo disaster will be felt for generation. An order of magnitude worse the the nosebleed in Samalia. It's a bit like pleeding guilty to grafitti in one area so the cops will not see you as a suspect in the warehouse fire in another part of town.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 02:17 PM

I agree with you on that, pdq. The Kosovo thing was by far the bigger disaster, and for the entire Balkan region.

You see, I do not look at these things on a partisan basis. I do not have to line up on issues to support Democrats or Republicans one against the other....because I find no reason to support either one of them. That sets me apart from the many Americans who post here. They feel obliged (usually) to support either one of those parties...or the other. I don't.


Ebbie - I agree 100% with your estimation of the good character and excellent intentions of many, many people who go into politics and serve in government. I've known a good many such people, and they often have excellent intentions and high ideals. They do try to serve the public.

The reason I feel that their efforts are frustrated is not because they lose their ideals or become "bad people". No. It is because the government itself is an institution that must bow to immense financial forces that are in play in the world and that control the ongoing agenda. Those financial forces are not subject to much influence through anyone's votes. They are self-perpetuating, and their basic impulse is to survive...and to enlarge themselves...rather like the basic impulse of any hungry animal.

That's why you have wars over oil, not because politicians are evil people, but because the huge situation they find themselves in is way bigger than they are. That's why you have enormous poverty that cannot be solved while the world spends trillions of dollars arming itself.

Financial empires are driven by an aggressive need to expand, and they do so at the cost of the weaker parties around them. From that stems war, homelessness, poverty, despair, terrorist responses, and more war.

It's money that runs what's happening, not the politicians you elect. They are forced to bow to the power of money.

It's a game. It makes total sense inside its own playing field. It makes no sense outside it. Everyone ends up playing the game or being crushed by it...because the game is bigger than they are, and it's inescapable except by dying. The game, being not a very sane one, eventually ends up in a series of catastrophes, which are then rapidly followed by a new game of the same type.

And along the way, we do gradually improve various things in our societies...mostly because of the hard work and dedication of those good people in government that you mentioned. I do not fear politicians, Ebbie, nearly as much as I fear the global big business forces who pay the politicians' salaries, and who outlast the elected officials every time.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Mike Miller
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 05:42 PM

My sense of humor does not mean that I don't think. Quite, the contrary. The most appaling aspect of the modern left is the apparent inability to laugh at its own image and pronouncements. Back in my day, he said crone-alogically, radicals like Dave VonRonk and Roy Berkeley wrote the Boss's Songbook to parody their own politics. Radicals, today, are as serious as any other true believers. Their fervor has cost them perspective and whatever communication skills they may have, at one time, possessed.
Besides, I said that racial and ethnic division is as much with us as ever and I do mean all of us. Yes, friends, I mean that there is as much racial division on the left as the right. What hath God wrought? What, indeed?

                           Mike

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

"...I mean that there is as much racial division on the left as the right. What hath God wrought? What, indeed?"


                   So if goD made man in his own image, what mirror was he lookin' in?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 08:15 PM

"The most apalling aspect of the modern left is the apparent inability to laugh at its own image and pronouncements."

Amen! Right with ya there, Mike. That's why, despite being a leftist myself, I frequently poke fun at the lockstep thinking and politically correct reactions of so many of my leftist compatriots, armored as they are with the absolute certainty of their own moral superiority. ;-) They are as ridiculous in that sense as are their most extreme opponents on the Right. They are as pompous as Don Quixote as they search for another windmill to battle. Both lack the ability to laugh at their own excesses and hypocrisies.

I love Mark Twain, because he had the razor sharp wit and realism to skewer the pompous and pretentious on every side of the political and social spectrum of his day. Such men are few in this world. Most prefer to be blind zealots, partisan speechmakers, convincing themselves that all evil can be found on the "other" side of the road from them, and only good on their own side.

Such people make wonderful party members. ;-) They can be depended upon not to be fair or objective.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 08:27 PM

Guest...if God is infinite intelligence and Being, including the mirror itself, then everything is made in God's image.

That means you won't see it, because it all looks so completely ordinary to you that you wouldn't notice any of it. Thus, God will be of no interest to you, I should think.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 12:29 AM

"Thus, God will be of no interest to you, I should think."


                   Only to the extent of the damage that he/she does.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,Ron Paul for President
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 12:56 AM

Ron Paul's odds have gone from 200-1 to 8-1.

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Presidential-Odds-080907.html

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 11:02 AM

I took that test that was circulating a while back, and I scored as a Ron Paul voter, but I don't know much about him.

               I wonder where he is on immigration?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 07:31 PM

Google 'ron paul + immigration':

"The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.

"Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?"

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 10:34 PM

Rinslinger, I think you mean organized religion, not God, when you're talking about "doing harm". People do harm, because they are individual and separate from everything else around them (so they think, at any rate). People in organized groups can do major harm, if they are so inclined...again, because they act as if they were separate from whatever it is they're doing harm to.

Your apparent definition of God (being a separate agent who does harm?) makes no sense to me, so I'm not surprised you don't believe in him/her. ;-D I wouldn't believe in something like that either.

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

"People in organized groups can do major harm, if they are so inclined...again,"


             LH - I agree, but people organized into groups who are incredibly missinformed can do as much or more harm than those who actually intend to do harm, and they can do it while maintaining the very best of intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 11:51 PM

Yeah, that's right. My impression is, they (people in organized groups) always think they have the best of intentions...even if they are about to commit murder or genocide. In that case, they have simply convinced themselves that it's the "best thing to do under the circumstances"...normally because they feel that someone else is a threat, and/or is deserving of death for some reason.

Some use religion to do that, some use politics, some have an ethnic issue in mind, some use another form of rationale.

Or you can mix in "all of the above" for a really nasty combination of motives...

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 10:16 PM

LH--

Back to the old question. "Immense financial forces control the ongoing agenda."

Except when they don't.

FDR?

Does Walmart control China? Do you think Walmart was happy to see a union in China---(partly through the influence of union officials in the US).? Sure the union in China is an arm of the Communist party and does not negotiate wages and hours officially. But it turns out the union can in fact push for better conditions--and is doing so.

Do you think the "immense financial forces" are just as happy with a Democrat as a Republican as US president? I assure you they aren't. In 2004 virtually all the big monopolists--Big Oil, Walmart, Macroslop (not my favorite firm) all heavily supported Bush. They would not have been just as happy with Kerry.

For 2008, the Democrats have served notice they will raise CAFE standards, have already (with some Republican support) pushed through a minimum wage increase, threaten to renegotiate some trade agreements, and ( with some Republican support)refuse to pillage the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil. Are the immense financial forces fine with this? Not likely.


I read the Wall St Journal almost every day. I'd imagine you'd concede its editorial page is the bible for your "immense financial forces". And I assure you the WSJ editorialists are just about apoplectic with frustration over all the above developments. Not to mention they know they are losing in their desperate attempt to deny man-made global warming.

Your simplistic take on world economics has just as much value as any other simplistic attitude. But no more.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Aug 07 - 08:15 AM

"They would not have been just as happy with Kerry."

                  But they were a lot happier with Kerry than with Dean. That's why they pulled out all the stops to take Dean out in the Iowa primaries.




      "I read the Wall St Journal almost every day."

                Okay, there's the problem. It will be interesting to see where this brain-washing rag will take you once Rupert Murdoch takes over.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Aug 07 - 11:09 PM

Rig--

As you know, I have already noted that Murdoch's takeover of the WSJ is in my opinion a disaster of the first order for anybody who wants objective news--or at least honest news, the honest opinion of the reporter. However my attitude towards the WSJ editorial page should be already obvious to you, since we've discussed it before in another thread. If the editorial stance starts infecting the news coverage, I will simply look elsewhere for news--the Economist is a good source, for instance. It's interesting that you mention brainwashing--Mr. Tancredo seems to have done a creditable job on you.

Also, you have precisely zero evidence that Dean would have done better than Kerry. He may well have done considerably worse. It took some doing to caricature a war hero as a surrender monkey--with Dean it would have been no problem. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Not that that will keep you from your "what if's". After all, it's so much fun--though a classic waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 12:11 AM

I think they're normally happy with either party, Don, because they control both of them. I also think they are normally happiER with one of those parties than the other...at any given juncture...for a great variety of reasons. Sometimes its the Dems, sometimes it's the Reps..depends on the mood of the country. When one party becomes unviable with the public, as usually happens after a term or so of misrule and scandal, then the other one is ready to step forward into the breach like a noble knight errant, and everyone cheers...yippee! One could write about it all night and never finish. The point is, they use those 2 parties to bounce the public back and forth between choosing the "lenient cop"/protective Mother figure (Democrats) and the "tough cop"/stern Father figure (Republicans) and keep them thinking (or at least hoping) they have a real voice in Washington every time the curtains on the White House get changed.

The "tough cop/Father figure" is normally a little easier to market in the USA, due to John Wayne/Clint Eastwood prevalent psychology stereotypes that have been imprinted on the consciousness of Americans ever since who knows when? But there are times when "Dad" fucks up so totally that he loses all credibility for awhile! Then "Mom" is ready to run the White House for a bit...but it's all the same family plan. Mom just has a slightly different style from Dad, and frankly, I prefer Mom's style in this case if I really must choose between them. That's why I would vote Democratic, but I don't call it much of a choice.

That's how the Wizard keeps Oz in line, and no one ever looks at the little man behind the screen.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 12:13 AM

Shit!!! I meant "Ron", not "Don" fer chrissake!

I don't know why, Ron, but I get you and Don Firth mixed up all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 08:46 AM

"It's interesting that you mention brainwashing--Mr. Tancredo seems to have done a creditable job on you."


                  He's got a ways to go, though, I still believ in evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST,ib0
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 01:59 PM

arnold sweatshisnickers

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 02:38 PM

Oh, now. That is clever.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:03 AM

LH--

1) Please give just one instance in the last 30 years in which your "immense financial forces" have been happier with Democrats than Republicans.

2) Your mantra of "immense financial forces" needs a bit of work. You say it as if the "immense financial forces" were a monolithic omnipotent being. They are none of the above. GE owns NBC. Do you think they're fine with it if ABC, owned by Disney, beats them in the ratings consistently? NBC (and the others) already feel under pressure from other claims on viewers' time--including i-Pods and MySpace. Is there no competition between Macroslop (my affectionate? term, don't you know) and Apple? And so on.

Whether you want to admit it or not, competition between the "immense financial forces" exists. Also, the Bush maladministration is doing its best to aid the big boys and gut antitrust, but they have not been having much luck lately. And in Europe, even Macroslop has been heavily fined--and may have to change the way it does business--since Europe takes antitrust seriously. In China, Walmart now has to deal with a union--not a standard Western-style union, but one which can and does influence working conditions.

So. as I say, the "immense financial forces" are neither monolithic nor omnipotent. As a result, it's absurd to say they "drive the agenda forward"--as if nothing can stop them. Certain companies would like to " drive the agenda"--but they have competition in their own industries, and have powerful forces opposing them.

I note with interest that you have not found time to address any of the several issues I have observed are frustrating the bible of your "immense financial forces"--and, you can bet, frustrating your "forces" themselves.

Your talk of "immense financial forces" "driving the agenda" --strongly implying that nobody else has any power---sounds perilously close, as I mentioned before, to your own form of predestination--your own Calvinism.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:46 AM

"...give just one instance in the last 30 years in which your 'immense financial forces' have been happier with Democrats than Republicans."

At the the begining of the Clinton abomination, we (the US) had 9 (nine) major oil companies and they were involved in healthy competition. Their products were (usually) available at a resonable price.

After Clinton received piles of campaign money from these companies, merger mania began. The result was (4) four (I believe that is correct) major oil companies in the US, with Atlantic Richfield being bought and operated by British Petromeum. BP also owns much of our Alaska reserves.

Clinton could have stopped these mergers anytime he wanted, by direct action of perhaps just by publically objecting to them

Big Business now knows the they can pay-off Democrats, often very cheaply. Those pesky Republican are more likely to stand on principle and block such mergers.

So, when you hear about Exon-Mobile and other abusive giants, think "Worthless Willie" Clinton, they are his handiwork.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:02 PM

"Whether you want to admit it or not, competition between the "immense financial forces" exists."


                I take from this statement that you are not now, nor have you ever been in business for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:55 PM

Yes, Ron, they (the immense financial forces) do indeed compete with one another...ruthlessly and without pity....just as do thieves in a gang of thieves. You think there isn't competition within the Mafia? ;-)

In the same fashion, the Republicans and Democrats compete with each other ruthlessly and without pity. That's how the game is set up, and they all play essentially for one purpose, to win the game. Those who win receive the greater rewards. Those who lose receive lesser rewards and watch for their next chance to cut down the ones who are presently on top.

As such, they act in a fashion detrimental to the general public good, and detrimental to the world at large, and that is why I find it objectionable.

Interestingly enough, pdq keeps helping to find evidence to support my proposition...as long as it is evidence that is condemnatory of the Democrats! LOL! Well, his partisan nature is serving to support at least half of my argument.

Look, Ron, do I think I am empowered to alter the way this entire friggin' society works, shackled to the power of the mighty dollar? Hell, no. But I'll tell you what I am empowered to do...I am empowered to live my own life in exactly the fashion I choose, to do what I enjoy and find meaningful, and that's what I'm doing. I would recommend to others that this is their direct route to personal freedom and self-realization in what will always be an imperfect world.

If your choice is to campaign in some way on behalf of the Democratic Party, because you believe in it...then I say, "Great! Go for it, and I hope you have a jolly good time doing what you believe in, because that is what you're obviously here to do."

I do not expect everyone to be the same or to have the same dreams and interests, Ron, and I think it would be a poor world if we did.

(I do not get your references to Calvinism at all. It appears to be philosophically opposed to just about everything I believe in.)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:15 PM

"his partisan nature is serving to support at least half of my argument"

If you have not noticed, the other half is over represented. I do my best to preserveve a semblance of balance.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:46 PM

Yes, pdq, you are right about that. I have noticed it. The Democrats are normally over-represented around here.

I do appreciate your making sure the other side is heard too, so by all means, keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:12 PM

Actually, Birdfeathers, that is not exactly what I meant. I was saying that what I do is give evidence supporting your opinion that both sides suck. That is where the "half my argument" part fits in.

What I am usually doing is giving facts and evidence meant to debunk a particular piece if bullshit. The fact that doing so always sounds aimed at one side comes from the fact that that side is the one invariably giving out with the bullshit. I simply deal in facts with a clear line between them and opinion. It is more likely that I will post something where the line is blurred between humor and fact, not between fact-debunking and opinion.

I'm sure you understand.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 09:54 PM

Actually, there are a few pat answers out there that are simply maddening to rational thinking people.

                One of them is: conspiracy theory. Everytime one points out the obvious to somebody who has ingested the Kool-Aid, that Kool-Aid drinker comes back with, "That's just a conspiracy theory."

                Another one is: racist. If one is to point out that a constantly growing human population is a threat to the survival of the planet, and that human migration is part of the problem, the Kool-Aid drinker comes back with, "You're just a racist."

                There are a million of them.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:13 PM

The significance of the "imbalance" of the views in Mudcat doesn't lie in the labels. It's true that I, for one, support more Democrat candidates and causes than I do Republican candidates and causes but I am not a registered Democrat nor have ever been. Early in my kneejerk youth I thought I was a Republican but for years I have been unflinchingly Non-Partisan. I have almost given up hope that I will ever find another Republican to vote for but I still study the positions and record of the person, not the party. Or the gender. Or the color.

So don't blame it on the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:14 PM

Yes, pdq, I do understand. I am making an honest effort to understand you, at any rate. I see no point in being perpetually hostile to another person just because I have disagreed with them frequently in the past on certain political matters. I hope you don't either.

As for facts, well, everbody is absolutely besotted with looking up and quoting various facts, as long as those facts appear to support their normal opinions. If not...then the facts can be reinterpreted in some fashion that seems more favorable. ;-) Or they can be discounted as being not particularly relevant or important facts to the matter at hand. Or they can be diluted in their impact by a deluge of other facts. (grin) You know how it works...right?

Anyone with a career in politics knows how to turn facts to his advantage, while poo-pooing or ignoring other facts. It's standard procedure. Carefully chosen facts have been used to aid and promote every cause in history.

And, yeah...both sides suck. Unquestionably.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 10:32 PM

Guest--

Get a handle---maybe then you'll be worth my time. (But it doesn't look likely).



LH--

My point is that the 'immense financial forces" are neither monolithic nor omnipotent. As long as you concede this, we're in the same book, if not on the same page.

By the way, as a registered Republican, I'm not likely to do much campaigning for the Democratic party. But sure as hell not for Bush or like-minded Neanderthals either.

As I've mentioned, my kind of Republican is Lugar--recognizing reality in Iraq, and being pilloried by Bushites for it, or Chafee in RI-- on the environment (which after all goes back to TR in the GOP.

An endangered species now, maybe, but perhaps not forever.

Re: Calvinism: this relates to your mantra of the "immense financial forces" having all the power--we therefore predestined to powerlessness and exploitation. This seems to be what you strongly believe. I disagree.



pdq--

Ah, pdq, the old faithful.

"Clinton could have stopped these mergers anytime he wanted". As usual, your ignorance shines through, "just like a ray of sun", as the song goes. The best things in life don't change.

Sure hope your musical expertise is superior to your political savvy. I trust that it is--or I'm afraid no one would want to hear you.

You're of course going to tell us that there's a cause-effect relationship between Clinton's elections and the oil patch mergers. Evidence please.

And by the way, somehow you left out what happened in 1994. And a person named Monica a bit later. Wonder why you didn't mention that.

You might want to learn about a concept called "political capital".   I'm sure any 8th-grade civics textbook-- (or whatever they call civics these days)-- can help you out.

Actually you might want to start a little earlier, with a source which explains to you the difference between an absolute monarchy and a representative democracy. You seem to have a hard time telling the difference. I assure you there is a difference.

Please do just a bit of research next time. It really won't hurt you. Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:00 AM

I fully agree, Ron, that they are not monolithic. Hardly. They are out to cut each other's throats in a great variety of ways. It's the irresistible force of their general money-driven agenda that worries me...and its overpowering influence on the political institutions in our societies.

"Re: Calvinism: this relates to your mantra of the "immense financial forces" having all the power--we therefore predestined to powerlessness and exploitation. This seems to be what you strongly believe. I disagree."

Well....it depends how you look at it. On the one hand, any one individual is subject to immense systems all around him in a modern society, and he is essentially powerless in the face of them, to all intents and purposes, because he is one and they are many. Yet on the other hand, we all find ways of living our lives in such a way that we manage not to arouse those systems against us...hopefully, and still get to do some stuff we want to do. So we are both empowered (individually) and powerless (in another sense).

For instance, I can't build a fire on my own back property in order to dispose of deadwood, because there is presently a total ban on burning outdoors in my jurisdiction. This, despite the fact that I am quite capable of safely doing so, without causing a disaster to occur. The reason for the ban is that some people are not very careful how or where they build a fire, and they do end up causing a disaster. So the local government has decided to play it safe and ban ALL people from doing it.

This pisses me off. I am powerless in the face of their ban, and I don't like that. But I accept it, because I am not interested in either being fined or leading a Quixotic (and doomed) crusade to oppose their ban.

I will find other solutions for cleaning up the brush and deadwood on my property. They will be more time-consuming and difficult solutions, but I will find them.

So I don't have as much freedom on my own property as I would like, but I still have a lot.

Life is always a compromise between what you would like to do...and what the systems around you will let you do.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:22 PM

Good point, Ron...

It does seem that the current crop of Repubs are in lockstep with Bush on Iraq... This is going to have to change at some point with whomever gets the nod... And then the Dems will pounce on the guy as a "flip flopper"...

Somethings never change...

As fir the left not having a sense of humor???

Well, yeah... Okay... To some degree we have lost our sense of humor... Something about seein' our leaders gunned down by people with no apparent motives will kinda takes the "haha" outta ya'...

But, inspite of brutal assasinations which has crippled our movement, I would argue that the left cannot be thrown into a heap of collective generalizations... During the mad-dask-to-Iraqmire I attended most of the major anti-war demonstrations in Washington, D.C. and found the 20 somethin' kids to not only posess a great amount of creativity but also well developed senses of humor...

Jus' MO...

Bobert

p.s... I think the Iraq war has also taken the "haha" outta us...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:29 PM

"Well, yeah... Okay... To some degree we have lost our sense of humor..."


          Not entirely, Bobert, I still laugh at George W. Bush every time I see him.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:38 PM

LH--

Sorry, you're still off-base. We are not powerless even as individuals precisely since we can band together. Environmental groups are doing precisely that--and the WSJ editorials are forever inveighing against the terrible power of "Big Green". (If you can believe that)

Also what do you suppose the origin of unions was?--and proof that they are still needed.

To say we are powerless--in any capacity-- is an absurd self-defeating attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:45 PM

Actually, LH, you are completely correct... We aren't collectively powerless... Jus' mis-informed...

This is why Tom Jefferson warned that in order for democracy to work am infomed electorate would be needed...

The avergae Joe on the street only can regurgitate what he has been fed and most of what we/he are being fed by the media is propaganda... And that's where average Joe gets his information/dis-information...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:46 PM

I am not speaking in absolutes, Ron. I am neither saying we are categorically "powerless" (as you seem to want me to) nor am I saying the reverse of that. I am saying that life involves compromise. There are some things we can change by individual action, some things we can change by group action, and some things we cannot change.

I think there was something in Desiderata about that... ;-)

Like I said, do whatever it is you want to do in life, and I'll do the same. I wouldn't call you "wrong" for being different than me, I'd just call you different, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:48 PM

LH--

Glad to hear you now admit we are not powerless. It's the first time I recall you doing so. Please remember that when talking of "immense financial forces". I'll be monitoring.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 02:45 PM

Ron, good will is an important component in any conversation. If you were to post with a bit less of a snide and condescending tone dripping from your comments, it would help.

I do not "admit" that we are not powerless, I assert it. My belief that the Republican and Democratic parties are both pretty useless to vote for does not change that one iota.

One of the standard techniques used by people when they argue in an unfair fashion is the setting up of straw men on the following basis: they act as if the person they're arguing with is speaking in absolutes. You've been assuming that about me ever since this conversation began. It is not the case.

I respect your right to be the way you are, and I say that that's okay. You do not seem much inclined to accord me the same courtesy. Your style of talking in a debate is nasty, Ron. It sounds superficially rather polite while it fairly drips with sarcasm and comtemptuous dismissal. You wouldn't like it if you got that coming back the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 03:02 PM

LH--

All you have to do is change your own rather stentorian declarations- from- Olympus style and you would get the desired result. Perhaps, being the author, you haven't noticed. Try reading a few of your own postings. And, you might note, I'm not the only one to have observed this. Remember what Ebbie said earlier. And as I said then, it was what you needed to hear--but I knew it wouldn 't change anything..

I have a lot of respect for your historical knowledge--not so much for your view of the world economy.

Anybody who sets himself up as an authority need not be surprised when others may not agree--and the other posters may show it. And I've read a lot of your views on many topics.

I gather you don't particularly like my debate style. Fair enough. But you should understand my main goal may not be to please you all the time. As you've noted yourself--you can't always get what you waaaant.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 03:27 PM

Ah well, Ron, all those WSSBA courses I've taken over the past few years tend to emphasize the cultivation of a rather dramatic style of oration. Some might characterize it as....stentorian? Ahem. Well, yes. Perhaps. ;-)

I do read my own posts, as a matter of fact. I review them and reread them with satisfaction and delight. ("Oh, well said! Oh, you nailed 'em that time! More! More!") I bet you do that too...(with your own posts, I mean)... ;-D

My guess is that almost everyone here does that, specially on the political threads.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 03:33 PM

Dear Mike Miller
You claim that today the left is a group of humorless true belivers.
I am the embodiment of the parody you say no longer exists.

Yup and I have my banishment from the Democratic Underground and removal of my 10 old website to prove it.

Doncha know that humor is a danger to polarization?
Heck, people who heal the devisevness with a sense of humor are often the first to get the axe.

Like Bill Mahre we keep comin back until we become the new mainstream in 20 years.

The right may have court decisions to support their bald faced lies on the news shows but the left has truth which will outlive the web of lies.


Wall Street may have no choice in the next minister for their affairs this time around.
We might actually elect a populist president this time.












As a result if our war macherinery is then slowed a good man or woman will be either slimed or shot

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 03:59 PM

Yup. Humor is a danger not only to maintaining polarization, but also to establishing authoritarian rule, either in a country or on a website. Humor is highly subversive, because it does not spare sacred cows.

If, therefore, you make fun of the excesses and hypocrisies of both the Left AND the Right in the USA...expect to take some flak for it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 04:05 PM

"Please remember that when talking of "immense financial forces". I'll be monitoring."


          Ron - What did you want to say about immense financial forces?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 04:19 PM

Little Hawk, I think your example of your lack of freedom, the right to do what you want, is not a good one.

You say: "For instance, I can't build a fire on my own back property in order to dispose of deadwood, because there is presently a total ban on burning outdoors in my jurisdiction. This, despite the fact that I am quite capable of safely doing so, without causing a disaster to occur. The reason for the ban is that some people are not very careful how or where they build a fire, and they do end up causing a disaster. So the local government has decided to play it safe and ban ALL people from doing it.

"This pisses me off. I am powerless in the face of their ban, and I don't like that. But I accept it, because I am not interested in either being fined or leading a Quixotic (and doomed) crusade to oppose their ban.

"I will find other solutions for cleaning up the brush and deadwood on my property. They will be more time-consuming and difficult solutions, but I will find them."

Just wait to clear the deadwood until the summer is over and the hazards of wild fire recede, Little Hawk.

You disappoint me. Being the philosopher you are, I should have thought that patience for you would come easy. :) I don't call myself that and yet I have no problem with considering and incorporating the concept of the greater good.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 04:26 PM

This summer Scalia asked in response to the phrase 'in the privacy of their own bedroom'
"What freedoms do you propose people may have in the privacy of their own bedrooms? May they be free to use heroin recreationally, may they be free to build bombs..."

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 04:52 PM

I'm not quite clear on how long the ban extends, Ebbie. It may be an all-year ban, it may not.

I'll have to look into that.

And, yeah, sure I could have come up with better examples. Any number of them. My lamentable lack of patience was probably responsible for my not doing so. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 05:48 PM

:)

About burning bans, however, in most communities they are instated during dry periods of weather and are lifted whenever moisture comes in or in the summer months when so many forest and brush and grass fires flare. Or sometimes it is in a period of temperature inversions. That happens in Juneau-in-the-vally which is mountain bound; downtown Juneau, where I live, is scoured by the funnel created between the mainland and an island with the ocean between.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 06:27 PM

Jus' a little insight in the burnin' bans... In our community we have a volunteer fire department... Most of the firmen have regular jobs, like at the door plant, the hardward store or the auto parts joint... We have times of the years when fires are most dangersous and there is a ban on fires before 4:00 pm... This makes sense to me... This way, employers won't have to suffer from the loose of an employee when someone's fire gets outta control...

Jus' my 2 cents worth...

Not that LH ain't a responsible pyrotechincan, 'er nuthin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 06:55 PM

I've been an enthusiastic pyromaniac since about age 7. Simply love building and tending fires. I've managed to reach age 58 without it leading to any problematical situations.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 10:29 AM

Rig-

What did I want to say about "immense financial forces"?   That sometimes they drive the agenda--and sometimes they don't.

Many firms are now trying to deal with man-made global warming--how they can turn programs against it to their financial advantage. Virtually all of them fought the idea to start with--some still do. But the more astute have realized they can't win with just opposition--and that there is money to be made going with the flow.

They did not "control the ongoing agenda". They were forced to react.

Similarly Walmart would not have wanted their stores in China unionized.. But now they must deal with one. And Macroslop certainly did not want the EC fining them heavily---and possibly forcing them to change their way of doing business.

That's my point--to say that immense financial forces "control the ongoing agenda" is simplistic.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes not.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 11:56 AM

Ron - I suppose what you're saying is basically correct. The counter to that, however, is that without substantial amounts of capital, it's almost impossible to have any political impact at all.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 12:04 PM

Point is: industrial titans are not the only ones to have access to large amounts of capital--and other factors can outweigh capital--as in the China case.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 12:26 PM

Of course, anyone who is control of a government, like Chairman Mao for instance, has control of huge amounts of capital.

                How does that help the average guy in the street?

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 12:30 PM

Rig--


By banding together, as I explained earlier. That's the origin of unions--and why they're still needed. Also interest groups, like environmental groups for instance, through numbers--and financial support--can and do have impact.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 12:46 PM

I'm just as concerned about international banking houses as I am about industrialists, Ron. Making money is a game that very wealthy people play (while for the rest of us it's a matter of survival), and it's essentially an artificial game which works within its own rulebook. You win simply by making more of the stuff, regardless of how you do it. That makes it a dangerous game.

It's been going on for a long time, but I think that with the advent of the digital age and electronic money that can be created out of thin air and moved across the world in the blink of an eye, we have bigger problems with the abuses of financial power (and the fallout from that abuse) than we used to.

It's also much harder to contact any real living person now, and discuss it with them. Have you noticed that when attempting to phone any large financial organization lately? Then too, when you do manage to reach a real person, all they can usually do is read to you from a prepared script, from the sound of it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 01:03 PM

LH--

I totally agree it's harder to actually reach a person now to resolve a problem--but I always insist on doing so. I refuse to push any button ("press 2 if....")--and eventually you get "rotary callers, remain on the line". Then when I get somebody, I insist on getting a last name, ID number, or extension number. If I don't get the answer I need, I ask to speak to a supervisor. If still no satisfaction, I tell them I'll report them to the BBB. That is the last resort--and usually, long before that, I have the answer I need. It does take persistence--and being organized to know exactly the questions you need answered.

We are not pawns--and don't have to accept that status.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 01:06 PM

Yeah, I do stuff like that too, Ron. Thank God for those few surviving rotary phones, eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 01:21 PM

Yeah, I wonder if there's a requirement for firms to have provision to serve people with rotary phones. And if the business community can put pressure on to have this requirement eliminated. (And just how many rotary phones are still in use?)

If they try, I'll sure as hell write my Senators and Congressmen--and tell them the other use of "rotary callers please remain on the line". We've got to keep every option we have to avoid being trapped in "customer service" automated limbo.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 01:23 PM

You betcha.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 04:43 PM

"By banding together, as I explained earlier. That's the origin of unions--and why they're still needed."


                Ron - Egomaniacs in control of huge gobs of amalgamated capital have so many tools at their disposal today that can be used for the purpose of breaking unions, the proposition that a powerful one can exist anyplace on the planet for any length of time is almost laughable.

                      The only ones in America who have any authority at all are the public employees unions. And the one(s) you refer to in China are functioning because they have a strong central government that supports them.

                      It looks like the demise of capitalism is probably the best bet for the future.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 05:57 PM

Rig--

Wrong.

1) You mention public employees unions. They are growing.

2) Any growing employee group--in which the workers are in an area which needs more staffing--can form a union. An obvious area is health care--which will be growing for the foreseeable future.

3) Your dream of abolishing capitalism is just that. Capitalism obviously needs restriction--which it's not been getting under the Bush maladministration. But pure socialism is also not the answer. Look at Scandanavia--supposedly a Socialist model. Actually it has huge elements of capitalism. Nowhere in the world is there pure Socialism. Nor will there be--since it wouldn't work. It is always necessary to appeal to self-interest--your own betterment, not just the betterment of the group. Sorry, that's human nature. Good luck trying to change it.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 06:00 PM

I should have said "I disagree". But talk of abolishing capitalism is just a pipedream of the Left.

Subject: RE: BS: And the next US President will be
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 06:08 PM

"I should have said "I disagree". But talk of abolishing capitalism is just a pipedream of the Left."


             It might seem like a pipedream now, but it doesn't hurt to strive for perfection.


                   Of course public employees unions are growing. Reaganomics favored public employees above all others. It's hard to export the local fire department or the public schools to India.