# Bush knew and did nothing



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Bush knew and did nothing. 

Doing Bush's dirty work - what turns patriots into hatriots? 

How to spot a liar.

An Army of One?

[ September 15, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: MACSPECTRUM ]


----------



## NetMinder (Dec 15, 2003)

Well if you are interested in considering the larger picture on Bush you might find this worth a read.

Just so you know: I attacked and took over 2 countries.

I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.

I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).

I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did).

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.

I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.

I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of tv. 

I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

I cut health care benefits for war veterans.

I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history.
(The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.)

I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.

I am the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.

I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security"(only one letter away from BS).
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases,

more than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough to beat, but I did it!!).

I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history 

I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. I withdrew from the World Court of Law. 
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoner! s of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions. 

I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.

I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations. 

The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation). 

I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history. 
I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1) 

I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government. 

I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history). 

I am the first US president in history to have a of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.

I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US! history.

I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. 

RECORDS AND REFERENCES: I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available). 
I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during

time of war. 
I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use. (wink,wink)

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. 

All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. 

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

With Love,
GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House, Washington, DC
Note: this information should be useful to voters in the 2004 election.
> > Circulate to as many citizens you think would be helped to be reminded about this record


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

_YAAAAWWWWNNN_ 

Save your breath, guys. There will be plenty of time to "Bush-bash" during his second term.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Save your breath, guys. There will be plenty of time to "Bush-bash" during his second term.


more the pity
Wilkommen Amerika.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

it is one thing to have an opinion on Bush.

It is quite another to have an obsession to post the same tired old drivel again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Get the picture yet boys?

Why not try a new life?

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Why not try a new life?


yeah, it's only of concern to 45+ % of the american voting public ( by poll )


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> yeah, it's only of concern to 45+ % of the american voting public ( by poll )


Right you are.

Why not move the the U.S. and tell THEM about it?

As I have said many times before, I am tired of it all.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and 80% of the rest of the planet.

Reading not required.  










even ostriches lookup ONCE in a while


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> and 80% of the rest of the planet.


Oh, silly me. I forgot you guys speak for 80% of the planet.

Your subject is old, tired, stale and frankly made more boring by the sheer number of times you choose to post the same anti Bush sentiment.

I GOT it. Most others on the board probably did too. We know your opinion.

Must you poison every thread possible with the same old drivel, or start a new one with the same subject thinly disguised as "new material"?

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I am tired of it all.


and i get tired of your not so closeted bigotry, but i still tolerate your posts

you have a right to be a bigot and babble to all who can hear
it's the price of democracy


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is NOT NEW. American Firsters were in admiration of fascists in Europe and the elements have been in the US political culture for many decades.

Many around the world ignored or secretly applauded the rise of fascism in Europe in the 30s.
What YOU don't see, millions of other DO SEE only too clearly, and have long before Bush arrived.
He's just an ugly dangerous expression of what was already there.

Keep your head in the sand.........it's easier to ignore what you apparently don't understand.


1992 - long before Bush - writeen by an American



> What is Fascism?
> 
> 
> From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee
> ...


_* Liberty from oppressive government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens, from illicit searches and seizures, from enforced religious values, from intimidation and arrest for dissenters;*_

This article was written more than a decade ago. ITS NOT NEW.

EXACTLY what millions of Americans fear in the Patriot Act and other odious Neo Con policies.

ITS A THREAT ever much as real as the rise of fascism in the 30s was.

Enjoy the sand.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Enjoy the sand.


Yep, I will. I love the beach.

Very relaxing and beats being an obsessive compulsive about Bush.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed, SINC. I love the beach as well.  

Sometimes, when I'm at the beach, I'll pick up a large seashell and put it to my ear. I can hear the ocean!

But rarely do I ever hear the droning chorus of the bush-bashers from said seashell.  

Mmmm...I just _LOVE_ the beach!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I'm no Bush fan (refer to Bush=moron or evil) but I do have to agree these lengthy posts are getting tiring.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Which is why I have totally given up on posting them.  

I hereby pass the torch of "Most Long-Winded and Most-Skimmed-Over Ehmac Blowhard" to the Right Honorable MacDoc. 









Cue the "Applause sign". Cut to commercial.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

One piece of advice for those who don't like these threads. Don't *READ* them. It's a free country and no one is forcing you to do anything here.

Personally, I'm thrilled that MacNutt is so optimistic about Bush's chances in the upcoming election. Given MacNutt's record of predicting election wins and his general knowledge of the world of the world (  ) I'm pretty sure that Bush Jr. will soon be using his spare time to write his autobiography.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> Personally, I'm thrilled that MacNutt is so optimistic about Bush's chances in the upcoming election.


I'm keeping a scrap collection this time around for the occasion when Macnutt goes 0-2







Oh, but wait, Bush is ahead in the polls, I forgot. Weird, how it feels dejavu.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt may have tired of writing long posts on the topic (yeah, sure  ), but he'll never tire of poking a stick in a hornet's nest.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

'Survival of the Fittest' applies to posts... the interesting posts garner comments while the boring (or spent) posts slowly wither. So if you don't like someone's post or think they are a fanatic (see quote below), the best thing to do is ignore it.



> *A fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject.
> Winston Churchill *


Back on the topic, I'm no fan of Bush myself but I'm certainly not as rabid as some here. One of the contradictions I see constantly is people describing him as stupid, and then describing him as a cunning evil manipulator. Surely he can't both?

With regard to foreign policy (I'll leave domestic policy to the Americans) I believe that the Bush administration made two major mistakes:

1. They did not plan for the aftermath of the Iraq war and so their forces there were, and are, woefully underpowered.

2. They curtailed and even removed individual liberties... both for Iraqis (shockingly so) and Americans.

I think the second mistake justifies booting him from office although I do wish Kerry would stop doing his Dalton Mcguinty immitation and take some firm stands. The election should be his to win... but it is turning into Bush's election to lose.

As a democrat (small 'D') my biggest hope for this election is for the winner to get more votes than the other guy...

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My only argument FN is it *" didn't plan for"* ????? 

Or is it *"didn't listen"* to even the advice of his own father and many others.

The other more sinister possibility is that it's part of a larger game plan involving Iran as well engineered by the NeoCon "intelligentsia".

Written in 1992 these points are so salient right now and many are embedded even in both campaigns



> *** Nationalism and super-patriotism with * a sense of historic mission.* _ those are almost Bush' own words _
> 
> *** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit. _ Vietnam/Kerry landing on aircraft carrier, both National Conventions...the list goes on _
> 
> ...


If you won't look, you can't see.
It's not new, it's very dangerous.

The US system election system is so screwed up even Putin is making snide comments......to go along with the ones in 2000 over the last fiasco in Florida and just the other day as well









Even the Chinese are making cartoons about US "freedoms"

....the US is becoming what they fought against.



[ September 16, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

An interesting article from a man I admire.

Noam Chomsky http://www.chomsky.info/ He's an interesting intelectual American Proffesor. 

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/07/1927239

Should we be surprised?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Try Gore Vidal as well for a view of current America.



> *Uncensored Gore *
> The take-no-prisoners social critic skewers Bush, Ashcroft and the whole damn lot of us for letting despots rule.
> by Marc Cooper
> 
> ...


more


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc,

Most of the points in that 'Fascist Checklist' are general enough that they could and do apply to many countries at many different times. It's good to be vigilant but I'm think you're stretching the point.

I've argued in the past that a central weakness of the US system of government is that the President is both head of state and head of govt, and that there is no one whose job it is to critique him/her. Even the American media often act as lapdogs... Bush would get eaten alive by Rex Murphy here or Jeremy Paxman in England.

Fortunately though, and this is a major reason that I do not believe the US is turning into a fascist state, other American individuals have jumped into the gap. Michael Moore's media savvy continues to frustrate Republicans, Noam Chomsky continues to forward a cogent critique, and even Jay Leno flings nasty barbs on a nightly basis. Meanwhile 'The Dixie Chicks' proclaim their embarassment at being from Bush's Texas and Springsteen and others will be singing for Kerry this Autumn. That's quite a dissenting lineup.

There are many things wrong with America, but there are many things wrong here too. We should certainly keep an eye on the US, but our focus should be on this country. If you could pass that message on to your MP when you see her, I'd be obliged...


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc, </p>

Still calling the US a fascist state? Perhaps you need to catch up on your reading?</p>

Myself? I'm inclined to agree with Emmanuel Goldstien:</p><blockquote>

I'm not one of these people who believe we live in a fascist regime. I think that's an insult to the many millions who have suffered under true oppression and horrors that we can only imagine.</p></blockquote>


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

> Bush knew and did nothing.


Wow, that's resolve under attack, alright - resolve to ignore the situation.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not sure if George W. will win the next US Presidential Elections or not. I'm not living in the States right now, and can't really judge the mood of the American people the way that I could during the last US election...when I WAS living there.

But I agree with Fink-Nottle when he notes that John Kerry didn't get the bounce that was expected from the recent Democratic Convention, while Bush is currently enjoying quite a boost from the Republican one.

And I also agree with him when he says that this election SHOULD be John Kerry's to lose, but seems to be running in favor of Bush right now.

Given all that's happened...and all that has been said and done in the public arena (and given the very BEST efforts of people like Michael Moore)...this is, perhaps, a bit unexpected. At least to some of us.  

Bush should be trailing VERY badly right now. But he's not.

Kerry should be sailing to an easy win right now, against a very unpopular incumbent who has been widely criticised.

But he's NOT.

Interesting, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...one little note on my well-publicised "failure" to accurately predict the outcome of the recent Federal Elections here in Canada:

Logic would seem to indicate that the Canadian electorate would cast out a tired old Ruling Party that is under multiple investigations for long-term fraud and theft on a grand scale...especially a tired old party that is totally devoid of new ideas, and seems to copy all of their very best ones from the rapidly growing Loyal Opposition.  

One would naturally infer that it was "time for a change". Especially since a majority of Canadians had indicated that "it was time for a change" in practically ALL of the polls leading up to the election.

BUT...

In the last weeks of the campaign, the more urbanised areas of Canada's biggest cities seemed to suddenly shy away from this necessary change. They got spooked.

So..we ended up with a temporary caretaker minority government that can't actually govern without the wholehearted support of the fringe element NDP. PLUS at least one more vote.







 

This will be a short-lived administration. No question about it. We will be voting in another Federal Election very soon, here in Canada.

It was "Act One" of a two act play. The second half may have a surprise ending. At least for some of us.

Watch and see.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Just to note a couple of things:

A. Your "failure" is not a "failure" in the sense that it is in dispute, in fact, it was simply a failure. No buts or doubts about it, it was there for all to see.

B. It was well-publicised because of your constant crowing, strutting about and in-your-face arrogant attitude.

It seems that you're a bit more circumspect (this should be in quotes because of how loosely I am using the word) now with regards as to who will win the U.S. election. It's nice to know that an old dog can learn new tricks which was what the Canadian electorate was hoping for in the last election.

As for the Americans, let's hope they won't make the idiotic move of voting in that religious fanatic again into the White House.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The "failure" was a failure of logic by a slim majority of city dwellers in our major urban centers. The fact that the barely elected Paul Martin government continues to sink in the polls shows quite clearly that some of the people who were spooked by the last ditch scare tactics are returning to a more realistic view of politics in this country.

The trend away from the Federal Liberals as "natural ruling party of Canada" continues. The second act of the play is not far off.

Watch and see.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

> In the last weeks of the campaign, the more urbanised areas of Canada's biggest cities seemed to suddenly shy away from this necessary change. They got spooked.


I don't know about that. Give the public some credit. I think they tried to make sense of the Conservative party platform, realized they hadn't had a policy convention yet, and wanted to know what the heck this new party stood for before jumping ship from the incumbent.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The usual nonsense. _slim majority of city dwellers in our major urban centers_

The PC party got 8% less of the popular vote than in 2000 - that's fading and not by a "slim number". If it weren't for Lib?NDP vote splitting it would have been worse in seat count.
*70% of Canadians don't want NeoCon......THAT's a majority.*

They may not like the Liberals with good reason but they liked the Harper "vision" even less.
••

What I think most Canadians support is the kind of better balance the health agreement represented between Ottawa and the Provinces. This is a Federation after all.
Even Harper had praise for it and that's to his credit and to the Feds for reaching an agreement that at least appears liveable.

Next step cities - that'll put both Premieres and PM to the test.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*One of the contradictions I see constantly is people describing him as stupid, and then describing him as a cunning evil manipulator. Surely he can't both?*

Indeed, if given the choice, would you not take the devil you know? I think this is what happened in our last election. At least with the Liberals we know what we're dealing with.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

David a little fact bending again? 

“The PC party got 8% less of the popular vote than in 2000 - that's fading and not by a "slim number".

Considering that the Alliance combined with the Conservatives for 2004 how did you extrapolate this percentage to just the Conservatives? It’s true that there was an 8% difference, but how do you know that loss was directly attributed to the old Conservative party? Can you rule out the Alliance influence with either plus or minus?

I smell a creative math assumption...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Earlier in this thread, NetMinder posted a list of George W. Bush's accomplishments. While I am not a fan of the man, I think it is important that it not be taken at face value, especially since a lot of it is inaccurate.

To that end, here is a fairly good debunking of the George W. Bush resume (which is not the exact same list that NetMinder posted, but does reflect most of the same points), which points out the accurate points as well as the inaccurate ones.

Debunking GWBs Resume


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Posterboy.

Thank God, someone who knows how to find credible sources and get around the crap...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Considering that the Alliance combined with the Conservatives for 2004


The Alliance party of Canada combined (took over by counting their votes twice - once as alliance and a 2nd time as new Conservatives) with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to from the Conservative Party of Canada


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not my news Andy - it was the right wing killer on the election that was the loss of popular vote for the combined parties over the 2000 election.
30 versus 38%.  I guess you truly were apolitical.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Indeed, if given the choice, would you not take the devil you know? I think this is what happened in our last election. At least with the Liberals we know what we're dealing with.


Canada wrestled mostly with keeping our national health care program.

the "devil they know" in the U.S. kills people by invading Iraq under false pretenses
we don't know what the "devil they don't know" will do

so the choice boils down to;

do you want to vote for someone that kills people or someone that you think may kill people


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not sure that's a prevalent view for "middle America".

I think it's "safety from unknown terrors" and also 
"who to believe." 
I'm not sure Iraq is as big a play "at home" as abroad.

The economy is the real swing issue in the middle states as are religious issues.
The cities versus rural in many areas just as here but far more pronounced and divisive.

Kerry is like Martin - comes across as uncertain as he recognises multiple view points but that doesn't play well with "just folks" and the Repubs can fog any issue by sticking to sound bites and sounding "strong".

If Bush were debating Edwards I'd say it would be all over the next day as Edwards would be both folksy and razor sharp all at once. Suthern atturney eh.

Bush will be joky against Kerry and that might work.
Cheney can hold his own against Edwards.

The fat lady's getting a manicure at least but it's a loooong number of weeks til November.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Macspectrum do you read anything outside of your anti Bush crap, or do just waffle on in some misguided Ukrainian world, that exists only in your mind? 

The fact is, at this point in time the polls show Bush in the lead. So your question
“do you want to vote for someone that kills people or someone that you think may kill people?
like many of your posts and statements is redundant.

The mystery to you is why? That’s because not everyone in the world shares your negative and bigoted view of the world.

David the word is non partisan not apolitical. Care to answer the original questions, or do you want to try and dodge that one again.

Macdoc exits stage right


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_"Considering that the Alliance combined with the Conservatives for 2004 how did you extrapolate this percentage to just the Conservatives? It’s true that there was an 8% difference, but how do you know that loss was directly attributed to the old Conservative party? Can you rule out the Alliance influence with either plus or minus?"_

You mean this question???

PC/Alliance/Conservative/Reform..........the right end of the political spectrum which now consists of just one party got 8% less support than it did in 2000 when the right end of the political spectrum in Canada had two parties.

Bottom line, 70% in 2004 didn't want the Conservative/conservative agenda. That's an increase of rejection of the right wing over the 2000 election. Happy now.








••••

That would be stage centre and
"Apolitical" from Cambridge "not connected to any political party:"

"Nonpartisan" from Merriam Webster "free from party affiliation"



[ September 17, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> That’s because not everyone in the world shares your negative and bigoted view of the world.


wow, all that hatred
oh yeah, union jack, i forgot.....


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Macdoc exits stage right*

Stage _left_ you mean.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Macdoc exits stage right
> 
> Stage left you mean.


Isn't stage right audience left?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

> Isn't stage right audience left?


If the audience left, maybe show business isn't for you.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Go easy on macdoc you guys...

Hey...at least he's not burning up bandwidth with those humungously long posts anymore. This has to be an improvement. Right?   

Back to business:

The Liberal Party of Canada continues to drop in the polls. As does the Democratic Party of the United States.

The Liberals have no new ideas...which they aptly demonstrated at the recent talks on health care. Our National Health Care program is a dead man walking, until we come up with some creative new ideas to fix it.

Like pretty much EVERY European nation has done with THEIRS, in the past decade or so.

Paul Martin is looking like a short-term caretaker minority just waiting to be toppled, these days.

John Kerry's Presidential campaign is currently being described by many American political pundits as being "in total meltdown" right now. The writing seems to be on the wall...and this is reflected in the polling numbers.

Prepare yourself, macdoc et al. Your world may be about to change. Rather suddenly.









Don't say I didn't warn you, old buddy.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Mac Nutt, you don't learn do you? Setting yourself up for another failure. Note, no quotes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Hmm you gotta like that Uke cuisine.


If you insist on using a ethnic slur, it's *Ukie* - pronounced *YOU-key*

For your future reference, here is a list of racial slurs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"change suddenly"........if the divide in the US gets any deeper and more violent that's exactly what it's heading for....it'll make the 1970s look down right peaceable.

Change in Canada Gerry???.......it WON'T be in any direction you'd like or appreciate. 

Just remember who called you "Ehmac Blowhard".....strange how self protraits are often accidentally very accurate.

••••

FN
"_ Fortunately though, and this is a major reason that I do not believe the US is turning into a fascist state, other American individuals have jumped into the gap. Michael Moore's media savvy continues to frustrate Republicans, Noam Chomsky continues to forward a cogent critique, and even Jay Leno flings nasty barbs on a nightly basis. Meanwhile 'The Dixie Chicks' proclaim their embarassment at being from Bush's Texas and Springsteen and others will be singing for Kerry this Autumn. That's quite a dissenting lineup _

Yep add Soros and Gore Vidal, even Nature and National Geo editors to the dissenters list.

That still does not free the US from increasingly fascist tendencies - many of the best and brightest protested in Germany and Italy and Spain and too many citizens sat quietly or applauded.
It's the WMD ( weapons of mass documentation) phenom that is a likely saving grace.

There are fewer dark corners to hide in. Halliburton's contracts get seen, by the American public, by the world. Coffins get viewed despite best efforts. The list goes on.

Rule by the elite is less easy, with 3 networks managing spin in the cold war was much easier.
Now even Al Jazeera has a view point that may be heard if a politician makes a statement.

Would the NeoCons like to muzzle dissent..........??



> Publisher Sponsoring 'DVD Buy-Back' Program to Keep American Homes Safe From Michael Moore's Dangerous Propaganda
> Friday September 17, 8:01 am ET
> 
> Similar to Gun Buy-Backs, World Ahead Publishing Exchanges 'Fahrenheit 9/11' for Copies of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH
> ...


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc,

I think you can find "Fascist" tendencies in any country if you look hard enough. I agree America is ill served by its three networks but other options such as PBS and BBC World are becoming increasingly popular. And I find the 'DVD Buyback Programme' rather funny... there's nothing to stop Michael Moore from offering a programme to go the other way.

[ September 18, 2004, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Fink-Nottle ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"In any country"......exactly - there is no question it's one of the possible elements/choices of society/nation building and it's never been much below the surface in the US. It's bubbled up from time to time. There are still many in Italy who support Mussolini's ideas - just not how he aligned himself with Hitler and how corrupt he became.

it's just been allowed or even encouraged to blossom in the US in "war time".
Fascism is a spectrum of conditions as a "socialist state" also is a spectrum - China is shifting, Russia is shifting all nations swing over time to different positions in the spectrum of possible governing/national priority "styles.

The US is regretably far along the spectrum towards fascism these days which is why so many are concerned. 
One can only hope the US institutions and it's political system AND it's citizenry can put brakes on and even reverse the slide in that direction.

not a bad essay here except fascism need not be under dictatorship it can also be under an oligarchy

http://www.geocities.com/rexstupormundi/fascism.html

excerpt



> Fascism became popular before World War II because, frankly, the utopia promised by 1848 liberals had failed completely. People learned that democracy has its problems, elections can be fixed, the media can be manipulated and even with the best of intentions liberal democracy breeds corrupt politicians and a government that encourages dishonesty. People saw leaders promise them the world, get elected, then do nothing but try to grab money for their reelection campaign. Due to this situation, dictatorship tended to look better all the time.
> Spain is a good example of what my Vietnamese friend Prince Buu Chanh would call "humane nationalism". The Fascist dictator, Francisco Franco, was able to do a great deal of good for his country and arrange for the monarchy to be restored after his death. Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini however, is an example of the danger of having a brutal and corrupt man as leader.


Some would argue Pinochet would fall into that category........

Under certain conditions of civil unrest or "outside threat" elements of fascism may serve the 'nation" well while serving individuals poorly.

That's what the NeoCons want people to adhere to......."for the national good and safety" losing individual rights is justified.

Horsepucky.........it's a cloak for an oligarchy.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Macspectrum you would screw up the Lords Prayer. It’s called house left. Stage right, house left.

Try and get the facts right in one post and we will send you send you a cabbage roll. Hmm you gotta like that Uke cuisine.

However you should be congratulated on managing a post without Bush in it.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I'm still convinced that politics and national leadership needs to move away from the one leader system. I know we had this discussion a year ago.

Our thoughts last time were that people are inspired and at some level need a clear leader (even if their control is in reality only minimal). I agree there is something in our psyche that desires leadership from one great man or woman. It encourages and inspires us.

However, I think having one leader is as antiquated as the British monarchy. To make progress don't we need to move beyond a figure-head structure? Seems to me like we're perpetuating a dumbed down sense of hero worship.

On the other hand, would the modern world accept leadership without a single or clear leader? Could a council lead a nation effectively? There'd be certain negatives and positives involved ultimately. Looking at the UN as a sort of protoype, I know one big argument against is that things would take forever to get deciced if they were ever decided at all.

Perhaps I'm being idealistic in thinking that a group of people could rule any better. Yoda might say: "The law of averages does not good leadership make. Mmmm." After all it's easier to topple one bad leader than a collective of bad leaders. Nevertheless, I feel people could be better served by many voices instead of one. Also if this planet is ever going to become less national and more global we are going to have to adapt to a new system of government.

I realize this is a bit of a tangent but we were discussing government structures so I wanted to take the metaphorical ball and run with it in a slightly different direction. I'm curious to hear people's thoughts (maybe some different thoughts from last time or maybe some thoughts I don't remember from last time).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well our genes say tribal with a dominant male or female as a leader.
My sense is a leader IS necessary but perhaps one restricted by strong ancillary powers that are committee based.

The buck really should stop somewhere and individual visions are very important. Just go through the pantheon of inventors, great people of all sorts. They are leaders and they inspire.

I think the checks and balances are the key to combine the positive effects of leadership and avoiding most of the abuses while also harnessing the power of multiple viewpoints.

Most sophisticated political systems partake of both.
Rarely are even couples balanced - one often leads tho that may change with time.
Families ( head of ), businesses (CE), services ( FIre chief, police chief, team leader, captain ).

I think humans tend to tribes with a designated leader - even at the schoolyard.

I suspect the focus needs to be more on preventing abuse of the leadership position.
Parliamentary systems tend to require a strong mandate for a "leader" to make substantive changes - that's one issue with Bush - the faintest possible mandate yet enormous changes undertaken.

The recall thing in California is interesting tho I think maybe dangerous tho the situation in Venezuala served to clarify support during major change.

With stress and change coming so rapid fire - technology, population, communication, the stodgy old mechanisms seem inadquate.









Maybe different cultures, maybe even different age demographics require different solutions.

I think India has just about every style of political structure there is from Raj to a form of state communism and all in between in the various states and alll under a British Parliamentary federal system.  

With 13 or 14 official languages the whole thing makes my head spin.









Personally - I think perhaps city states/regional ethnic states ( think Singapore and perhaps Quebec, or Slovakia or Kashmir ) under larger geopolitical structures will be the norm.

Strong leaders at the state/region level and council rule at the umbrella level ( EU ).

The strength of individuals serving their constituency with passion and effective personal governing can influence but not dominate the umbrella structure. ( think Klein ).

I suspect leaders of a specific "people" are most effective.

I suspect council structures best for a multiplicity of people's/regions/states.

So a town needs a great mayor but a PM needs wings clipped and more concensus.  

My impression is we've got it backward in Canada.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BTW I saw a terrific Nat'l Geo on a Africa baboon species.
There was always a glorious leader strutting and keeping off other males and being pampered by the kids and moms.

BUT his reign was solely at their discretion and once he had aged a bit and wasn't in his full prime........they chased him out and another got to strut his stuff for a while.

It was a wonderful program and points out the same issues of single leader versus group power.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I watched the same show on TV as you did macdoc. The aged baboon was chased off by popular demand, and then they allowed another old baboon to get up and strut his stuff. For a while.  

But I don't recall it being on National Geographic. Near as I can remember...it was called the "Liberal Leadership Convention" and it was on the CBC.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Time for an semi-ironic statement:

Single leadership should always have restraints or checks in place; however, I also think there is too much management and upper-level people. 

We're a society that seems to be creating too much useless management. In terms of actual production a lot of upper management is a waste of space. For instance, Canada's useless boys club: the Senate. Glorified rubber-stampers with massive pensions. Management needs to be downsized and leader_s[/s] need to lead by a strong example with other strong members to support and oppose them.

In brief, it seems this just leads back to democracy not being as ideal as it promised.

But I'm getting off topic. If anyone would be interested in discussing this topic, let me know and we can start a new thread._


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Rather than "downsizing" a totally useless old boys club like the Canadian Senate..why not turn it into an "Elected and Effective and Equal" body that would actually _SHARE_ power with the PM, and his band of crooks?

And who could actually _INVESTIGATE_ some of the more despicable excesses of the Prime Minister and his henchmen? And TOSS THEM OUT, if need be?

A Senate that would not answer directly to the PMO...but to the people of Canada.

What a shocking idea! Shared power here in the great white north...instead of a long term semi-dictatorship! De-centralised shared responsiblity for the leadership of this vast land!

















Too bad a slim majority of the city dwellers among us suddenly got spooked at the very last minute, and rejected this brand new concept, during the previous Canadian Federal Elections.   

They chose to go back to the tired old ways of one man rule and rampant corruption.  

But....take heart....we'll have another shot at changing this silly and antiquated situation in the next year or so.

We can actually DO it...if we all want to. We CAN move into the twenty-first century, here in Canada. And leave all of this old style cronyism and corruption and waste in our considerable wake. If we truly want to.

Let's hope that reality and inescapable logic prevails, this time out.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

MacNutt, I'm with you on the conceptual level. I don't know if the Conservatives could offer this kind of change, but given the Liberals current track record I'm ready for something and someone new.

Personally, I think Paul Martin is more despicable than Chretien. However, I base my opinion on more of a gut instinct than hard evidence.

Wait. What was this thread even about again?!









Bush. I say can both Kerry and Bush. Vote for Nade. No. Dont' vote then. No. Too many Americans choose this option already. Bah, stupid bipartisan politics.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

North America (among other nations) has created a bureaucratic structured world with too much non-productive management.  Our government is notorious for downsizing and screwing around their hardworking grunts while hiring more useless managerial flab. B.C. Ferries and the B.C. Ministry of Education are two prime examples of this trend.

I've read that some economists fear the U.S., for instance, is in danger of becoming a third world nation because of it's inability to create a high enough output of product for the size of its populaiton base and current economy. I'd say this is a bit of fear mongering. However, the U.S. and other nations cannot maintain their current level of prosperity indefinitely.

How long can the growth of specialized fields (such as technology or business management) continue? As China continues to open to world trade, what impact will we see in Canada and the U.S.? Will we be able to diversify and expand our job market or will unemployment increase?

Time for me to start checking out economist sites, I think.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

China is coming up FAST...no question about it. It will be a serious contender for the biggest economy on the planet rather sooner than anyone has predicted, I'll bet.   

They'll toss off the last remaining elements of the now-dead socialist system in the next five years or so...and THEN watch them soar!   

But don't count the USA out, just yet.

That country is the most diversified and most dynamic on the whole planet. It is constantly re-inventing itself into a whole new reality. 

And it has been attracting the best and brightest from pretty much EVERY other country...including China...since way back in the last century.

The whole place is alive with capitalist entreupeneurs. They're rather thick on the ground in America. Especially nowadays.

China has a pretty homogeneous population. As does Japan.

And...I seem to recall that, back in the eighties, pretty much all of the critics were saying that Japan would soon be taking over America's top spot.

They're certainly NOT saying that now.  

The States, on the other hand...has the best of everyone...from EVERYWHERE.  

Guess who I'm bettin on?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Personally, as I have stated before, I'd like to see a proportionally represented parliament and an elected senate. Not only would it let the parties with quite a bit of support but no seats (Green, for example) actually have a say in policy making, it would make the senate less useless.

Unfortunately, the only party that is talking about any part of this is the only party that the majority of Canadians find unpalatable as their views are largely unknown (have they even had a policy convention yet?).

I will say this though, I'd be willing to bet that Macnutt is right that this will be a fairly short lived government. I don't think so for the reasons he states though, I think so because historically minority governments in Canada only last around 18 months. They are difficult to hold together.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

an elected senate is just one more level of gov't management that we don't need

look at the U.S. senate and just see the graft heaped upon senators

they don't keep the president in check
they keep their pockets lined with special interest money

and before anyone goes whole hog on the idea of free votes for MPs
all that will do is allow the special interest groups and big lobby money access to the MPs votes via their bags of money

again, see the U.S. model

also for fixed election date that some here clamore so much for
do you really want politicians running election campaigns 2 years before the election? that is when U.S. presidential start up with fund raising, etc.

our elections are called and done with (and we count every vote too!) in six weeks

elections Canada is very particular about electioneering before any election has been called

i think we need a better dialogue betweent the PM, PMO and the premiers - now THAT would be better representation

i, too, have not been impressed with martin to date - a conservative in liberal clothes
many of us are keeping an eye on him and his policies
i have noticed that martin has backed off his strong anti private clinic stance during the election

our system is by no means perfect, but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

When 1/2 the elected minority Gov represent cabinet/government ministers of some sort, the grit in the system ( pun intended ) is truly aggravating ( ditto).  

I'm encourage by stronger provincial efforts and would like to see the larger muncipalities have much more control over their management and tax structure.

There are a few large municipalities that need a specific structure for them and a direct seat with the Province and Feds in taxation issues.

There are thousands of smaller municipalites and rural communities that have common issues right across the country that need a different set of interfaces with provincial and Federal gov.

Flexible focused city states like Singapore and Mississauga can eat the larger "govs" for lunch in the "getting it done" arena.

At the same time the umbrella national bodies have their role to play as well mainly in oversight and "long term view" and funding.
Trouble is, I think the political system currently has the local areas looking long term while the umbrella structure leaders stumble from election to election trying to preserve their own role.....the local Mayor/Reeve etc lives and works and serves the in the local community.......and often looks at the long term picture FROM WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY.

Miller knows it's a 20 year project to fix Toronto ( look at how long Hazel has been at it in Misssissauga) yet he has to deal with short term political issues with Queens Park AND the Feds  

Too much "make work", self preservation at too many levels but damn .......how to fix it is no easy task.









I think the US is in worse shape in that regard with the exception of the cities which have been given a much greater control over their tax revenues.

I find it ironic that the Repubs proclaim
smaller gov
responsible fiscal management
NOT

Good ideas, montrously awful execution.

Serving the public seems awfully skewed at the upper reaches of national govs....here or there. Self serving more accurate


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_We're a society that seems to be creating too much useless management_

That's an understatement, the amount of grit and layers in the "system" - politics, education, cutting down a tree, the "healthcare system", fisheries,....etc etc ad nauseum









Seems the front liners do 90% of the actual work and the bureaucrats push paper.
Appears all large organizations suffer from tha trend......there was an article about property transfers in India in the Economist.
Takes a bit of time for a property search or registration.......you kow take s few days here.......try FOUR YEARS there  

That's why Iike smaller organizations and local officials like Mayors. There seems to be tangible connections between talk and results...
Mayor Hazel for world ruler.

5 minutes after the poll closes she's announced the winner.....for good reason. Yeah I think we need leaders....and a method to replace them. Seems the baboons are ahead in that regard.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Beuracracy and massive waste and overspending...and the seductive opportunities for large scale theft of Canadian Tax Dollars that comes with all of this messy confusion...

Is a very large part of what the Federal Liberals are all about! Always HAS been. This is NOT news!!   

Or...haven't you been _LISTENING_ , macdoc??!?









What's more...an Effective and Elected and Equal Senate would put an END to this nonsense, once and for all!  

Too bad a small majority of Canadian city types shied away from this much-needed reform of our Canadian system at the very last moment, during the last Federal Elections.









The Conservative Party has this major reform as an integral part of their political platform. It's a part of the basic package.

The Federal Liberals copy most of their very best ideas from the Conservative/Reform Party. Just as they have been doing for more than a decade now.....

But there is NO WAY that they will ever adopt this simple freedom for the Canadian people.

Just as there is NO WAY that they will EVER manage to actually re-make our national health care system into something that really WORKS! Not a chance!

Or fix up the military to make it an effective deterrent force...instead of a total joke.

They won't ever stop STEALING from us, either. On a vast scale.

Especially after we caught them at it redhanded, and the re-elected them back into power! We just gave them a licence to loot. On no uncertain terms!

We Canadian voters REALLY need to really think about these cold hard facts when we go to the polls again in the next year or so.

If we do, then perhaps we'll get a better...and more realistic...result, next time around.

We can only hope.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Here in Canada, we desperately NEED a second sober body (that is elected SEPERATELY..not APPOINTED by the sitting government) who can do checks and balances on the elected dictatorship that passes for government in this wonderful country.

They would be expected to...and WOULD...actively investigate horrible boondoggles like the multi-billion dollar totally useless national gun registry. And they would also have been on top of the sponsorship scandal BEFORE hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars had dissappeared into the pockets of some prominent Liberals. Just to name a FEW of the current criminal activities of the present Liberal Government. The ones that have been well publicised. There are MANY others that have been less well-publicised. 

A totally reformed and freely-elected Senate would have the power to suspend some of these criminals. Or prosecute them, without fear of reprimand from the PMO.

They could even remove the sitting Prime Minister if they discovered that he was a part of some criminal activity. And force an early election, as dictated by the will of the people of Canada, if necessary.

If we'd had that second sober body a few years back...then Chretien would be serving a jail sentence right now. And PAul Martin would be spending a huge amount of his millions for the best defence lawyers in the land while trying desperately to avoid the same fate.

Instead of running the country.

As for the speculation by PB that the only party that is totally committed to giving Canadians this vastly more democratic form of government is "unpalateble to most Canadians"...

I would like to direct his attention toward the results of pretty much EVERY recent public opinion poll.  

ALL of those Liberal numbers are sinking fast, right now. This is not big news. 

The Federal Liberals are working with a microscopic razor thin minority right now. One that depends upon the total co-operation of the fringe NDP..AND at least one other MP, in order to actually govern.

And they are totally p**sing off the NDP these days by talking openly about selling off all of the Federal office buildings. The complete sell-off of PetroCan has been called a "deal-breaker" by none other than smilin Jack Layton himself.

And yet, the sell off of Petro-Can is proceeding as we speak.  

I would be surprised if this terribly weak caretaker government manages to last even six months. Let alone a year and a half.

And...when they fall...and fall they will...the only real alternative to their tired old non-democratic rule will be the new Canadian Conservative Party. 

Read em and weep.
















[ September 22, 2004, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,
the ndp and conservatives are not ready for another election as their war chests are bare

martin successfully moved the Liberals more to the right (i.e. closer to the centre) to capture the red tory vote
red tories have money
bay street is happy with martin - bay street has money
ergo - Liberals have money

any snap election forced by the NDP or Conservatives would be political suicide as the cdn. electorate would punish that party for forcing and election
layton and harper both know this as do their handlers

remember the popular vote for the conservatives went DOWN when compared with alliance + PC and the conservaties have to give back a couple of million dollars of money per vote they received when the parties merged


----------

