This Is Good

[Asinine]

America would be lucky to have our health care system, but that's a totally different debate.

Here is why i don't like Hillary.

1) She's a woman

2) Look at the faces of the HoR or Congress

Put those two together and you see very clearly that US politics is still an old boys club dominated by white old men. America unlike many other nations is still far too ignorant to elect a woman as president even though i fully believe she would do a much better job than Bush - which unfortunatly isn't saying much.

I also really don't like the way the political landscape is moving in the US. Not sure where I heard or read this, but an interesting point on how the US is moving more and more to a Monarch Empire than a democratic republic.

For instance, lets pretend Clinton's got an outside chance of being prez. come 2008 in reverse order of past presidents:

Clintion

Bush

Clinton

Bush

Not to mention the political power the Kennedy's have held for so long, and not to mention Jeb Bush as a future Republican presidential candidate.

Hillary is great I think, but running her as the democratic presidential candidate I think will ensure another 4 year reign of the inept republican party. Although, I think she would do an excellent job of focusing her politics on domestic issues which have been crippled to finance various interests of "President" George W. Bush.

It really is amazing how America is un-developing itself, at least if you are under the impression that personal freedoms have anything to do with development!

Edited February 26, 2006 by Asinine

[starfish]

Here is why i don't like Hillary.

1) She's a woman

2) Look at the faces of the HoR or Congress

Put those two together and you see very clearly that US politics is still an old boys club dominated by white old men. America unlike many other nations is still far too ignorant to elect a woman as president even though i fully believe she would do a much better job than Bush - which unfortunatly isn't saying much.

I also really don't like the way the political landscape is moving in the US. Not sure where I heard or read this, but an interesting point on how the US is moving more and more to a Monarch Empire than a democratic republic.

For instance, lets pretend Clinton's got an outside chance of being prez. come 2008 in reverse order of past presidents:

Clintion

Bush

Clinton

Bush

Hillary is great I think, but running her as the democratic presidential candidate I think will ensure another 4 year reign of the inept republican party. Although, I think she would do an excellent job of focusing her politics on domestic issues which have been crippled to finance various interests of "President" George W. Bush.

It really is amazing how America is un-developing itself, at least if you are under the impression that personal freedoms have anything to do with development!

You think Hillary will be better than Bush or any other man? What? How?

The US is moving toward a monarch empire? What?

Domestic issues crippled to finance various interests? What the hell was the drug benefit program but the biggest entitlement program since FDR?

What personal freedoms have you lost?

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

[Plan_B]

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Plan B @ Feb 26 2006, 10:26 AM) ←</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

If she runs in '08 I will vote for her.

Why?

Why not?

[Asinine]

You think Hillary will be better than Bush or any other man? What? How?

The US is moving toward a monarch empire? What?

Domestic issues crippled to finance various interests? What the hell was the drug benefit program but the biggest entitlement program since FDR?

What personal freedoms have you lost?

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

I don't necessarily think that Hillary would be better or worse than "a man", I don't think you could get much worse than Bush - he truly is a incompetant figure head.

Yes, you read that correctly, a monarch empire. A few key families in control of the political destiny enlarging the empire to serve it's own ends. I cite, Iraq (in process), Afghanistan and less so these days, but still - Isreal as countries with incredible ties to the US, or future ties. There are more, of course, and the things too look for are former points of US military deployment and imposed democracy.

Yes domestic issues crippled to finance various interests. I look at 3.X% defecits as a proportion of GDP, i look at the $250 billion cost of the war in Iraq. You cite the drug benefit program and think it's great, well you're wrong it's a band-aid for a heath care system suffering from (metaphorically) cancer.

I have lost no personal freedoms, but I'm Canadian - well that's not true, now in my city of 250,000 people there are some bars where you get frisked before entering, that's new. You are on the verge of phone taps, a new era of religious political corectness, a era where you may not feel safe among your neighbours, where more and more people are owning hand guns (suspicion on my part). How attainable is a high quality college or university education for the average American citizen.

The failure of GWB to address domestic issues and only be a war monger has many less developed nations (i.e. South Korea) looking for the US to step in and solve their problems (North Korea) but this focus on geopolitical stabilization from a country that is hated around the world is leading in large part to the domestic demise of the US.

Now instead of just asking more questions, try and put a whole sentence together to illustrate your point!

[starfish]

Now instead of just asking more questions, try and put a whole sentence together to illustrate your point!

Your personal views and beliefs are based upon contrived falsehoods of accurate information combined with the workings of a schizophrenic imagination. How's that?

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

[RAzOR]

Truth!

I'll agree emphasis on dumb and bitch, but the 'conservative' Republican haven't been too conservative with anything except brokeback bashing and moving toward making pregnancy a political decision not a womans decision.

Since when did a woman's pregnancy become a poltical decision? Since its entirely her decision in the first place to risk getting pregnant- THAT'S HOW!.

Once she IS pregnant, it cannot be her decision alone unless the unborn baby is asked their opinion as well and we all know what the h3ll that would be!

Here we go............. .

[Asinine]

Your personal views and beliefs are based upon contrived falsehoods of accurate information combined with the workings of a schizophrenic imagination. How's that?

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

I see you're still wrestling with the concept of 'intelligent response'.

Please feel free to dispute my views. Do you dispute the FACT that education is increasingly becoming an opportunity only for the rich?

Do you dispute the FACT that over 10% of the US population doesn't have any heath insurance and MANY more are under-insured?

Do you dispute the FACT that month after month the US trade deficit widens as more and more of the goods that are consumed domestically are produced outside of the US?

Do you dispute the findings that the US continues to drop in educational competitivness even at public school levels?

Do you dispute the FACT that your government has spent over $200 billion dollars more than the president promised the American people it would spend in the war in Iraq?

Do you dispute the FACT that the impetus behind taking military action in Iraq was based on lies?

Do you dispute the FACT that the social security program is drastically underfunded in a budgetary climate where the government is 'attempting' to cut the fat not increase spending?

Like, maybe this is masked superiority of being a proud Canadian over seemingly ignorantly proud Americans. But the absolute lack of intelligent responses is only fueling that complex!

Anyone, Bueler!?

[RAzOR]

Do you dispute the FACT that the impetus behind taking military action in Iraq was based on lies?

Do you dispute the FACT that the social security program is drastically underfunded in a budgetary climate where the government is 'attempting' to cut the fat not increase spending?

Like, maybe this is masked superiority of being a proud Canadian over seemingly ignorantly proud Americans. But the absolute lack of intelligent responses is only fueling that complex!

Anyone, Bueler!?

You didn't seem to respond to mine about the attack on women's right to pregnancy (as you put it above)

I take personal offense that you deem my contributions "seemingly ignorant" and your complaint of an "absolute lack of intelligent responses".

Let me state my observation that you seem to be AmeriPhobic and think Canada is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I am happy you love your country.

"LIES" Lies are intended to deceive, I'll paste from a recent post countering your accusation of "LIES".

1. US, British, French, Russian, Israeli intelligence, all in agreement, indicated high probability that Saddam still had WMD's

2. At the end of the Gulf War, Saddan had confirmed WMD's.

3. Saddam never accounted for their destruction.

4. The goofing off at the UN took 14 months even after 8 years and 15 resolutions (we ended up with 17?) and 14 months is plenty of time to slide those WMD's to, say, Syria or the neighborhood.

5. Saddam consistently obstructed UN inspectors and hampered their efforts.

6. The finding of buried MIG-25 Foxbats in the desert demonstrates how hard it is find something over there.

7. The Bush Administration had to make a decision as to the RISK that Saddams WMD's could reach the hands of Al Qaida who had recently demonstrated the means to deliver them (9/11) in the US (something Iraq could not do).

I believe the decision was made simply to act rather than not act (to be proactive and aggressive). The US coulda pulled out after removing Saddam but are staying behind because of what happened after Gulf War I and the shot at a democratic ME, Islamic country (which may prove to be a valuable ally). I don't buy the war for oil crapola. Venezuela is much closer and woulda been much easier! Plus, we'd be invading Japan now to stop production of the Prius!

Now there is new info from a former Iraqi Rep Guard general:

I would like reply by simply saying I think that the decision to invade Iraq was not directly to fight terrorism but indirectly. The risk of Saddam passing a WMD to a terrorist organization was simply too great. There is a lot of evidence that he had them and now new evidence in a new book from one of his generals, Georges Sada

So go ahead, your turn to provide evidence supporting your "LIES" accusation.

I am anxiously awaiting your information.

Edited February 28, 2006 by RAzOR

[Deltablade]

As entertaining as this has been watching the Asinine(Canada) vs. U.S.A. battle, I grow weary of this penis-length comparison.

You all have fairly valid points but the truth is that America and Canada are both great places to live. Sure they have their problems, but who doesn't? We should be glad we live in such great countries considering life is a hell of a lot worse elsewhere in the world.

Did anyone read the post that Chuck made recently about the kids getting kidnaped in Uganda, or the post Gregg made about the girls in Iran? Do it if you already haven't. Its just a little slice of what the world is like.

And as for the war, I'm not justifying it, but the threat of WMDs were apparent at the time. Saddam's weapons from the 90's are probably still out there somewhere. Maybe not in Iraq, but somewhere. Keep in mind, before we invaded Iraq, it wasn't like all the Iraqi people were riding a giant ferris wheel while Saddam was making ballon animals for children...

Edited March 2, 2006 by Deltablade

[RAzOR]

Happier times...