**twinkley smacks darin upside the head**

nobody was talkin to you fool!


XXXManaager,

What you say is true, however, that doesnt really change the way people think. It is a known fact by economists and politicians alike (at least here) that the state of the economy directly impacts how the people think of the president. The fact that people are scrambling for money is going to a make a huge difference in the next election. The fact that people are out of work (this is actually the highest unemployment has been here in almost a decade) is going to affect the election. Not because the president REALLY has anything to do with those things, but because people relate the economy to how good a president is.

Perfect Example: Clinton. Through ALL the scandals his FIRST term, the man still managed to get re-elected ..... why? Because the nation was floushing! People were fat and happy and money was flowing like water. Unemployment was low, jobs were pleniful, the stock market hit SEVERAL all time highs.....

But, in the immortatl words of Dennis Miller

"This is just my opinion, I could be wrong"

twinkley

Dennis Miller is right, you're wrong.

Hmm.. you make a good arguement... strong and solid points and undeniable facts... you definitely put a lot of research into this response :p

You could have said, 'Well Rick Mercer was right too' LOL

Thank You.

Darin,

Dont make me twist that gerbils head off....

It WONT be pretty hahahahahaha

twinkley

Pull an Ozzy and bite it's head off!! Now *that* won't be pretty!! LOL

I might like that.

.. and THAT really turns me on.

I'm here to do what I can, what ever the cause! ;)

Why don't I get sexually offensive offers :confused:

Anyway - as I said Twinkley..
Your economy is in a recession. Recessions are temporal. Wars help get out of recessions. I do agree that this is the only threat to Bush next term BUT I don't think it will be an issue on what? 2-3 years?
Time will tell.

The fact that this is the only reason Bush is in threat - and NOT the fact that the democrats have an appealing and wise man as an opposition should worry you more than the immediate temporary economic situation. Politics off - this Daschle seems to me like a dickhead. Person-wise not politically/patriotically(US) :p

There are protestors wandering in groups through my city, mindlessy parroting "no war (drool) no war"

Sometimes these things are best addressed by others.....

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

-- John Stuart Mill




I truly believe this will be a better world once we are minus one tyrant.


I've recently heard from relatives that have been travelling in the US that have been refused service in some restaraunts and stores for "being Canadian". Ignorant, yes, but just as I assign the blame for this war on Hussein, I also assign the blame for this descrimination squarely where it belongs..... on the shoulders of one Jean Chretien. I hope that Americans will come to realize that a large percentage of Canadians openly support the coalition's effort to defeat Saddam, if not forgive our nation for turning it's back on it's friend.

XXXManager....

You are correct - the democrats DONT have an impressive candidate to take over for bush.

That means the field is FINALLY clear for an independant or libertarian to run. Hopefully. We have seen in the last ohhhh 3-4 elections the steady increse (although still minor) in support for people who are not with either of the major parties.

Personally, I think that would be the absolute best thing to happen in the election.

Oh, and I guess im gonna have to ramp up the dirty talk on ICQ huh?? :D

twinkley

great posts XXXManager and cdsmith. I'm with you.

hey Twinkley! I don't know how the former left-wing-turned-rationalist Dennis Miller would feel about you appropriating his material ;-)

ok... look... any way you want to slice the cake here.... Bush went and did his own thing. Without approval... he decided to do his own thing.... plain and simple.

People... you judge him whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

I say a democracy is a good thing... people vote on a situation and a solution... the majority wins the vote as it is probably the best for all concerned.

One person decided to go against the vote.... then there's no real point in a democracy is there?

Bush will get re-elected.... providing he gets Saddam and can make the media show this big eutopia that comes over Iraq once he's gone.

If Bush fails at getting Saddam like he does in everything else he's tried to do... then who knows. He might just persuade people to vote him in so he can "finish the job".

Economy, crime rate, homeless... none of it will matter. Because no one can talk about anything other than the war, because that's the only thing that television stations will let you know about.

When it comes down to an election, it'll be.... a vote based on 2 options.
Check here if you think he's an idiot
Check here if you think he's a hero

It won't matter who's else on the ballot either. That's all it will boil down to.

... Democracy? His-own-thing? Without approval?

Let me get this right..
* Bush is the president of the US of A?
* He got elected democratically? (not to talk about the bipartisan support he has for his actions with the people of the USA)
* Under this democracy - his obligation is to serve HIS country? (last I checked the russians, french, germans and syrians - and canadians for that matter - did not vote for the presidency of the united states)
* Under that US political system - he approved his actions and budget?
He got it approved with the army, secretery of defense, CIA/FBI/NSA/CNN/KFC/me?
* He is now with many other (more than 40) countries taking an act that little oppose to due to reasons that has to do with non-personal-gain reasons?
* He is acting to execute the 1441 UN resolution which was approved by 100% of the UN security council? ;)

I think you take European media too much for granted.

But let me understand it ever better. IF the UN had voted to go to war - then the war would have been right and just? That means morally right is what the UN votes on?

When (god forbid) someone tries to rape your daughter (you don't have one so its clearly hypotetical) don't wait for a popular vote before blowing his head. The right thing to do is the right thing to do even if not popular or voted upon.

in 1981 Israel bombarded the Iraqi nuclear reactor. It was very unpopular, was not approved by the holy UN and was condemmed by the entire world.
I am not sure I asked - but did you say thank-you Israel already? (cause most of the world aready did ny now) If not - its about time you realize you better be unpopular and alive than prude, popular and dead.

So - are saying that taking down a tyrant and brutal dictator who tried to assasinate a president of the US and continuously tries to develop WMD and has used it in the past and which supports terrorism in more than the financial way and which executes his opponents - this is the WRONG thing to do? Just because some countries are affraid to take an active role in that? :confused: (and don't kid yourself into believing that anyone really believes that Inspections or diplomacy really works with Saddam. You are WAY smarter than that - that I know for a fact)

P.S.
You refer to a vote in the UN?
When a country like Syria is in the security council??? A country which has NOTHING to do with democracy and 100% to do with Terror?
I see.. Democracy at its best bro :bonk:

So then what you're saying is that you don't believe in democracy? You don't believe that all parties involved should get a fair and equal vote in all matters pertaining to them?

That when everyone gets an equal vote, and a concensus is reached.... that's it's invariably wrong?

what's the use in having a sovereign nation if you must submit to the general will of the UN? I didn't vote any UN officials into office. Nations would no longer be independent, and that is dangerous. If the UN doesn't like what we're doing, take a vote and condemn us. It wouldn't change a thing really. We'll do what we think is in our best interest. We don't have to agree with consensus among other nations.

People always assumed that the UN was really a function of the US govt. Now we see that it's a waffle house, waffling over important world issues. I think the world is shocked to see a US president take a stand after 8 years of vague waffling by Clinton.

I know I'm a bit late to this thread but I notice that the above clap trap was let go and as a thinking American, I feel the need to respond.

Anyone who would refer to our president as a tyrant, should learn to quiet down until she's finished with the 6th grade and has a better understanding of politics and the world around her.
And as for your dopey comment that our president has ignored the majority goes, please, stop embarrassing yourself. the last poll I saw had an 80% approval rating for the war.
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
We just happen to be better informed.
Americans also will not be bound to the UN. We don't have to abide by the rules of a body of idiots and sadly, that's what most of the world is made up of.

You're sadly mistaken. He has the approval of the people of the US.
The people of the US know that only a fool would follow the UN.
What you now see from the French, Canadians, russians, and germans is childish foot stomping over wishing they were something better than they are.
When you see someone else do what they think needs to be done regardless of the nonsensical rantings of those around them, you become jealous in your impotence. :D

yes well, this is just another case of "Americans are the only ones that matter" talk... what about the rest of the world? I'm talk about a vote of all countries involved in the UN... and then some that aren't even....
If the majority of countries think that the US shouldn't do it... the US should just look to itself to say "well, Americans think we should, that's good enough for me... let's go!" ??

Stuart,

I think a lot of that attitude comes from the fact that we are world police. And while no one likes the police to hassle THEM, everyone wants them around when something bad is happening to them....

Yes, its true - we are giving the appearance that we dont care what the rest of the world thinks... and to a point it really is true. When you have saved most of the people who are now bickering with you at one time or another -- it HAS to be frusterating to sit back and let them slam on your tactics. We have done more for the world financially, militarily, and politically than pretty much anyone else out there. We are the first ones to step up to the plate to help when asked, and were slapped in the face when we asked for a little support.

So yeah, i can kinda see where the forget it, we are just gonna do it anyways attitude comes from.

twinkley (playing devils advocate)

That's such a sweet sentiment but in the real world, it doesn't wash.
A good part of the world isn't bright enough to trust with a meaningfull vote. (imagine giving a 6yr old the right to vote for president and you get the pricture)
Then you have the countries who side against the US because of sour grapes. (think france)
Then you have the countries currently profitting from the status quo (think france germany and russia)

Only a fool would decide to trust an electorate like this. Thankfully, I'm not a fool and niether is my president.

Interesting signature 12clicks :cool:

Those are all very good points, and I do agree... I've always said, I agree with the war, just not how it came about.

The system probably is flawed, in all the ways you said... but it is still the system. And like it or not... there will be a lot of people who aren't happy with the US's decision.

And ultimately, going after one or 2 countries who has terrorist feelings toward the US may just incite those feelings in a lot of other countries by doing what it did. So it may end up causing more of a problem then solving it.

We don't need to work with a flawed system.

If countries develope feelings of hate towards the US because of our fight with terrorism, then they are terorrist countries anyway and we will deal with them.

Even now, syria is sending the iraqis night vision goggles and other military equipment to support iraq's fight against the US.
You understand that syria has a vote in the UN too, right?

If countries don't agree with the US than they are terrorist countries?? So Canada is a terrorist country now? Just because we aren't helping or might not agree with going against the UN's vote?

What if more than 50% of the world, including some rather developed countries all think that the US is over stating it's boundries? I'm not saying it does... but what happens if it does? It's the US against the world at war then? Because they're all now considered terrorist countries?

Stuart, I know you're losing this argument but twisting what you and I are saying won't help your case.
you said:

Now, are you saying that by fighting terrorism, we're causing "terrorist feelings" in canada? No? Then lets not twist words, eh?

Stuart, you should never fear being right, no matter how many people who are wrong are arrayed against you.

you have this odd fixation with not agreeing with the US equating terrorism. If you could over come that, you could probably see the situation more clearly.

I'm not twisting anything... this is what you said

So... if I hate the fact that the US up and did something against what the world voted against... am I a terrorist or not?

If I hate Bush for doing what he's doing just so that he can play the hero and get re-elected... am I a terrorist?

Do I get to have a scud dropped on me for opposing the US's decision?

And I am losing no argument.. I'm just not winning it. I have no intention of winning... I just like how you keep making the US out to be Godly over the world and making everyone else out to be terrorists who will feel your wrath.

in response to your dopey question regarding terrorism. hopefully you'll outgrow this inability to follow a train of thought.


If you just think it, we'll let you live. if you act upon it by trying to kill Americans, we'll very happily kill you.

We would never use something so primative.

If that's all you're getting out of this, you should pay closer attention in reading comprehension class.