Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

US power and influence declines on Moronic Bush visions

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: 04SCTLS

From hyperpower to new world disorder

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/289353#

For the first time since the end of the Cold War, America isn’t alone on top. What’s replacing the unipolar world of the 1990s? A gang of five superpowers: China, Russia, India, the Eurozone and the U.S.

Dec 29, 2007 04:30 AM
David Olive
Feature Writer

"We seek your leadership. But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of our way."

Kevin Conrad, delegate from Papua New Guinea, at the Bali summit on climate change earlier this month, to a U.S. delegation that tried to thwart reforms agreed to by the other 185 nations present.

It became more apparent than ever this year that the U.S. is no longer the world's lone superpower. Instead, there are five superpowers that will define the world for at least the next half-century: the U.S., Chinam, India, Russia and a united Europe.

The news came home to Americans on Main St. from tainted Chinese products to the fact that practically every toy sold in America comes from Red China. Boston seniors on group tours of the great capitals of Europe were humbled to discover that their greenbacks had shrivelled in value to 60 per cent of the local currency. And New Yorkers were taken aback that the credit crisis arising from cascading defaults on U.S. subprime mortgages had so weakened the balance sheets of leading financial institutions in the Big Apple that the likes of Citigroup and Merrill Lynch had sought bailouts from state-owned investment funds in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.

Canadians felt it, too, in a 15 per cent gain against the greenback.

That America was not in charge in Iraq was widely known for some time. That American global hegemony had severely dissipated was news. Nor was it of the passing variety, like the 1970s U.S. economic "stagflation" that inflated the German and Swiss currencies; or the Japanese boom a decade later in which Tokyo parking spots fetched $90,000.

This was different. Mandarins in Brussels now passed judgment on merger proposals between American companies, not hesitating to block them on antitrust grounds. Chinese oil interests in Sudan made Beijing intransigent about Western meddling in Darfur. Russia wouldn't abide Washington's sanctions on Iran. India insisted upon, and received, U.S. support of its nuclear arms program despite predictable outrage from Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the pursuit of Al Qaeda. It was either that or have New Dehli turn to the Russians. To an unprecedented degree, decisions affecting America were being made elsewhere. A mere 16 years after attaining its lone-superpower status, the crown had slipped, and America's destiny is now shaped by a new world disorder of five superpowers.

All five members of this new quintet are nuclear powers. All but one, India, have veto power at the United Nations. Collectively, the four non-U.S. superpowers have 10 times the population of the U.S. The European economy has eclipsed that of the U.S., and those of China and India will do so by mid-century. The imperial legacy of many EU members and of Russia provide them a lingering influence from Indonesia to Zaire to Brazil that the U.S., whose experiences with colonizing have been reluctant and short-lived, cannot match.

The resentment of what the French labelled "the U.S. hyper-power" in the 1960s subsided in the 1990s. The Europeans were preoccupied with their unification project. China and India were experimenting with a free-market model to replace sclerotic command economies. And by the early years of this decade, Russian recovery from the upheaval of the Soviet breakup was manifesting itself in a new national pride and respect for a decisive Vladimir Putin.

The aim of the four new superpowers has been the same: to unleash, under the banner of patriotism, the potential economic prowess of a nation or region, and in doing so to claim a role on the world stage equal to that of the U.S. Here's Tony Blair, who revered Britain's "special relationship" with the U.S. more than most of his predecessors. "A single-power world is inherently unstable," Blair said back in 2005. "That's the rationale for Europe to unite.

"We are building a new superpower. The European Union is about the projection of collective power, wealth and influence. When we work together, the European Union can stand on par as a superpower and a partner with the U.S."

The euro has been the world's strongest currency since 2005. But not until this year did everyone from OPEC to the People's Bank of China to rock stars flirt with abandoning the U.S dollar – the world's undisputed reserve currency since the end of World War II – in favour of a euro that has soared to a current $1.48 (U.S.)

It was a year of new boondoggles coming to light in the U.S. occupation of Iraq; and of U.S. diplomatic setbacks in Pakistan, China, Turkey, Burma, the Middle East – almost everywhere the U.S. has tried to exert influence. But then, America's deficient military and intelligence capabilities have removed the big stick behind diplomatic threats.

America now is the world's largest borrower, and China the biggest creditor nation.

As everyone but the White House acknowledges, it's difficult to have much impact in pressuring China on its under-valued currency, its military buildup and its human-rights record when that country is also your biggest banker.

World leaders have been putting distance between themselves and Washington ever since the U.S. occupation of Iraq, embarked upon with a theological righteousness that alienated the secular Europeans, and based on assumptions seemingly designed to salvage the reputations of Barbara Tuchman's cast of feckless leaders in The March of Folly.

But this year, world leaders lost their reticence and subjected Washington to a parade of embarrassments. Kevin Rudd, the new Australian PM, isolated the U.S. on global warming by embracing a Kyoto Protocol that incoming U.S. president George W. Bush trashed in 2001. Gordon Brown, the new British PM, used the occasion of his first state visit to Washington to state that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the central front in the battle against Islamic extremists. Bush watched in stony silence as America's staunchest ally in the Iraq invasion bluntly repudiated an assertion the U.S. president has been making for five years.

As Russia has slipped into autocracy, and shipped uranium to Iran this fall over U.S. objections, Bush has been reduced to tacitly endorsing Russian actions the U.S. is powerless to control. After his first encounter with the Russian president, Bush famously said he had looked into Putin's heart and found a man he could work with. In an angry Munich speech earlier this year, Bush's soulmate excoriated the U.S. for "an almost uncontained hyper-use of force . . . that is plunging the world into an abyss of conflicts."

America's foreign policy impotence hit a nadir in Pakistan, where Washington's full-court-press diplomacy failed to prevent the leader of an unreliable but nonetheless vital ally in the struggle against Al Qaeda from imposing martial law and imprisoning his country's supreme court justices. In one go, with its continued support of Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf, America has turned its back on supposed goals of promoting democracy, punishing nuclear proliferators, and taking a hard line against nations harbouring large populations of Al Qaeda operatives.

"No [U.S.] president will ever have handed over a worse international situation than George W. Bush," says Richard Holbrooke, the former U.N. ambassador in the Clinton administration and adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Which is to suggest that America can reclaim its lone superpower status by simply installing a new president in 2009 who will extricate the U.S. from Iraq and sign Kyoto 2.0, to be negotiated over the next two years.

America lost its chance at enduring supremacy in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, which coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then-U.S. president George H.W. Bush spoke at the time of creating a "New World Order" of universal peace and mutual prosperity.

Had it only chosen then to redeploy its massive defence and foreign aid budgets to humanitarian causes, rather than propping up its military allies, America could have secured its new found global supremacy by simply setting a good example.

Instead, the lone-superpower era began with a unilateral, botched invasion of Somalia and ended with the Project For The New American Century, a late-1990s doctrine of preserving U.S. hegemony by overthrowing unfriendly regimes – a moronic vision that nonetheless manifested itself in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, with Iran as the regime-changers' next target.

In the Middle East, which has some of the youngest populations in the world, the past two generations have come of age with the belief that America is antagonistic to Muslims, a proposition reinforced by America`s invasion of two Muslin nations in the space of three years. And a new generation of Europeans – the "E generation," as author T.R. Reid labels it in his bestselling United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy (2005) – has grown up with the isolationism of the 1990s U.S. Republican Congress and the calamitous unilateralism of George W. Bush.

Plainly, the U.S. has failed to lead on climate change; genocide; nuclear proliferation; human rights; and the other most pressing global concerns for so long it has effectively ceded its claim to the "benign hegemony" that still shapes America's regard of its impact on the world.

And Americans know it, at least in Bill Clinton's view. In the 1990s, then-president Clinton declared that "America is the indispensable nation." In a Charlie Rose interview earlier this month, a Clinton who has grown more internationalist in retirement from the White House, said, "The American people now know something they've never known before. In their bones they know that there's almost no problem we can solve all by ourselves – terror, war and peace, nuclear proliferation, climate change, you name it. They know we have to do this in a co-operative way."

Gwynne Dyer, heralding the end of America's lone-superpower status, has warned that "Seeing the United States reduced to only one great power among others cannot be a prospect that appeals to American strategic thinkers of a traditional bent – so what is their grand strategy for averting it?

"They must have one," the London-based global military analyst wrote. "Paramount powers facing relegation always have one, although it rarely stays the same for long and it never, ever works. There is no way of stopping China and India from catching up with the current Lone Superpower without nuking their entire economies."

Without exception, the emerging superpowers have achieved that status by tending to the home front, where much work remains to be done. China is the world's second-largest CO2 emitter, trailing only the U.S. India has the world's largest population of poor people. Europe has national licence plates, birth certificates and a lottery played from Krakow to Liverpool, but lacks a foreign policy and has a nascent army of just 60,000 troops. Russia's regard for investors, whose property it expropriates on a whim, will have to change for the country's entrepreneurial forces to be fully unleashed.

The same focus on domestic shortcomings would serve America well. The factors undermining its prosperity and global influence are almost all self-inflicted. There is more at stake here than even the current crop of presidential candidates seem to realize. They all talk of restoring America's respect in the world, with no apparent sense that a big part of the problem is that the world is increasingly less inclined to regard America as "the shining city on the hill" that Ronald Reagan invoked.

With strikingly little notice, David Walker, head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, spoke in August about disturbing parallels between today's America and the decline of the Roman Empire. Among the similarities Walker cited were "declining values and political civility at home, an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government."

Even in a world without budding rivals, the American superpower would still be jeopardized by its "unsustainable" disregard for tackling rundown schools and inner-city neighbourhoods, a yawning gap between rich and poor, and a route to citizenship for the country's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

Even superpowers are fragile once the rot of complacency sets in. "It's time to learn from history," Walker said, "and take steps to ensure that the American republic is the first to stand the test of time."

Posted by: MonsterMark

Obviously strikken with BDS syndrome.

Until you tell me there is another country you would rather live in, if I were you I'd take your author's article and put it where the sun don't shine.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

You just don't like to face unpleasant facts.
If you don't like an arguement you just change the subject
like a woman would and resort to vulgarities.
Pax Americana has been a failure and let's see where we'll be in 10-15 years as the rest of the world expands their economies while we fall further and further into debt and continue squandering the future.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

You just don't like to face unpleasant facts.
If you don't like an argument you just change the subject
like a woman would and resort to vulgarities.
Pax Americana has been a failure and let's see where we'll be in 10-15 years as the rest of the world expands their economies while we fall further and further into debt and continue squandering the future.

You anti-american guys kill me.

Sure there are bad Pax-Americana repercussions but let's face it, these 3 countries are a perfect fit for our imperialistic endeavors. Vast energy (oil, solar, wind) reserves will enable the U.S. to maintain its dominant position in the world.

First we need to beat down the liberals in this country to get access to the energy available here on this continent. With global warming, Canada will become a huge food farm and we'll develop the vast oil sands and along with increase production out of Mexico, we'll be able to walk away from Saudi oil.

We'll have food, fuel and technology.

Start reducing the size of government, get out of the way of alternative energy so it can develop in the free market and we'll be all set.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

What makes you think Mexico and leftist liberal Canada are going to just give you access to their oil.
Your answers sound very pat but what have you been waiting for.
It's been almost 28 years since Khomeini deposed the CIA installed puppet Shah, humiliated you and kicked you out of Iran in the revolution that helped set the whole Islamic thing going.
At this rate I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for your hopes to become reality.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

You just don't like to face unpleasant facts.
If you don't like an arguement you just change the subject
like a woman would and resort to vulgarities.
Pax Americana has been a failure and let's see where we'll be in 10-15 years as the rest of the world expands their economies while we fall further and further into debt and continue squandering the future.

So who's fault is it that we are falling further into debt? The title of this thread indicates that you believe President Bush is a fault. The defense appropriations bill recently signed by President Bush contains almost 2000 earmarks. The point being, we can blame congress as a whole for ridiculous spending. Also, since you feel so strongly about national debt I take it that you would not vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

04SCTLS let me pose a question to you...who have you liked as U.S. President?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhouer JFK.
Ronald Reagan due to his personality and his help in defeating the Soviets.
I liked George Bush Senior. He slapped the Isreali's down by not giving in to all their demands and was smart enough to leave Saddam in power to rule all those hateful people in Iraq.
Bill Clinton was very popular other than he disgraced himself and embarassed the country with the Monica Lewinsky debacle.
I wasn't fond of Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Carter.
Ford I don't have a real opinion on. I suppose it was good he pardoned Nixon and spared the country having their president on trial.
I really dislike George W Bush and think he's unfit for the office. That's why I slipped him into the title.
He's a C student ex alchoholic who was born lucky.
To be the smartest man in the room he has to surround himself with people who are stupider than he is and even then he doesn't like debate or critisism.
Then there's the whole born again christian who speaks to god thing.
Like Einstien, I don't believe in a personal god who intervenes in people's lives or events on earth so to me
Bush is, putting it charitably, funny in the head.
I come from Canada, a secular country where religion is a private matter which is not a part of politics.
I can't remember anyone running for office in Canada even mentioning anything about faith.
Nowhere is it written that the American Empire goes on forever.
That America is powerless to stop or influence many things
and countries and has become the worlds biggest borrower with only 4% of the population tells me that the slide has already begun and we are no longer the most important country in the world except to ourselves.
The American dollar is on the verge of being dethroned as the world currency of choice and if that happens we will no longer be the most powerful country in the world.
A strong military is a waste of money if it doesn't bring in any booty or conquer territory.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I come from Canada...

4 words that reveal the world.

Bush...Harvard, Yale, fighter pilot, POTUS. Ya, a real dumba$$.

I assume you graduated high school, correct?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I have 2 years community college.
However attacking me doesn't change any of the facts listed above.
Bush's family connections helped him through yale like they have with everything in his life.
Unlike McCain and Kerry he ducked military service in Vietnam.
And who wouldn't want to fly a jet while in the National Guard given the chance.
Bush is a very polarizing leader. People either love him or hate him with very little in between.
Since leaving school, I have built up a company that's adding to the national wealth, generating 8 figure revenues and growing.
With all due respect other than opining on message boards what have you accomplished.

Posted by: blue92

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I have 2 years community college.
However attacking me doesn't change any of the facts listed above.
Bush's family connections helped him through yale like they have with everything in his life.
Unlike McCain and Kerry he ducked military service in Vietnam.
And who wouldn't want to fly a jet while in the National Guard given the chance.
Bush is a very polarizing leader. People either love him or hate him with very little in between.
Since leaving school, I have built up a company that's adding to the national wealth, generating 8 figure revenues and growing.
With all due respect other than opining on message boards what have you accomplished.

Let me guess your going to vote for the big legged Hillary. You think things are bad with Bush in the white house if the democrats get into the white house this election you can kiss what freedoms we've had good bye. What we'll get with the democrats in the white house is free drivers licenses for illegals, the national language becoming Spanish, the word God removed from all US government documents and currency, and government spending out the roof. Not to mention how our foreign policies will weaken.

Event if one doesn't agree with the war we still need to support our troops which it seems the democrats don't believe in. They keep wanting to deny the troops better equipment and the funds they need to continue the progress they have obtained.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue92

Who I will vote for remains to be seen.
Hillary is losing ground and may not win the nomination.
She's respected as a player but not widely liked.
At least Bill had and still has charm which Hillary is also intellectual but charm deficient.
She's even stopped that silly forced laughing which most people found perplexing annoying and disengenuine.
Also some men will simply not vote for a woman for president
As to the illegals some of them are starting to pack up and leave because 1. the housing market has collapsed and a lot of the jobs have disappeared and 2. The states fed up with Washinton inaction have started enacting legislation which fines businesses for hiring them for a first offense and pulling their business licenses if they persist.If we have the will for all the states to pass such legislation they will self deport back to Mexico or make a run for Canada until Canada tightens up it's immigration rules.

I've lived long enough to know the fundamentals of this country will not disappear if one bad person gets elected.
If the voters are unsatisfied they can vote the president out in four years, hardly long enough to turn the US into a communist country.
Bill won 2 terms and the country survived.
Gore won more votes but Bush got in which many are still sore about but they let it go. Even his reelection was 57 million to Kerry's 54 million, decisive but hardly a landslide.
I could see voting for Gulianni or Thompson or even Ron Paul. Romney is too much of a flip flopper and thinks he can buy the nomonation. Huckabee comes across as a liberal in conservative clothing who places too much emphasis on his religious credentials while making foreign policy and other gaffs.
Obama generates some excitement but frankly I don't think the voters will put a minority candidate in office when it comes time to make their decision at the moment of truth.
Edwards seems like a pretty boy not quite ready for prime time.
A year is forever in politics and the future is yet to be written. And there's always the possibility of an october surprise like Bush's buried DUI which luckily for him didn't derail his candidacy.
Like most I won't be deciding until october 08.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I have 2 years community college.

Congrats. For you to make that 'Bush is an idiot' comment makes you look like one is all. If you would have said you were a Canadian from the beginning, I could have taken it with a grain of salt but the Bush bashing gets kinda old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

However attacking me doesn't change any of the facts listed above.

There are no facts listed above. That's the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Bush's family connections helped him through yale like they have with everything in his life.

BooHoo. He had a little help along the way. So what? You wouldn't help your kid if you could?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Unlike McCain and Kerry he ducked military service in Vietnam.

McCain did serve so there is no comment to be made. John Kerry on the other hand, 4 deferments. On the 5th denial he grudgingly 'volunteered' so he could pick his poison vs being drafted. Picks a non-combat roll patrolling coastal waters in a PT boat like his hero JFK. Went the going got tough, he intentionally hurt himself and wrote up bogus reports to get out. You need to catch up on who the real John Kerry is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

And who wouldn't want to fly a jet while in the National Guard given the chance.

Bush would and did. Does that make him an idiot?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Bush is a very polarizing leader. People either love him or hate him with very little in between.

Great...you've proven that you hate him. I happen to respect the man a great deal, and to be quite honest, so does the rest of the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Since leaving school, I have built up a company that's adding to the national wealth, generating 8 figure revenues and growing.

I just sit in the basement in a dark corner in my barcolounger and type missives to edumicate people like you that come into the lair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

With all due respect other than opining on message boards what have you accomplished.

Not much. See above.

Edit: I did make two awesome football highlight videos for 2 of my sons that played football this year. Gave them to all the players as a Christmas gift. Over 2,000 plays were digested and edited in HD, repleat with slow-mo action, zoom and ESPN worthy screen graphics. Hell, the companies I run are nothing compared to the joy I get out of supporting my kids to the Nth degree. Maybe one of them will be President some day.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

At least Bill had and still has charm which Hillary is also intellectual but charm deficient.
She's even stopped that silly forced laughing which most people found perplexing annoying and disengenuine.

Wonderful. A charming rapist and an annoying b!tch. Great combo.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

There is much opinion in the original post but also these facts you seem to have missed.

It became more apparent than ever this year that the U.S. is no longer the world's lone superpower. Instead, there are five superpowers that will define the world for at least the next half-century: the U.S., Chinam, India, Russia and a united Europe.

Chinese oil interests in Sudan made Beijing intransigent about Western meddling in Darfur.

Russia wouldn't abide Washington's sanctions on Iran.

India insisted upon, and received, U.S. support of its nuclear arms program despite predictable outrage from Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the pursuit of Al Qaeda. It was either that or have New Dehli turn to the Russians

Collectively, the four non-U.S. superpowers have 10 times the population of the U.S.

The European economy has eclipsed that of the U.S.

The euro has been the world's strongest currency since 2005. But not until this year did everyone from OPEC to the People's Bank of China to rock stars flirt with abandoning the U.S dollar – the world's undisputed reserve currency since the end of World War II – in favour of a euro that has soared to a current $1.48 (U.S.

America now is the world's largest borrower, and China the biggest creditor nation.

Gordon Brown, the new British PM, used the occasion of his first state visit to Washington to state that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the central front in the battle against Islamic extremists. Bush watched in stony silence as America's staunchest ally in the Iraq invasion bluntly repudiated an assertion the U.S. president has been making for five years.

As Russia has slipped into autocracy, and shipped uranium to Iran this fall over U.S. objections, Bush has been reduced to tacitly endorsing Russian actions the U.S. is powerless to control.
______________________________________________

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

I just sit in the basement in a dark corner in my barcolounger and type missives to edumicate people like you that come into the lair.

lol
and watch packer games right ?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

I suppose you'll disagree with this famous quote:

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official...

~Theodore Roosevelt

I disagree with your positions but totally support your right to voice them.

It's nice to see you have a sense of humor about yourself.

Quote:
I just sit in the basement in a dark corner in my barcolounger and type missives to edumicate people like you that come into the lair.

It is a tenet of America that anyone can become president
and I wish you luck for your children should they choose to pursue that dream.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

lol
and watch packer games right ?

Oh, so you noticed that Mespock hasn't been around since the beginning of the year also.

Ya, huge Packer fan. Only made 5 games this year.

Favre beating Brady in the Super Bowl would be the greatest story ever told in football. The old gunslinger leading the kids to victory. One can only dream.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

There is much opinion in the original post but also these facts you seem to have missed.

OK, I'll bite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

It became more apparent than ever this year that the U.S. is no longer the world's lone superpower. Instead, there are five superpowers that will define the world for at least the next half-century: the U.S., Chinam, India, Russia and a united Europe.

And how has Bush's "Moronic vision" created this event?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Chinese oil interests in Sudan made Beijing intransigent about Western meddling in Darfur.

We're going to hear alot more about oil, arent' we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Russia wouldn't abide Washington's sanctions on Iran.

Is that a big surprise? France and Germany also had their hands in the same cookie jar. Again, how does that relate to a "Moronic Bush Vision".

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

India insisted upon, and received, U.S. support of its nuclear arms program despite predictable outrage from Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the pursuit of Al Qaeda. It was either that or have New Dehli turn to the Russians

Again sounds like a good decision by the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Collectively, the four non-U.S. superpowers have 10 times the population of the U.S.

I guess it's time to start handing out condoms and teaching sex education to 5 year olds in those countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

The European economy has eclipsed that of the U.S.

How many countries are included in that European economic number? How has Airbus been doing compared to Boeing recently?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

The euro has been the world's strongest currency since 2005. But not until this year did everyone from OPEC to the People's Bank of China to rock stars flirt with abandoning the U.S dollar – the world's undisputed reserve currency since the end of World War II – in favour of a euro that has soared to a current $1.48 (U.S.)

Great news! Looks like my export business will be picking up the next year or two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

America now is the world's largest borrower, and China the biggest creditor nation.

Hey, I'll trade my paper dollar for a supersoaker any day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Gordon Brown, the new British PM, used the occasion of his first state visit to Washington to state that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the central front in the battle against Islamic extremists. Bush watched in stony silence as America's staunchest ally in the Iraq invasion bluntly repudiated an assertion the U.S. president has been making for five years.

Bush has not stated that the way you have inferred.

Start way back at the 1st Gulf War and you'll find out why we are in Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

As Russia has slipped into autocracy, and shipped uranium to Iran this fall over U.S. objections, Bush has been reduced to tacitly endorsing Russian actions the U.S. is powerless to control.

And what would any Dem leader have done instead. Bomb Moscow?

Posted by: 04SCTLS

This is where we disagree Monstermark

Project For The New American Century

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

a late-1990s doctrine of preserving U.S. hegemony by overthrowing unfriendly regimes – a moronic vision that nonetheless manifested itself in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, with Iran as the regime-changers' next target.
______________________________________________

You may find this doctine agreeable but IMO this is a moronic vision that Bush was sold on and adopted.
I see this as the bully trying to force his will upon others by intimidation.

Our experience in Iraq has shown how difficult it is to subjugate even a small 3rd rate country never mind more formidable nations.
Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" after a few months and yes Saddam was removed but Bush and Cheney thought we'd be treated like the liberators of Paris and this would be over in a few months yet here we are almost 5 years later still struggling.
Bush won't even admit how badly his administration miscalculated things. If so it's only belatedly, partially and grudgingly.
And the neocons want us to be able to fight 2 or 3 wars at the same time.
This type of military projection of power is unsustainable
given our current economic weakness which we should be more concerned with than expanding the American Empire.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I really dislike George W Bush and think he's unfit for the office. That's why I slipped him into the title.
He's a C student ex alchoholic who was born lucky.
To be the smartest man in the room he has to surround himself with people who are stupider than he is and even then he doesn't like debate or critisism.
Then there's the whole born again christian who speaks to god thing.
Like Einstien, I don't believe in a personal god who intervenes in people's lives or events on earth so to me
Bush is, putting it charitably, funny in the head.
I come from Canada, a secular country where religion is a private matter which is not a part of politics.
I can't remember anyone running for office in Canada even mentioning anything about faith.

Regarding your criticism of George Bush for being a C-student, I would still give him a decisive edge over you as far as spelling and English grammar skills. In other words, your poor spelling and grammar skills tells me that you have no business criticizing someone else for being a C-student. Moreover, you might have "built up" a company with 8-figure revenues, but I have no doubt that George Bush has accomplished more and has lived, and is living a more exciting life than you ever will.

As far as your reasons for not liking President Bush, it appears that you have an intense prejudice against religion in general with particular emphasis against Christianity. You say that, like "Einstien" (sic), you don't believe in a "personal god"—but I doubt that you have detailed knowledge of Albert Einstein’s views concerning God and religion. If you really believe as Einstein did then you would use a capital "G" in the word "God."

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC1

Regarding your criticism of George Bush for being a C-student, I would still give him a decisive edge over you as far as spelling and English grammar skills. In other words, your poor spelling and grammar skills tells me that you have no business criticizing someone else for being a C-student. Moreover, you might have helped to build a company with 8-figure revenues, but I have no doubt that George Bush has accomplished more and has lived, and is living a more exciting life than you ever will.

As far as your reasons for not liking President Bush, it appears that you have an intense prejudice against religion in general with particular emphasis against Christianity. You say that, like "Einstien" (sic), you don't believe in a "personal god"—but I doubt that you have detailed knowledge of Albert Einstein’s views concerning God and religion. If you really believe as Einstein did then you would use a capital "G" in the word "God."

Only someone who doesn't believe in "God" would not capitalize "His Name". Of course someone who is a "Sub - C" Student also wouldn't capitalize The Name "God".

One of the things that puzzles me is that someone who owns their own company would support the Democrats? I run my own company and believe me Taxes will "Eat Up" the Small Business Owner!

Posted by: MonsterMark

TIME OUT FOR SOME LIGHT HUMOR!

Al Gore Blames Children for Global Warming

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

TIME OUT FOR SOME LIGHT HUMOR!

Al Gore Blames Children for Global Warming

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

TIME OUT FOR SOME LIGHT HUMOR!

Al Gore Blames Children for Global Warming

Here's one he could remove from the "Gene Pool"!

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tricky-Dick

Here's one he could remove from the "Gene Pool"!

Don't you realize that guy is famous? He set the record for the 1st hybrid car to hit 100 mph.

Posted by: MonsterMark

My Mom? She's wacko!!!

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Don't you realize that guy is famous? He set the record for the 1st hybrid car to hit 100 mph.

Yeah, but he has a hard mountain to climb...his dad invented "The Internet" and "Post It" Notes!

Posted by: hrmwrm

"I happen to respect the man a great deal, and to be quite honest, so does the rest of the world."

that would be some fantastic proof to back that statement up.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

My Mom? She's wacko!!!

ROFL!!!!!!!!

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrmwrm

"I happen to respect the man a great deal, and to be quite honest, so does the rest of the world."

that would be some fantastic proof to back that statement up.

France and Germany elected conservative leaders that embrace the U.S. and her policies. They didn't run away from Bush.

How's that for starters?

You can't believe everything you hear on ABC and CNN.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Ya, huge Packer fan. Only made 5 games this year.

Did you enjoy the Bears / Packers game last week as much as I did? ROFL OWNED

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Remember something -

There will be a certain amount of votes that the dems will get this year SOLELY because of GW.

They wont be voting for democrats, but against republicans. And this will be mainly because of GW. So keep praising him. You just drive some people further into the democratic fold.

Right now, I am guessing we are likely to have either hillary or obama in the white house next year. Now, im not happy about this, but its looking like thats how it'll turn out.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Right now, I am guessing we are likely to have either hillary or obama in the white house next year. Now, im not happy about this, but its looking like thats how it'll turn out.

It blows my mind that that could even be remotely possible. Both will be unmitigated disasters.

I'm telling you, if we let down our guard and elect a Dem, we will get attacked. Our enemies are patiently waiting for the opportunity.

Hillary will pull a Clinton and Obama will crawl into a shell.

There is no doubt that the liberally biased media has a profound effect on the unthinking masses in this country. As a whole, we are a stupid nation. The media steers popular thought. Lots of parrots out there.

And the last time I checked, GW wasn't running.

I think we need a Dem in office and in control of Congress when we get attacked again. People will then be able to make a clear-cut distinction between how Repubs protect the country and how Dems do.

A major city goes down, panic the likes we've never experienced will ensue. Oil, $200 or more a gallon. Looting out of control. The Dems will call for a military curfew.

Only then will we get past this 50/50 impass. The Dems had a nice 40 year run in the House and Senate. Time for the Repubs to get the same timetable.

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

My Mom? She's wacko!!!

Wow she can look evil

She makes my ex look like a saint, just think of the pure hell Bill had to go though when she found out he was gettin BJ's in the office and its going to get out to the press

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I think we need a Dem in office and in control of Congress when we get attacked again. People will then be able to make a clear-cut distinction between how Repubs protect the country and how Dems do.

A major city goes down, panic the likes we've never experienced will ensue. Oil, $200 or more a gallon. Looting out of control. The Dems will call for a military curfew.

Only then will we get past this 50/50 impass. The Dems had a nice 40 year run in the House and Senate. Time for the Repubs to get the same timetable.

I'm not so sure we can predict how a democrat president and congressional democrats would handle a terrorist attack since democrats often lie about their intentions and don't follow through on what they say they intend to do as evidenced by what has transpired thus far with democrats holding a majority of congress and their numerous broken promises after the 2006 elections. So, while you may think that democrats will freeze and drop the ball should we be attacked, I think they are also capable of going off the deep end in the opposite direction. They may declare martial law, suspend the constitution, invent or increase taxes in a panic to raise revenue to fight terrorism, tank our economy and invade Mexico and Canada--all while blaming President Bush.

The point being is that the current crop of ultra-left-wing democrats are unpredictable.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

It blows my mind that that could even be remotely possible. Both will be unmitigated disasters.

And the last time I checked, GW wasn't running.

I agree Hillary will - I honestly dont know enough about Obama to form an opinion - which is why I doubt I will be voting for him.

Obviously GW isnt running - but most people believe he has not been the best of presidents and he is taking the party as a whole down with him. Any republican will have to overcome the opinion people have of GW in order to be elected. To think GW doesnt have a negative impact on the republicans in this election is naive. He had a congressional rubber stamp his first 6 years in office, so dont blame congress, the republicans lost control of congress because of GW and that rubber stamp.

Thats what some of you have to realize. GW cost the republican party huge. Every time you see Pelosi up there - realize, GW put her there. If you realize that, then you will have a leg up on getting a republican candidate elected.

I honestly have no clue who to vote for yet. I could like Huckabee if he would stop injecting religon into every friggin speech - I could like Ron Paul if he was even close to electable. But I also fear the conservatives and their ability to appoint a few more Supreme Court justices should they win the white house again.

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

I honestly have no clue who to vote for yet. I could like Huckabee if he would stop injecting religon into every friggin speech - I could like Ron Paul if he was even close to electable.

Couldnt agree with you more I I hear one more christian quote from Huckabee I am going to puke...... Ron Paul is toast too liberal for most conservatives.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

Couldnt agree with you more I I hear one more christian quote from Huckabee I am going to puke...... Ron Paul is toast too liberal for most conservatives.

THANK YOU!

Posted by: blue92

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

This is where we disagree Monstermark

Project For The New American Century

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

a late-1990s doctrine of preserving U.S. hegemony by overthrowing unfriendly regimes – a moronic vision that nonetheless manifested itself in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, with Iran as the regime-changers' next target.
______________________________________________

You may find this doctine agreeable but IMO this is a moronic vision that Bush was sold on and adopted.
I see this as the bully trying to force his will upon others by intimidation.

Our experience in Iraq has shown how difficult it is to subjugate even a small 3rd rate country never mind more formidable nations.
Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" after a few months and yes Saddam was removed but Bush and Cheney thought we'd be treated like the liberators of Paris and this would be over in a few months yet here we are almost 5 years later still struggling.
Bush won't even admit how badly his administration miscalculated things. If so it's only belatedly, partially and grudgingly.
And the neocons want us to be able to fight 2 or 3 wars at the same time.
This type of military projection of power is unsustainable
given our current economic weakness which we should be more concerned with than expanding the American Empire.

All this proves is the person writing the article not only hates Bush put also hates the US. Just another far left reporter of the news media, bet who ever wrote this article thinks the leader of Saudi Arabia is a Saint too.

Posted by: hrmwrm

"Obviously GW isnt running - but most people believe he has not been the best of presidents and he is taking the party as a whole down with him. "

similar to what happened after the mulroney years here. even when he didn't run, he took the whole conservative party with him. there wasn't a conservative that could get elected after him. the reform party took all the conservative side, and the liberals took the majority. good thing there isn't a secondary conservative party there, or it just might happen the same.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

Couldnt agree with you more I I hear one more christian quote from Huckabee I am going to puke...... Ron Paul is toast too liberal for most conservatives.

I don't hear Huckabee constantly quoting the Bible. He's too smart for that because he knows it would upset a lot of people. It might be your perception that he constantly talks about the Bible because, like Mitt Romney, he's being bombarded with questions from the media about his religious faith and what role it would play in his decision-making as president.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

I wasn't fond of Truman..

History has judged him as arguably one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century...

Quote:

I really dislike George W Bush and think he's unfit for the office.

Fortunately over 50% of the country disagreed with you

Quote:

He's a C student ex alchoholic who was born lucky.

A "C" student...at Yale (Which I have no doubt is better then what you could do at that time). Either way, how is that relevant?

Quote:

To be the smartest man in the room he has to surround himself with people who are stupider than he is and even then he doesn't like debate or critisism.

WTF? Who ever said he was trying to be the smartest person in the room? You seem to have no idea what leadership is.

Stupider? Is that a word? (when you are attacking someones intellect, it helps if you use good grammar). You think Condi, Rummy, Ashcroft, Cheney, etc. are stupid? Lets compare your grades to theirs (grades seem to matter to you so much).

Doesn't like debate or critisism? He has 70-80% of the media actively working against him. How are you not forced to debate in those cercumstances?

Quote:

Then there's the whole born again christian who speaks to god thing.
Like Einstien, I don't believe in a personal god who intervenes in people's lives or events on earth so to me

God forbid he doesn't hold your lack of belief. This says more about your own personally arrogant bias against people of faith then anything else; basically, it exposes a large personal flaw on your part.

You also forget, this county was founded on Christian principals, and its roots are in Christianity.

Quote:

Bush is, putting it charitably, funny in the head.

You still haven't made the case here, though you have shown thta you don't use your head. Instead you use your emotions to make decisions; emotion over reason. The fact that you ignore reality, and look down on anyone with religious belief shows that you need to get over yourself.

Quote:

I come from Canada, a secular country where religion is a private matter which is not a part of politics.

Well theres the problem, your Canadian

.
religion may not be a part of politics in Canada, but Canada isn' America.

Quote:

I can't remember anyone running for office in Canada even mentioning anything about faith.

But Canada isn't America, remember. Canada is effectively irrelevant on the world stage, in comparison to America.

Quote:

Nowhere is it written that the American Empire goes on forever.

It still hasn't been show that America is an "Empire".

Quote:

That America is powerless to stop or influence many things
and countries and has become the worlds biggest borrower with only 4% of the population tells me that the slide has already begun and we are no longer the most important country in the world except to ourselves.

The deficit is decreasing.

And what is this "we" stuff? I thought you were Canadian.

Quote:

A strong military is a waste of money if it doesn't bring in any booty or conquer territory.

So America

Quote:

should

be all about empire now? You obviously hae no clue how the govenment works or what the function of military is.

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

I don't hear Huckabee constantly quoting the Bible.

I never said the bible MAC1

The guy cant open his yap without some christian overtones

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Bush's family connections helped him through yale like they have with everything in his life.

That is a big assumption. And, yes, it is only an assumption. There is no proof. I could go with his connections getting him into Yale, but he still had to do the work to get through on his own. His father wasn't much of anything back when he went to college anyhow. The highlights of Bush senior's carreer were long after that.

Quote:

Unlike McCain and Kerry he ducked military service in Vietnam.

Again, large assumption. needs proof.

Quote:

Bush is a very polarizing leader. People either love him or hate him with very little in between.

very few love him. I have yet to see anyone on this board who loves Bush. In fact, I have never even met a conservative who loves Bush. However, there are many, like you who have an irrational hartred for him based mostly on distortion and misinformation, if not outright lies. This is all that seems to fuel your worldview when it comes to America (it obviously isn't reason, logic, or reality).

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Project For The New American Century

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

a late-1990s doctrine of preserving U.S. hegemony by overthrowing unfriendly regimes – a moronic vision that nonetheless manifested itself in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, with Iran as the regime-changers' next target.

______________________________________________

Interesting how you rely on a secondary source to spin what the "Project For The New American Century" advocates. Why don't you do a little research yourself;
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

If you are intellectually honest, you will find that what they advocate is much more benign they how it is spun in that article.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC1

The point being is that the current crop of ultra-left-wing democrats are unpredictable.

Good point.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Ah shagdrum,
I was wondering when you would chime in.
I read the link you posted about the new american century
as well but it wouldn't pull your chain the way my link did.
Things would get boring here if we all just complimented each other.
I was never comparing myself or my education with that of Bush. Whatever my opinion of Bush may be his winning of the presidency is quite an achievement which speaks for itself.
As to my spelling and grammar maybe you should look at your's before you point out mine.
You supposedly wrote a book so you should have higher standards

Examples

1. an irrational hartred- should be hatred
2. Bush senior's carreer- should be career
3. Lets compare your grades to theirs - should be their's
debate in those cercumstances?- should be circumstances.
4. The guy cant open his yap without some christian overtones - should be can't

5. Fortunately over 50% of the country disagreed with you- should be voters instead of country.

6. though you have shown thta you don't use your head- should be that instead of thta
Well theres the problem, your Canadian - should be there's

7. Doesn't like debate or critisism- should be criticism

8. You obviously hae no clue how the govenment works or what the function of military is.- should be has not hae and government not govenment and function of (the) military is.

Nobody usually plays grammar police on boards but you ironically have made 10 spelling errors in your post while criticising
my use of the english language.
Perhaps you should run spell check and re read what you write before posting.
There are always errors like these in your posts.
Anyways I just wanted to wish everyone a happy new year
and more interesting provoking posts in 2008.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

oh and your Canadian should be you're Canadian.
Does all this make you a C student?

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

I never said the bible MAC1
The guy cant open his yap without some christian overtones

I wasn't sure what you meant by "christian quote". I thought you must be referring to the Bible because you used the term "quote". I'm still not sure what you're referring to. What do you mean by "christian overtones"? Do you have an example?

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC1

The point being is that the current crop of ultra-left-wing democrats are unpredictable.

I couldn't agree more...

Posted by: fossten

The corrector gets corrected:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Ah shagdrum,
I was wondering when you would chime in.
I read the link you posted about the new american century
as well but it wouldn't pull your chain the way my link did.

Should be American, not american.

Quote:

You supposedly wrote a book so you should have higher standards

Examples

3. Lets compare your grades to theirs - should be their's

Wrong. Theirs is correct. Look it up.

Quote:

4. The guy cant open his yap without some christian overtones - should be can't

This wasn't Shagdrum's error.

Quote:

5. Fortunately over 50% of the country disagreed with you- should be voters instead of country.

This is not a grammatical error - merely semantical. Not a bad point though.

Quote:

8. You obviously hae no clue how the govenment works or what the function of military is.- should be has not hae and government not govenment and function of (the) military is.

Wrong. Should be have not has or hae.

Quote:

Nobody usually plays grammar police on boards but you ironically have made 10 spelling errors in your post while criticising
my use of the english language.

Should be criticizing not criticising; should be English not english.

Quote:

Perhaps you should run spell check and re read what you write before posting.
There are always errors like these in your posts.

Should be re-read not re read.

Quote:

Anyways I just wanted to wish everyone a happy new year
and more interesting provoking posts in 2008.

Should be anyway not anyways.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Thank you for the lesson fossten.
As our President said:
"Childrens do learn"

Posted by: fossten

No problem.

Feel free to correct any of my posts' grammar or spelling anytime...if you can find any.

Posted by: shagdrum

[quote=04SCTLS;341779].

Quote:

I read the link you posted about the new american century as well but it wouldn't pull your chain the way my link did.

Interesting, because your link is basically spin, while mine is the direct link to the group being attacked, yet you seem to just brush it off...
Rather telling

Quote:

I was never comparing myself or my education with that of Bush.

No, but you were attacking his intellect through his education, which makes your education somewhat relevant to the discussion, at least in comparison to him.

Quote:

As to my spelling and grammar maybe you should look at your's before you point out mine.
You supposedly wrote a book so you should have higher standards

Examples

1. an irrational hartred- should be hatred
2. Bush senior's carreer- should be career
3. Lets compare your grades to theirs - should be their's
debate in those cercumstances?- should be circumstances.
4. The guy cant open his yap without some christian overtones - should be can't

5. Fortunately over 50% of the country disagreed with you- should be voters instead of country.

6. though you have shown thta you don't use your head- should be that instead of thta
Well theres the problem, your Canadian - should be there's

7. Doesn't like debate or critisism- should be criticism

8. You obviously hae no clue how the govenment works or what the function of military is.- should be has not hae and government not govenment and function of (the) military is.

Nobody usually plays grammar police on boards but you ironically have made 10 spelling errors in your post while criticising
my use of the english language.
Perhaps you should run spell check and re read what you write before posting.
There are always errors like these in your posts.
Anyways I just wanted to wish everyone a happy new year
and more interesting provoking posts in 2008.

I wrote a book? When?
How does any of this critisism (hehe) have any relevance to the debate? Seems to me you are just avoiding the points I made here.

As far as I am concerned, grades in college are irrelevant, as are spelling and grammer (to a degree) as long as the point is made. You were the one citing Bushs' "C" student status as relevant, even though it isn't.
I have been effectively punished (as far as grades go) for holding conservative values in school, in some classes. Many of the wisest people I know were hardly superb students, while many of the most foolish people I know were "A" students. College today is at least as much about indoctrination as it is about teaching critical thinking (if not more). Maybe it was different when you went to college, but that is the way it is today. All good grades mean in many colleges today is that you studied tenaciously, and you can regurgitate liberal propaganda (at least in certian programs). It usually says nothing about your critical thinking abilities (or lack thereof).

What you are citing is irrelevant to the discussion here, and nothing but a cheap attack.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Oh, so you noticed that Mespock hasn't been around since the beginning of the year also.

Ya, huge Packer fan. Only made 5 games this year.

Favre beating Brady in the Super Bowl would be the greatest story ever told in football. The old gunslinger leading the kids to victory. One can only dream.

Hey I know when my team is down and not just lucky.. LOL...

Dream go to sleep and dream about those packers.. they have only one game left this year.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

[quote=shagdrum;341764]

Stupider? Is that a word? (when you are attacking someones intellect, it helps if you use good grammar).

Well you attacked my use of the english language otherwise I wouldn't bring it up.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Stupider is a real word

stu·pid (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est

I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am.
Ann Coulter

I made a pact with myself a long time ago: Never watch anything stupider than you. It's helped me a lot.
Bette Midler

Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?
Blaise Pascal

Posted by: MonsterMark

Is it just me or did anybody else feel the air just go out of this thread?

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

From today
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22443302/

Mike Huckabee, a Republican relying on support from religious conservatives in Thursday's hard-fought Iowa presidential caucuses, on Sunday stood by a decade-old comment in which he said, "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

Quote:

Is it just me or did anybody else feel the air just go out of this thread?

I think its got legs

Quote:

Dream go to sleep and dream about those packers.. they have only one game left this year.

Two games

maybe three if Owens don't get the ball and pouts

The third will be bad for the pack if they can run that far.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Over on NBC's "Tonight'' show tonight, host Jay Leno will welcome a slightly more subdued guest: Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

Posted by: shagdrum

[quote=04SCTLS;341886]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Stupider? Is that a word? (when you are attacking someones intellect, it helps if you use good grammar).

Well you attacked my use of the english language otherwise I wouldn't bring it up.

I stand corrected.
I didn't think "stupider" was a word. It just sounds like bad english to me, hence the question.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

This example is after your initial post.

At any rate, why would you be upset at Huckabee for defending a decade-old comment regardless of whether it's religious in nature? Moreover, it's not unusual for a republican or democrat to try to appeal to Christian conservatives for votes by discussing their personal views on such topics as abortion and family values. It sounds like Judeo-Christian values don't appeal to you so your offended anytime someone brings the topic up.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Huckabee campaign on a wing and a prayer
December 28th, 2007, filed by Ed Stoddard
From a pheasant shoot to prayers before his stump speeches, rising Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s cash-strapped campaign seems to have literally at times been done on a wing and a prayer.

A former Arkansas Governor and ordained Baptist preacher, Huckabee’s unexpected surge in the polls has been attributed in large part to his successful wooing of the Republican Party’s conservative and influential evangelical base.

That means his campaign events often kick off with prayers — a common way to start many public affairs in the American heartland, from rodeos to business breakfasts.

On Thursday night close to 1,000 people bowed their heads in prayer before several speakers took to the podium at an event dubbed “We The People” at a hotel in West Des Moines that ended with a Huckabee stump speech.

Last week at a campaign event for Huckabee sponsored by the Iowa Christian Alliance, Huckabee joined the group in prayers before and at the end of his speech. He also sprinkled several Bible references during his remarks.

The crucial Iowa caucus on Jan. 3 kicks off the presidential nomination process for both the Republicans and the Democrats for the November White House election.

“When you’re outspent 20 to one, and that’s basically the ratio here, it’s a remarkable story. If we come in second even third it’s still a remarkable story to be outspent like that,” Huckabe said on Thursday night, refering to Republican rival Mitt Romney’s financial advantage over him.

But Huckabee has been hitting key Republican ATMs like Texas and Florida this month in his fund-raising efforts. When December’s numbers are disclosed, he likely is hoping some of his prayers have been answered.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Prayers may go over well with the evangelical base but not so much with mainstream voters.
In a way it says "I'm not strong enough to win on my own so please help me God"

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Prayers may go over well with the evangelical base but not so much with mainstream voters.
In a way it says "I'm not strong enough to win on my own so please help me God"

So, when Hillary uses a fake southern accent to try to appeal to southern voters does that also tell you that she's not strong enough to win on her own? Instead, she has to disingenuously pander to southern voters. Also, you're probably right in that Huckabee has asked God for help through prayer--After all, he is Christian, and Christians do appeal to God for help.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

All politicians are manipulative and desire to win however they can.

Hillary is a chamelion focusing her style to a particular audience
which a lot of people find cynical just like her abandoned forced laughter.

Huckabee is appealing to people's Christian faith which is more exclusionary
than a regional accent. People of other faiths, or no faith will say he's not really interested in my vote or he wouldn't be so in your face with the emphasis on religion.

We'll see if he uses the same MO in New Hampshire which has a lot more moderate voters.
I say no as he's not stupid and knows he may alienate more voters there than he gains.

If Hillary does win the Democratic nomination it will be good fortune for the Republican Party as they'll all unite to fight her as this LA Times article suggests:

GOP BASE SCATTERS TO RIVAL CAMPS

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-nation

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

All politicians are manipulative and desire to win however they can.

Rather large generalization

Quote:

Huckabee is appealing to people's Christian faith which is more exclusionary
than a regional accent

Not in America...
You forget this is a nation founded on Christian values and principles

Quote: