BS: And the next US President will be

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.