# A Little Respect



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

The people have spoken it’s over. Bush won on all fronts the popular vote and the electoral college. Record amounts of voters turned out. The Senate and Congress are Republican controlled.

The people that voted are the ones who have lived through the last five years, not back seat pseudo intellectuals who gather their views from that of very suspect media sources. It would seem to me that these scribes of theory understand little of the individual American. The amazing thing is most of their predictions were wrong.

Perhaps some respect is in order, not just for a democratic process but for our neighbors. We are supposed to be a friendly nation, a group of people that are supportive, friendly and understanding, judging from many of the comments around here I would say the person that best represents the people of Canada is Carolyn Parrish. From many of the posts after the results, we appear to be smug know it alls looking down on the American neighbors.


Perhaps we should stand back and try to understand our border mates and their logic.

[ November 03, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: stinand ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

VERY well put, Andy.  

It may be time for all of us to stop and take a moment to reflect on recent events. Myself included.

With that thought, I'll sign off ehmac for the rest of the day. (I need to go get some work done, anyway.)  

Respect the decision. Please. Accept it, if you can.

My final thoughts.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What predictions were those??
The US is a split nation and it's simply continued and there is in my opinion show no signs of any near term change in that.
I suspect the world viewed Bush and Co as anomalies that might get rejected.
That he is now elected as a known quantity will not gain more respect for him, simply less respect for those who elected him.

If anything he's more dangerous than ever to the rest of the planet as he has nothing to lose over the next four years in his NeoCon quest.
I suspect the US will be more of a pariah than less.

I think we'll see much more of this












> * The incompetent or the incoherent?*
> 
> Oct 28th 2004
> 
> ...


more 

There might be some play acting on the surfacce but the breach in the US, with Canada and most of the rest of the planet is still there - a voted in absurdity is no less absurd.


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

Ya that's right everbody!! Shut up and get in line with the expressed "logic" of the majority of Americans.

Respect for what? Neo Conservative Fundamentalism? Respect for who? You? Bush? Cheney? Carolyn Parrish? (Who is Carolyn Parrish anyway?)  

I don't hear anyone claiming that the result is anything other than legitimate! Are we all supposed to abandon our beliefs now that the "majority" in another country have chosen an ideology some of us find dangerous and morally repugnant?!


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

The people have spoken... George Walker Bush is the president.
Popular Vote and Electoral College.

There is nothing left to debate. The democrats have lost.
Liking the GOP or not, does not matter. They are in charge for 4 years.

In a way, It is nice that W. will not be remembered as a one term Pres, liek his father, whom I think should have been respected more than he was.


----------



## agent4321 (Jun 25, 2004)

Respect?









I have no respect for a president that goes against the United Nations and invades another country.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

I’m not saying agree or give up your beliefs,or am interested in the front cover of the economist.I’m not saying respect Bush. 

I’m just saying how about showing some respect for a nations choice? 
If you don’t get that’s fine too.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Bush got 51% of the popular vote. That is HARDLY "the people speaking" with one voice. As in the last election, Bush got lucky -- and I would have said the same thing if Gore or Kerry won. That is too even a vote split to say that there is harmony in the United States. The US is polarized not just by their two-party system, but also by pure ideology.

The Republicans can obviously view this is a victory, but it's a bittersweet one. If Bush was a fair man concerned with the desires of the electorate, he'd be the picture of non-partisan leadership and give THE OTHER HALF of his nation "a little respect" (to borrow this thread's topic). Well, he didn't in his first term, and I don't see him doing so in his second.

Good luck, everybody  Maybe someday God _will_ "bless America"... but not today.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

No Respect from Me, What is Going on in Iraq Now... NOW THAT IS TERROISM... and it makes me bloody angry, to think what those people are going through, and I point my finger at the Commander and cheif, George "Walk all over everyone" Bush for sending his Pumped up army men over there. 

Bloody Angry.... that Suffering is unnecessary, I mean Hell, Send in some covert Ops to take out the One guy you want, One Sniper Rifel, That's it... I Know, I Don't know crap about Military stuff, but there has to be a better way.... Why not just set up a wal-mart, hahahaha, ah, laughter is the best medicine


----------



## Codger (Aug 1, 2004)

Just got this from a buddy south of the border.

And then, they voted.

While looking at a house, my brother asked the real estate agent which direction was north because, he explained, he didn't want the sun waking him up every morning. She asked, "Does the sun rise in the North?" When another person jumped in andexplained that the sun rises in the east (and has for some time), she shook her head and said, "Oh, I don't keep up with that stuff." And then she voted. 
I used to work in technical support for a 24x7 call center. One day I got a call from an InDUHvidual who asked what hours the call center was open. I told him, "The number you dialed is open 
24 hours a day, 7 days a week."
He responded, "Is that Eastern or Pacific time?" Wanting to end the call quickly, I said, "Pacific." And then he voted. 
So my colleague and I were eating our lunch in our cafeteria when we overheard one of the administrative assistants talking about the sunburn she got on her weekend drive to the shore. She drove down in a convertible, but didn't think she'd get sunburned because the car was moving. And then she voted. 
I was in a high school advanced physics class and the teacher was talking about a new military weapon that uses sonic waves on the battlefield to burst enemy soldier's chests. One InDUHvidual in the class spoke up and said, "Well 
that's stupid! Why don't they just wear headphones?" And a few years later, she voted. 
My sister has a lifesaving tool in her car. It's designed to 
cut through a seatbelt if she gets trapped. She keeps it in the trunk. And then she voted. 
My friends and I were on a beer run and noticed that the 
cases were discounted 10%. Since it was a big party, we bought two cases. The cashier multiplied two times 10% and gave us a 20% discount. And then she voted. 
I was hanging out with a real liberal friend of mine when we saw 
a woman walk by us with a nose ring attached to an earring by a chain. My friend said, "Wouldn't the chain rip out every time she turned her head?" I had to explain to her that a person's nose and ear remain the same distance apart no matter which way the head is turned. And then she voted. 
I couldn't find my luggage at the airport baggage area. So I went to the lost luggage office and told the woman there that my bags never showed up. She smiled and told me not to worry because they were trained professionals and I was in good hands. "Now," she asked me, "has your plane arrived yet?" And then she voted. 
God save America!!!!


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

No respect from our house either. My wife cried when she found out about his "win".

There are good Republicans. Bush & Company are not them.

What happened to the young voters? Shame on them.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

and the majority of Germans chose to support Hitler, too. Ain't gonna earn my respect for a bad decision, majority or no.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Yes, congratulation George










Here's to another 1000 dead American soldiers... Another hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians, a couple more trillion dollars in debt, more eroding of civil rights, more profit for Ratheon and Haliburton (Hey, really nice jump in their stocks today), more trashing of the environment, more legal assault rifles... more more more of Bush. 

I'll tell you where you can stick your respect.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

It's not that we are looking down our noses, I think it's that we have legitimate concern for the whole freakin world. I Don't like what is going on in North Korea with the nukes and all, but I'm distanced from that, so I don't see as much and don't feel so passionatly, I have no friends or loved ones in North Korea either. 

Sucess for our neighbours is success for us, but the current management if headed for failure, and I would hate to be brought down with them.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Ehmac .. 

There are two sides to every story.
read this  

I don’t hold your morally superior ground of placing a more important value on some peoples lives rather than others.

The freedom that you enjoy cost lives too.


Lack of respect of other peoples views, opinions religions etc. is the major cause of death in the world.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Perhaps George W. Bush would get more respect if he:

Respected the sovereignty of other nations.
Respected the decision of other countries not to believe his evidence of WMDs.
Respected John F. Kerry during the campaign.
Respected the rights of minorities.

???


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

from that article: _Human rights groups believe about 300,000 people were killed during Saddam's 24-year rule, which ended when U.S.-led forces toppled his regime in 2003._

read this 

"Yes, Saddam Hussein killed thousands of his own people. But an American massacre does not make things right. If Americans have half the humanity they claim, they will no longer accept Bush at face value when his officers say, "We don't do body counts."


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Lack of respect of other peoples views, opinions religions etc. is the major cause of death in the world.* 

I fully agree... that's why I wish Bush lost.









So you're saying, the loss of over 100,000 civilian lives and still counting in one year is worth the lives of 300,000 by Saddam over 25 years? Would that be the same Saddam that is shaking hands with the current secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld in this photo? The same Saddam that the US supported for many years?










Who knows what freedom dubya will spread across the earth in the next four years. Who knows how many Saddams and Osama's George is creating . 

The logic of Bush supporters defies logic.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Well Said Mayor!....it's sad but true..one can only wish that he could see into the future


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

It’s a pity that everybody has their own agenda which supersedes all other human qualities. 

My original post was that perhaps we should respect other peoples decisions. I did not say respect George Bush. 

Many of you have turned it into a Bush thing, which is ironic. The very reason that many of you despise him is his lack of respect for _____ ( fill in the blank).


The lack of respect is the very quality that you guys dislike, is the one quality is that you are displaying.

The pot calling the kettle black?


Oh Canada!!!!

The future ????? One of the biggest untapped oil reserves in the worlds.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Well, quite frankly, the decision of the American public baffles me. That being said, it is their decision and there is very little the rest of the world can do about it.

I think America has become a society based on fear. Much like Micheal Moore would have us believe from Bowling for Columbine. The greatest fear is fear of the unknown. With W. they know what they get, good or bad. He's not afraid to make a decision, right or wrong. That is a very American trait, move forward right or wrong, even if it means going backwards. As long as you keep trying.

At the end of the day, after surgically striking fear into Americans with terror alerts for the last three years, he and his henchmen only needed to effect 2-3% of the population to be re-elected.

Add to that, the bizarre legal right of Parties to "challenge" voters at the polls. More fear, come and try to vote, we'll sick a lawyer on you on the spot. It was well publicized in swing states that the GOP would be there with their lawyers. It was very strange that in Ohio, the overall turnout was higher, but the minority turnout did not increase. 

Funny how that works!


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

The fear factor is enormous but it did not start with Bush. In fact the States has a constitution based on fear. 

The right to bear arms is just one very small example. The current “lets blame Bush “ serenade is short sighted. The road that the States is on was set many many administrations ago.

The sad thing is that when the terror alerts came out the Americans had been so bred on fear that they (and sheltered Canadians) saw it as a political instrument.

Yes Dorothy some bad people did attack U.S soil and the cause was way before Bush or Clinton or even old Bush.


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

Respect: So often demanded, so often not deserved.

Bush does not have my respect as he has not earned it. My contempt, he has earned.

Saddam, evil? Yes. What to do about him? How about not putting him in power in the first place? How about not trading arms with him while knowing he is killing his own people.

So now attack and kill 100,000 people while trying to open up oil supplies. It's a farce. You could look to Saudi Arabi or North Korea for a real threat. Or to Africa for greater atrocities and people that deserve help just as much.

3% is barely the voice of the people. It shows a real division in that country.

What is yet to be seen is the view of the rest of the world with america saying "we support these kinds of actions". I don't think the response will be a positive one.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I respect the decision of the American people.

I don't like Bush (nor Kerry, really), but it appears he did win clearly this time. Despite the direction his administration has been going, I am happier seeing a candidate win by a decent margin rather than by just a few votes.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

The result is apparently legitimate. I respect the decision of the American electorate, although I think they'll be sorry.

Nothing will make me respect Bush or his gang of neo-con loonies. As a citizen of a foreign country, I'm under no obligation to do so. Too bad about the impending rape of the environment. Too bad about all the American kids who will die in foreign adventures. I just hope that American democracy is resilient enough to bounce back in 2006 and 2008. but I'm not optimistic.

A not-entirely-irrelevant historical fact: In 1934, Adolf Hitler was fairly and democratically elected Chancellor of Germany. There were no more free elections during the following decade of Nazi rule. If lots of people, including many Canadians and Americans, hadn't died to destroy his regime, there would never have been another fair election in Germany.

Some of the people behind Bush are as fanatical as the Nazis, and as opposed to democracy, despite all their rhetoric about freedom and liberty. Let's hope they don't control the agenda entirely in the next four years, or there may not be any more free elections in the US, ever.

Cheers :-> Bill


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The American people have spoken and re-elected Bush. Respect their decision? Okay, it's their nation and I understand that...but I also pity them.

Remember this: Kerry is an isolationist. He would have closed the borders and that would have been a disaster for Canada's economy....and Torontos garbage.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

> The right to bear arms is just one very small example


It's a dated concept, applicable when the settlers of this new world had no law enforcement infrastructure to protect them and were isolated. And they HAD TO have some way of keeping the First nations people _from taking back the lands stolen from them._ For over one hundred years (at least), this 'right" has been nothing but trouble. Hunting rifles and shotguns? Sure. Handguns and automatic weapons? Give me a break!  

It's time for (another) amendment to that holy document: The US Constitution.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

Vinnie Cappuccino said:


> I Don't like what is going on in North Korea with the nukes and all, but I'm distanced from that, so I don't see as much and don't feel so passionatly, I have no friends or loved ones in North Korea either.


You did know that North Korea has transcontinental missiles, right? Like it or not, we live next door to the U.S. and a hit in Seattle is as good a hit as on our beloved Salt Spring Island. If you realize that, then please revaluate your statement.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

The most dire mistake a leader can make:

*An Enemy of my Enemy, is my Friend.*










Here's another one (Central America):










And lookie! Another one! (Afghan war against the USSR):










Happens too often. Everywhere. Like a snake eating itself.

One could call it "toilet morality".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sorry macaholic. You just don't get it, do you?

Tell the handlers NO! Go out and find the reality for yourself. Refuse to be spoon-fed hogwash from questionable sources who have a serious agenda.

Or...be left behind. It's that simple.

Your choice.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Noted


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

My handler just told me dinner is ready. Catcha later.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Iraq = largest untapped reserve of oil. In this case don’t follow the money follow the oil. Now we understand why the States put Saddam in power and we also understand why they invaded Iraq.

Lets all move on from that . We live in a world that relies on oil. The solution is to develop alternative sources of energy. 

Anybody here drive a hybrid, generate your own hydro? 

Hmm seems to me you may be part of the problem. 

I eat meat but I don’t want to know how they raise it and kill it.

Grow up.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Stinand Said:

"The fear factor is enormous but it did not start with Bush".

Can't disagree with that! However, it is my opinion that the neo-cons have taken it to a new level.

The thing that frightens me the most is the fact that for at least the next two years, there is absolutely no check or balance for this President. The GOP controls all three levels of government. Even if W doesn't want to move even further right, there is nothing to stop his own party from yanking him there.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Facts are facts: The US helped the Afghanis in their war and Bin Laden was there fighting in it. And Noriega was a puppet regime gone rogue. And the US aided Iraq in their war against Iran.

Hey, I know that what Usama really wants is for ALL of us to be Taliban, and that just won't do. Really, Islamic fundementalissm is the new "them" that replaces the communists for "us".

But Saddam? The fact that they have not found one iota of WMDs there is pretty rediculous! Like, FAKE SOME, FOR GOD'S SAKE! As for liberating a people from their despot, give me a break! Just how many wrongs are going on out there right this moment that are even more worthy of being righted than Iraq was? Such lofty talk by Bush rings hollow in light of what iss being ignored out there.

While I'm at it, what of the State of Isreal? I'm probably sticking my neck on the block with this, but isn't the UN annexing Palestine after WW II to create a nation for the Jewish people who LOST that land CENTURIES AND CENTURIES ago (and not by the Palestinians, BTW) A Really Bad Thing™? Man, that's a page right out of the "Pissing Off People For Dummies" book. What's next? We all get back on the boat and leave North America to the aboriginals?

That's a sloppy rant, but I feel better now.









[ November 03, 2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Macaholic ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"left behind" 














from the "stuck in the 80s with you "man himself.

He's now in denial of US "former allies who are now enemies". 

Dr. G - perhaps time to wind up the World according to Macnutt vodacorder again.

••••

Yes Andy it's a democratic decision arrived at relatively cleanly. Good on America.

Wanna tell me why that should change Canadians attitude towards the Bush regime and it's blatant disregard of even the semblance of legal activity in Iraq, abiding by WTO rulings or NAFTA agreements...... the list is long.

Yes I would agree Carolyn Parrish IS representative.

Did you catch the Globe editorial about conducting elections. She's hardly alone.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Stinand:
What you started out as a thread asking for respect for the nation has devolved into your name calling of individuals. As a recent victim, I ask what is with this community telling others to grow up? How arrogant!

As for the hybrid, and the generator, come on. The cars are not available yet, and Ontario legislation prohibited private generators until recently.
Those legitimate concerns are an issue of generating domestic political will and we should be mobilizing for that.

As far as the other posts go, there is a real concern. My son was asking me why America would vote this way. My answer was that Bush had captured the Hollywood image America wants. Why watch Chariots of Fire when Arnold can blow up the world real good? 

Somebody noted that Kerry would shut the border: Bombardier can't tell the difference today, Bush is quieter about it. Bush's America doesn't see us as a separate country, which is worse. And Bush has politicians, and their voters, here, with similar agendas: mobilize.

The other concern here is that America's polarizing attitude is spreading here. There is plenty of gray area for discussion folk, but most jump to only the black or white of an issue. Bad philosophy.

One last comment/scary note: Hitler never won any stage by any majority, they were all the results of a one vote tie breaker. (can't remember my source for this, sorry.)


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

> My son was asking me why America would vote this way. My answer was that Bush had captured the Hollywood image America wants.


I'm not sure I'd sell the US citizenry that short. My feeling is that they've got the daylights scared out of them, they're generally not happy about being in Iraq (anymore), but they don't want to change horses in the middle of the stream. Honestly, with a vote that close, I wouldn't say that Bush has the country infatuated by his... er... "charms"...







The election results are probably more of an anti-Kerry stance versus a gung-ho pro-Bush stance. A landslide it wasn't.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Despite our modern ignorance, it has been the thought of almost every political philosopher in history that the ruler of a particular regime ought to be "looking out" for those he rules. Now, we may want to argue, frequently enough, that the "rights" of Iragis etc. are being violated etc. etc. This is troublesome, sure. But for a citizen of a liberal democracy to call himself a moralist in any sense is sort of like a tree cutting itself down and then appealing to the roots for water. 
Our lives, as liberal democrats, are lived out on the principle of "comfortable self-preservation", as someone once said. Self-preservation takes materials, comfort more so. Liberal politicians pretend they get those scarcities from out of nowhere in order to protect our delicate sensibilities, to keep us from the dirty work that needs to be done in order that we may live, and live comfortably. So-called neo-cons are merely less sensitive to the need for veiling that process. They are not any more selfish than you or I. 
So, Bush takes oil. Oil for whom? You. Me. Without oil, and other necessities of "comfortable self-preservation", no fancy mac-themed websites. No computers. No civil service, car, or even bicycle. No food, no clean water. Notime to indulge the leftist community-based ideology. No herbal medicines. No self-indulgent western-appropriation of eastern religion. You and I would be dead in less than a month. 

So, instead of blaming Bush, or whoever the scapegoat may be in another four years, blame ourselves. Always start with the self.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Macaholic . Personally both Kerry and Bush are poor choices but that‘s not the point. Bush like it or not achieved more than 50% of the popular vote which has not happened since 1988. This is what the American people want. 

Archangel... Hybrids are available from Honda and Toyota and have been for some time. Electrical generation has always been allowed ..selling it back to the grid is a recent development. It’s a pity nobody get quite as agitated about the huge hydro debt we have to repay in Ontario as they do about the American elction.... Oh Canada.

Forget all the crap about WMD etc. Bush invaded because of oil. 

As for name calling, grow up, is not name calling, it derives from the fact that this discussion (as most do ) immediately turns into a Bush thread. 
A lot of the contributors are dealing with a effect, not cause point of view which to me is juvenile.. 

I have no love for Bush, but I hardly think that he is responsible for many of the issues laid at his door. There was cause before Bush. Other administrations actions led to Sept 11th etc. Bush either had to deal with them and created many issues of his own.

TEDJ

I could not agree with you more. I think today’s society always needs a scapegoat thats easy to spell


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting how many here seem to simply accept that "Bush is after the oil" ...or say that "Bush takes the oil" from Iraq.

Anyone got any figures for the amount of oil "stolen" from Iraq so far?

Near as I can tell, there isn't very much oil flowing out of Iraq these days, what with all of the jordanian terrorists blowing up pipelines and such. (and I used to be in the oil biz. I have friends working in the area).

What oil the US DOES get from Iraq will be bought at world rates. That has already been stated publicly. IF they ever get any.

Too bad that those of you who seem to have been brainwashed on this subject can't actually see what is being done in that region right now, in order to change it from a violent and war torn mess into a reasonably stable democracy. One that will spawn many more democracies. And end the terrorism. Once and for all.

You might want to take a second, and MUCH closer, look at the situation, using first principles.

Anyone who constantly harps on about "stealing the oil" may end up eventually looking as silly as...well...Michael Moore does, these days.
















YIKES!


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Personally I'd like to see a little more respect at home.

Here on ehMac, there has been an increasing amount of the adage kettle calling the pot black. I'm not going to point out any specifics, because they aren't needed, but the least people can do is give someone the respect they deserve for voicing an opinion or representing something.

I have respect for the American choice, though I don't completely agree with it. Personally I don't feel Bush OR Kerry are right for the job. Bush has a really bad track record (even worse if read ehMac), while Kerry is a protectionist which can only spell problems for Canada. I saw nothing in Kerry that would be an improvement over Bush outside of the fact many people latched onto; "Kerry is not Bush".

stinand, I have to thank you for your stance. There is no excuse for what has happened, and I have to personally say I'm extremely thankful that the election is over. Maybe we can go back to a little more normalcy and focus on topics that apply more to home, rather then the latest idea of *insert negative spin on Bush's name or party* that is to be taken as a way of stifling any free speech those who don't agree with him have.

Free Speech allows you to say things that are anti-authority, and pro-authority. Not just anti-authority. (Not to be confused with authoritarian. An authoritarian government is not something anyone should want.)

I just want to see a little more respect for other opinions. Disagree with them, but don't attack the person. Attack the message if you have to, but not the person.

Before I go into this next section, I'd like to state I took a while thinking about whether or not to include this, but I have opted to, because the following is an idea. Something that is changeable, not set in stone, it is what I see from my viewpoint thus far.

I would have voted Bush in the election had I been able to. (Please note, I did say I don't completely agree with Bush. I agree with him only slightly more then Kerry. eg. 1.01% instead of 1%) I have reasons, most of them stemming from the fact that I'd rather have an evil I know, rather then one I don't, and the fact that I believe Kerry would not be able to clean up the mess Bush has created like so many believed.

Kerry supports the Patriot and Patriot II acts. Is that not enough? I'm not an American, so I can't vote, and I'm perfectly happy on the side lines. The reasons are few, and after following both platforms, I couldn't find a reason why Kerry was better then Bush outside of "Kerry isn't Bush". This kind of idea gave BC a ton of problems. (I'm going to take heat for this)

I have my current views, and they are what they are. I am not politically active, because my views are still being shaped, but isn't the bigger picture worth more then a knee jerk? However, it is worth nothing that my current views on US politics aren't worth enough to me for me to close my mind to other ideas.

The only problem with other ideas are if they are unable to convey their message clearlly. Whether that be because the comments are those of a zealot, just really poorly written or just plain rhetoric with no substance. (Side note: Am I writing about politics or a flame war between Mac and PC users?)

I want to thank stinand, tedj and others who have pointed out that there is more in play then most people want you to believe. It's the same tactic they charge Bush with. (Bearing in mind, Bush did have it coming)

If you read anything from this post, I just ask that you respect your fellow human, no matter how odd or off base their opinion is. As they say, blood makes a bad lubricant.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

> Macaholic . Personally both Kerry and Bush are poor choices but that‘s not the point. Bush like it or not achieved more than 50% of the popular vote which has not happened since 1988. This is what the American people want.


Nah. It is EXACTLY the point. You don't get into a car accident and not wonder WHY it happened. The point is it happened? I don't know about you, but I would LOVE to know why the Hell the car accident happened. And it's no different here.

Those who are happy of the results are quick to leave it at a pat answer of "We won. Period."

BTW, does anybody have a URL to the past election results? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a less-than 2.5 million vote difference in the popular vote this time here seems fairly small. 2.5 million isn't even half the population of Toronto! It was 48% Kerry 51% Bush. Surely there have been wider gaps than that?


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

What I find really amusing is that one, people actually thought this would go any other way, and second that Bush has _any_ agenda.  Bush is much to stupid to have an agenda of his own. 

Bush is mearly a tool for the people that really run the US.  They feed him peanuts and the monkey keeps dancing. 

Oh well, f#@k it. I'm so tired of hearing about the US f#@kin' A. 

I feel one of those five year Guinness benders comin' on!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Do actually read posts or is the "fog of Tequila" interfering.
Where did you derive "steal oil" in this thread.

Knee jerk bring out the boilerplate responses.

But then you've most likely not heard the latest Dalton Camp lecture.......another moderate conservative voice sorely missed...by Naomi Klein.
Wouldn't fit your 'Sir George in shining Armour saving the world theme park at all.

But since you brought up "stealing and such other "illegalities"

Have a listen since you appear not to like to read.

http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/ideas/media/110104.ram

or read the article it was based on

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

Some pertinent sections......



> But Bremer’s economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq’s corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. *There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years.* Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein’s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.


a little "incest never hurts.........



> A Reagan-era diplomat turned entrepreneur, Bremer had recently proven his ability to transform rubble into gold by waiting exactly one month after the September 11 attacks to launch Crisis Consulting Practice, a security company selling “terrorism risk insurance” to multinationals. Bremer had two lieutenants on the economic front: Thomas Foley and Michael Fleischer, the heads of “private sector development” for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).* Foley is a Greenwich, Connecticut, multimillionaire, a longtime friend of the Bush family and a Bush-Cheney campaign “pioneer” who has described Iraq as a modern California “gold rush.” *Fleischer, a venture capitalist, is the brother of former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Neither man had any high-level diplomatic experience and both use the term corporate “turnaround” specialist to describe what they do. According to Foley, this uniquely qualified them to manage Iraq’s economy because it was “the mother of all turnarounds.”


Goldrush.........hmmm odd term for high moral ground.  

Then there's this small problem with the legality............



> When Paul Bremer shredded Iraq’s Baathist constitution and replaced it with what The Economist greeted approvingly as “the wish list of foreign investors,” there was one small detail he failed to mention:* It was all completely illegal.* The CPA derived its legal authority from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, which recognized the United States and Britain as Iraq’s legitimate occupiers. It was this resolution that empowered Bremer to unilaterally make laws in Iraq. But the resolution also stated that the U.S. and Britain must “comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907.” Both conventions were born as an attempt to curtail the unfortunate historical tendency among occupying powers to rewrite the rules so that they can economically strip the nations they control. With this in mind, the conventions stipulate that an occupier must abide by a country’s existing laws unless “absolutely prevented” from doing so. They also state that an occupier does not own the “public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural assets” of the country it is occupying but is rather their “administrator” and custodian, keeping them secure until sovereignty is reestablished. This was the true threat to the Year Zero plan: since America didn’t own Iraq’s assets, it could not legally sell them, which meant that after the occupation ended, an Iraqi government could come to power and decide that it wanted to keep the state companies in public hands, or, as is the norm in the Gulf region, to bar foreign firms from owning 100 percent of national assets. If that happened, investments made under Bremer’s rules could be expropriated, leaving firms with no recourse because their investments had violated international law from the outset.


"ahhh Geneva Convention, Hague Treaties, UN limitations.....who cares........WE'RE ON A CRUSADE FER CHRISSAKE..........details details............."

and you wonder why the world hates and despises this regime.....why there is NO GROUNDS for respect


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm rather happy with the results of the US elections...but I'm certainly not standing pat here.

I'm asking everyone who has been loudly backing Kerry and bashing away at Bush to take a sober second look at why the American voters so soundly rejected ALL of the Dem values in this elections. Not just the Presidential race.

They need to deal with this. And ask themselves why "their side" got so thoroughly trashed by the voters.

The answers they come up with MIGHT just help them to move on and grow into better informed people.

Or...they could just keep complaining bitterly and calling all of those tens of millions of Americans "idiots".

I think it's high time that _SOME_ people around here sat down and took a good hard look inward. Do some soul-searching. Look for the truth.

And perhaps even reject some of the silly anti-Bush rhetoric that they have been spoonfed by others. You know...the stuff that caused them to so seriously misjudge this latest election?

Just a thought.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Chealion - I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<blockquote>Macnutt asked us to: *take a sober second look at why the American voters so soundly rejected ALL of the Dem values in this elections.*</blockquote>

I'm not a Kerry supporter, but I would like to point out that Americans did not soundly reject anything yesterday. 

Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes, and most of the hot/important senate/house races were decided by less than 100,000/50,000 votes.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, re your comment that "I'm asking everyone who has been loudly backing Kerry and bashing away at Bush to take a sober second look at why the American voters so soundly rejected ALL of the Dem values in this elections. Not just the Presidential race.", I personally think that it was the consolidated effort of the religious right to vote as a block. It seems as if the Republicans do not need the votes of moderate Democrats and Republicans to elect public officials that represent their way of seeing the role/direction of America. And this block goes beyond the Christian Fundamentalists or the 'born again' movement. This is a now active group, active via their vote, that sees what is taking place in the US and around the world with a certain set of values. I am not saying that these values are wrong, but the end result is that moderation of thought is no longer necessary to get elected. This will either force the Democrats further to the right, or actually, further to the left as they attempt to position themselves somewhere that might attract a distinct group of people. With the demographic shifts in the US, the south and southwest, as well as parts of the midwest are all that is needed for victory on a federal level, as Bush proved this year. The candidate in 2008 will need to be able to articulate the views and values that Bush pushed, or they shall lose this coalition to a third party candidate. We shall see.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I am a little concerned at the refusal to accept the results as the voice of the people.

America is based on 1 person, 1 vote. The electoral college is set up so the overall population is represented without a few clumps swaying the vote {like the golden horseshoe & Quebec.}

As unpleasent as I think the next 4 years will be to my sensibilities, the eUS presidency can be won by a majority of 1 vote.

Contrary to academic belief, no one really cares what your grades where in High school or University, once you get the diploma. First past the gate, etc...

Is George W. a Good thing for Canada, I think not, because W. doesn't know diddley about Canada . And most Americans don't think he has too.

Democracies get the governments they desearve, it is the will of the people to choose, albeit they only choose from the 2 sides of the same coin that is presented. But that can be another arguement.

50% + 1 is enough to be the will of the people.

I will never agree with the political right, but it seems they have won the day and get to govern for 4 more years. The democrats have lost and they must find out how disconnected they were from the majority of Americans, if they want Hilllary to win in 2008.

Jon Stewart pointed out that Democrates took the east and west coast. Kerry has underestimated the resentment Americans have towards Boat owners...


This opinion will not excuse MacNutt's gloating after the end of Business today... 2 days is enough, then it gets old...


The political left must learn that if you can not lose gracefully, we should never be allowed to win.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmm I'd say the loss was graceful - the win not so. ( ie 2 days worth).
The US has a problem, the left knows it, the right is oblivious to the disconnect - aka "we're right and we won that's all that counts".......akin to the SSI distortion field.

Doesn't mean NeoCon garners more respect. Just patience.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

JAMG, I disagree with your contention that "America is based on 1 person, 1 vote. The electoral college is set up so the overall population is represented without a few clumps swaying the vote." The states ARE the "clumps". Thus, the northeastern, and parts of the midwest and far west can now be virtually disenfranchised. The Republicans would have been howling had Ohio been won by Kerry, which would have given him the Electoral College votes, but 3 million less popular votes. Kerry would have had to build bridges with the 51% of the population that voted for Bush, because these people also voted for a Republican Congress. Bush does not have to do this, in that his coalition is unchecked and does not need anyone from the moderate wing of his party to the far left wing of the Democratic party. Without some form of checks and balances, there is no telling what Bush shall do, especially if the economy crashes due to the Iraq-related debts. I can assure your that given the choice between funding his "No child left behind" educational initiative and "No rich person left behind" tax and capital gains break, his choice shall be clearly made and delivered with little opposition.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

IMHO Kerry handed them the election in too many ways to list. 

If the Dems are stupid enough to roll out Hilary it will be another 4 years for the Republicans.Barack Obama is the way to go for them. New fresh with little history to dredge up.

This party has a lot of work to do. The consensus seems to be that Bush is bad news, can you imagine if the Republicans roll out a real candidate?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh there's been lot's of gnashing a wailing on the Ontario Hydro mess - just not top of mind right now.

••••

Bush was simply the front man for an opportunity presented to the NeoCons by 9/11 to put into practice a plan hatched quite sometime before.

He is not responsible for the "events" of 9/11 - he happened to be the recipient of a long building friction over US foreign policy.
Like an earthquake fault it "let go" with tragic and fatal consequences......and the geopolitical shifting ain't stopped yet.

He and his crew ARE responsible for the situation in Iraq. They took that on themselves.
He is also responsible in the most part for the magnitude of the US government deficit.
He is also directly responsible for the events that lead to the Concerned Scientists protest and to the abrogation of international mulitlateral treaties amongst other Bush in a China shop fumbles.

The







stops here









in more ways than one.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

I respect the results of the US election. It was about as valid an election as is likely to happen. Some problems, but the American people elected Bush.

Now, as for what I think of the people's decision to elect Bush, well, that I think is idiocy.

Someone on here said, "freedom isn't free." You're right, so stand up and protest the illegal, immoral and insane stance of Bush and crew. They are the greatest danger to freedom in the world right now, not Osama or the usual other villians. The military voted overwhelmingly for Bush; fine, let them die for him because they're sure not dying for freedom or any other value I hold as important. Sooner or later the American people will wake up, they always do, I just hope it's sooner so less people have to die in the pursuit of neo-con imperialism.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Stinand, I have a sense that Americans might be more ready to vote for a president who is a woman than one who is an African-American. I agree that the junior senator from Illinois would make a good president or vice-president candidate, but I am not sure if my views represent the mainstream of the American voter.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

I would disagree I really don’t think that the States is ready for a woman and especially Hilary. I don’t see her as a media friendly image. During Bill’s second run Hilary was such a liability to the campaign she was kept out of the publics eye until after Bill had won. 

Powell has lead the way for a black President IMHo had he run 4 years ago I think he would have won. 
Now Barack Obama would have an easier time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Stinand, we shall have to agree to disagree. I fear that the US is still, sadly, not ready for an African/Carribean American to become president. What the US needs in 2008 is for H.Clinton to have an Hispanic man who is gay and a card carrying member of the Communist Party of America as a running mate, and the Republicans to have an African-American woman who is Jewish, a lesbian and is in a wheelchair running for president with a running mate who is the CEO of "Pollution r' Us" (the producer of toxic waste dog biscuits and teeting rings for children) and who is a card carrying member of the KKK. This would force the US voter to think about whom they want to see as president and VP. It's not going to happen soon, but it still would make for an interesting race.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Chealion, regarding your view that you... _couldn't find a reason why Kerry was better then Bush outside of "Kerry isn't Bush"._

I'm sorry but don't see that at all. Kerry is a very different kind of individual. A comparative look at their records of service to their country is pretty revealing. Kerry has cosistantly demonstrated commitment, strength of character , substance, intelligence. Bush has consistantly demonstrated something quite different (despite his assertion that he excels in these qualities while Kerry is somehow lacking). Kerry has also been to war and has a realistic notion of what war is and what the consequences are likely to be. He also publicly voices the fact that Iraq was invaded illegally and that this adventure has ruined not only his country's reputation (and economy) but the reputation of democracy itself.

As for all the negativity and spitting. Well, I'm truly sorry for my part in it. But this is a discussion of politics after all - mixed with religion no less! My personal beef is the abuse of emoticons (by some) - especially this fellow







who is more often used to laugh AT the reader than with them.

[ November 04, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: vacuvox ]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Vacuvox, I tend to agree with your contention that there is a difference between Kerry and Bush. I fear that Kerry had to take a somewhat hawkish view re terrorism because of the mood of the country. He does not strike me as the type of person who would normally use terms like "we are going to track you down and kill you". Still, in the arena of politics, anything is possible.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Dr.G How much of your support for Kerry is anti Bush? I believe that many did not vote for Kerry but voted against Bush.

Personally I don’t see a lot of the qualities you describe, I would have liked to see them but didn’t.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

_I don’t see a lot of the qualities you describe, I would have liked to see them but didn’t._

This was the biggest failure of the Dem/Kerry campaign.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Vacuvox, I voted for Kerry rather than against Bush, because I believed in most of Kerry's positions. As I have said, his hawkish views re terrorism were out of necessity, even though I did not approve of his notion of "hunting down the terrorists and killing them".


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Y'all might like a Scottish view of the recent events: hail to the chief


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Comical....and it would be even more so if it'e weren't scattered with massive inaccuracies.

A few come instantly to mind:

-Bush has already ordered all US troops and airbases out of Saudi Arabia. Any that are still there are in the process of packing up.

-George W. has decided that the only way to foster peace in Israel is to bypass the worst terrorist who has his thumb stuck into the process. He has refused to deal with Arafat for some time now, and has been working around the demented old gnome. Looks like that particular impediment is about to vanish of self inflcted wounds, and so we may have some hope for a resolution sometime soon. If there can be one.

-Actually, George W. and the USA have been very vocal about the carnage that is taking place in Africa (I'm talking about the genocide in the Sudan here....not all of the other carnage).

It's actually the United Nations that has been studiously ignoring that festering problem. Could the reason be that they don't want to anger the many tyrants and despots who have taken over control of that august body? Could they be worried about pi**ing off the Arab rulers of the Sudan....who, if memory serves, were actually sitting on the UN Human Rights Council while they were murdering all of those thousands of black Sudanese citizens, and burning all of their villages.

I could go on, but....

Like I said, funny stuff. Except for the massive errors. Those are even funnier. Sort of.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Macnutt my personal favorite is posters that regularly cut and paste an article from some source or other that supports their point of view. I always skip these presuming that the person has little knowledge on the subject or the source is so highly suspicious that the article serves no purpose.

I recently found an article by a guy with more letters after his name than a can of alphabet soup explaining that the earth is really flat..

This is life not a rehearsal .


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

> ...and so many of them are completely out of touch with reality.


This from the man that glues a high powered rifle to his kitty kat and shoves him in a window to do his dirty work!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Andy...

One of the reasons that I never cut and paste...or provide url's to "back up my facts" is because so many of the totally indoctrinated here will just savage the source as "radically right wing and therefore totally unreliable".  

It's an excersize in futility as far as I'm concerned. If it doesn't come from some leftish organ of the media that they follow with slavish devotion, then it HAS to be total bullsh*t as far as they're concerned. And should be cut to pieces and discredited immediately! Lest some young impressionable mind come across it and actually READ it, I guess.









Here's an interesting example of bad versus good data ('approved' versus 'unapproved'...if you are a left/lib type)

It's also a great example of how propaganda can leave you completely unprepared for reality.

My dad and my stepmum are of two different political stripes. She was a longtime union medical care worker, and used to vote NDP. Religiously.

My dad was a Liberal for most of his life, but has drifted toward the Conservatives in the past twenty years.

They both watch the evening news in seperate rooms to prevent the usual carnage that happens in Scots families when two people disagree on politics. Or anything else. They NEVER discuss politics or political policy with each other.

My stepmum watched the whole of the US campaign on the CBC, exclusively. Force of habit, I guess.

My dad watched the campaign while flipping back and forth betwen several different news stations that aren't owned and controlled by any government. (Especially a network that is wholly owned and controlled by a government that is openly hostile to the Bush administration).

Needless to say, he avoids the CBC. (Like it was a rabid festering dog.)

When the US election results finally came in, my dad nodded and said "yep...seems about right". I called him and we both congratulated ourselves for calling it correctly.

My stepmum staggered into my dads TV room, shocked and appalled, after the Bush win. "How could this possibly happen??" she said. "It MUST be some kind of a mistake or a conspiracy! He should have WON!" 

She'd been getting all of her data...exclusively...from a single issue government propaganda machine that is hostile to the right. So she was caught totally off guard when reality reared it's ugly head.

The rest of us, on the other hand, were not at all surprised by the outcome.  

Perhaps this might explain some of the outrage and disbelief that we have seen from some ehmaclanders since the US election results were announced? Perhaps they, too, have been getting all of their data from one single terribly slanted and government-funded source? While ignoring all other reports, because they were somehow convinced that "only the CBC has the REAL story"? 









I wonder....


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, you are spewing the very same arrogance as the Bush administration. Have Faith. Trust Me On This. IMHO, this is being utterly disingenuous to the majority of members of this board.

We don't need to back up our arguments with facts because we KNOW them to be true and if we repeat them enough times they become true. He who asks proof, is a doubter and is against me.

Indeed, many of your posts are full of generalizations, inaccuracies and repetitive rants. I would say that YOU are the exception to the general behaviour on this board in that most people on both sides of an argument back up their contentions with researched factual evidence. You also find convenient excuses. First of all you claimed you were unable to post a link. There was some bizarre technical reason. That bluff was called by point by point instructions and the fact that you were able to post links subsequently. Then when challenged on specific arguments, you blow them off by saying you have answered them and don't have time to reply again - followed by another cut and paste rant about Castro, Arafat, Chretien, Martin, or whomever.

If you are not willing to back up your arguments with fact, I will treat them as fiction. Fair enough?

Perhaps the good Mayor can create a new area on the board called "Fiction, Unsubstantiated Crap, Know-it-alls, Ignorance and Trash" with an appropriate acronym?


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Archangel seems to be a mass of misinformation earlier her told me that hybrid cars where not for sale in this country


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, this is what I just posted in the Cuba thread. I agree with your point in that Macnutt does not take the time to verify or cite some of the sources for his specific "facts". One does not ask anyone to justify a spiritual belief, certainly not with citations (e.g., I do/do not believe in God), but historical facts needs to be verified if they are to be viewed as credible in terms of validity and reliability. Still, what Macnutt said can be verified in this instance. 


--IronMac, Macnutt might not back up his claims, but there is verification. You might not believe in what Amnesty International has to say, but I do in most, if not all instances. Check out http://www.amnesty.org/ or http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng to see some of the violations in Cuba. 

For example, "Marcelo López Bañobre, a human rights defender with no past convictions, was sentenced in April to 15 years in prison for, among other activities, "sending information to international organisations like Amnesty International". His conviction was part of a crackdown in mid-March by Cuban security forces who rounded up 75 dissidents over the space of a few days. Most of the leaders of Cuba’s dissident movement, people who had been activists for a decade or more, were detained. The government claims that they were foreign agents whose activities endangered Cuban independence and security but the dissidents were not charged with recognizably criminal offences. They were given hasty and unfair trials, and, shortly after being taken into custody, were sentenced to harsh prison terms of up to 28 years. AI considers them all to be prisoners of conscience."

As someone who nearly faced 2 years in a US Federal Prison back in 1970 as a "prisoner of conscience", I take such matters seriously. I don't agree with Macnutt's approach to throwing out his views as the gospel truth, but some of what he says can be verified. --


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Woodget.

I think the strength of any board is that fact that many people of all walks of life post. I think it really is up to the reader to define how he views the source. I read some and skip others because they are either repetitive, long winded or inaccurate....In MY view. I’m sure that if I listed the culprits many other would claim them as their favorite posters.

It’s up to you who you read and who you don’t. I think it is somewhat presumptuous of you to expect anyone to change their modus operandi just because you don’t like it.I’m also sure that you would not take kindly to someone asking the same as you.

Hey one man’s meat is another man’s poison.


I just had to end on a saying.. It makes me look educated


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So I noticed.

There are at least two hybrid cars here on Salt Spring. And there was a blue "Smart Car" running around this island for MONTHS before some people here proudly announced that they were "finally going to be available in Canada".

So many ehmaclanders...and so many of them are completely out of touch with reality. Or so sadly misinformed. On so many different levels.  

(sigh)...Where do I start?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Andy it's stuff like this



> Then the US election results finally came in, my dad nodded and said "yep...seems about right". I called him and *we both congratulated ourselves for calling it correctly.*


Macnutt didn't call it at all. He hedged all over the place about how Kerry wouldn't be so bad etc etc. He got such a an indigestible meal of crow over "calling" the Canadian election. he waffled on this one......which was indeed the correct "call" for this election......ie"who the hell knows."

NOW, post facto.........he called Bush all along.








•••

There are intelligent thoughtful conservatives like FinkNottle and and lefties CubaMark and many others who are enjoyable to debate and discuss even if views on certain issues differ.
And they backup their positions and look for common ground.

ON the other hand.........


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> One of the reasons that I never cut and paste...or provide url's to "back up my facts" is because so many of the totally indoctrinated here will just savage the source as "radically right wing and therefore totally unreliable".


i call bullsh•t


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

> Perhaps the good Mayor can create a new area on the board called "Fiction, Unsubstantiated Crap, Know-it-alls, Ignorance and Trash" with an appropriate acronym


Oh yes please do, please oh yes!  Gawd, that felt good!  

That is what this place needs, somewhere where facts and correctness is left at the door. Where idiotic and silly crap flies from the keyboards of all ehmacr's
















People caught making correct or otherwise truthful statements shall be beaten with nettles and glass grass!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Exactly, UTBJW.

*If you are not willing to back up your arguments with fact, I will treat them as fiction. Fair enough?*

No need to treat them *as* fiction, since they *are* fiction, in my opinion. He appears to be not willing or incapable of offering any substantiation to them. His excuses as to why he won't substantiate his arguments lack credibility, as you point out. 

His arguments are full of all the most common logical fallacies, the worst of which is the _ad hominem_ attack, which indicates to me that his arguments are weak at best, but most likely untrue. But he still says we should "trust him" and re-evaluate our world view, based on "the facts". He conveniently ignores that he hasn't offered any evidence that stand any scrutiny. The sources he cites: "It's all over the news ..." or "my well placed buddies tell me...". Using one of his own phrases, he just doesn't get it, does he?

As for respect for the Bush agenda or the decisions of the 50 million US citizens who were foolish enough to vote for him, please, don't make me laugh. Not bloody likely. There's absolutely nothing to respect there. I'll gladly side with the overwhelming majority of the world who believe that the neo-con doctrine is a recipe for disaster. In fact, I'm even more confirmed in that stance, than I was before Tuesday.

We'll soon see what new horrors Bushco brings to the world. I'm speculating there are things to come that will make even many died in the wool Bush supporters cringe.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

TMR, I too found the Macnutt statement that "...so many of the totally indoctrinated here will just savage the source...." I actually went to the trouble of finding out some info about Cuba from Amnesty International, an organization I respect, to obtain some specifics to back up one of Macnutt's points. I wonder if I am one of those "totally indoctrinated"? If so, then my support of Macnutt's position would be invalid.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Andy.....walks like a duck, talks like a duck.....well by damn... etc.

The MacNutt range goes from amusing to annoying with the occasional down right bigoted thrown in for good measure. It's the latter that provokes the sharp responses


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Amnesty international has plenty to say about Canada too.

Canada's approach to resolving human rights issues I feel is correct and the approach to Cuba itself far superior to the US lunacy.

Each nation has issues, each nation has strengths. I'd love to see Cuba move slowly towards a mixed structure like Canada as China is moving in that direction. 

Supporting hyperbole with limited context information doesn't in anyway reduce or moderate the damage the vitriolic attacks on anything that doesn't fit the NeoCon agenda.

It lends credibility when the NeoCon stance itself is built on conflict and "no compromise".

Communism - bad
Socialism - bad
Liberalism - bad

no common ground just ignorant dismissal. Dogma of the worst unreasoned sort.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

Dr. G, perhaps MacNutt's source for most of his arguments is 'The World According to Macnutt'?

If so then MacNutt's statement


> one of the reasons that I never cut and paste...or provide url's to "back up my facts" is because so many of the totally indoctrinated here will just savage the source as "radically right wing and therefore totally unreliable"


would be correct.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, it is written in "The Way of the World According to Macnutt" that "The dogmatism of today is the arrogance of tommorrow. It has been said that 'might makes right', and this is true to a degree. The main importance of 'might' is not that you are considered correct, because this is where arrogance protects you from any negative karma. The importance of having the might is to use it properly to enshrine your view and cause. The people make the history, but the mighty write this history. The idea that this written account may not be vidicated by the historical facts is of no concern for the mighty. Their primary agenda is to attain power and then maintain power."


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i see we were both having the same thought









edit: more or less


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

TMR, you might be correct about the point you just made. Keep in mind that "World According to Macnutt" is quite complex to understand, what with all of the nuance and inferences embedded within the text. Still, careful reading of his various texts reveals the underlying thesis of his world view.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It does?

Cheers


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*His arguments are full of all the most common logical fallacies, the worst of which is the ad hominem attack, which indicates to me that his arguments are weak at best, but most likely untrue. But he still says we should "trust him" and re-evaluate our world view, based on "the facts". He conveniently ignores that he hasn't offered any evidence that stand any scrutiny.*

In Macnutt's defense, this paragraph could be about Michael Moore, too, and there are more than a few people here who defend Mr. Moore rather stringently.

It's funny how much support I get when I am pointing out holes in Macnutt's arguments, compared to how much heat I get for pointing out holes in Michael Moore's arguments, when they are both using essentially the same tactics.

Of course, that doesn't make either of them right.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Very true, PB (re your point "Of course, that doesn't make either of them right.") I await the heat I shall have sent my way for posting some specific citations to support a piece of Macnutt's contention about human rights violations in Cuba, with a URL from Amnesty International.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Andy, that was a rather presumptuous reply of yours.... given that you'd just said that you happen to skip posts that meet certain criteria (citing articles that agree with a point of view). In my post about Macnutts reasoning for not providing factual evidence to back up his posts I said that *I* would treat them as fiction. Others can do what they wish. I would not presume to tell others what is a good or bad poster since we're all adults. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Paix.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

You can argue about validty of Macnutts "facts" if you like and you may be correct so treat them accordingly... See previous post.

MacDoc I think you have some nerve getting into this as you play the other side of the coin. As I have said many times before your sources are quite often dubious and highly slanted. I know every once in awhile I take the time to check them out.

Yes it’s easy to take a republican article to prove a republican argument.don’t waste the bandwith. ”. You present these sources with the flourish of an intellectual magician. As the BBC mantra is “consider the source. So I act accordingly and skip the main body of your posts , as the first line usually tells me that rest is just another soapbox rant.

But all that is fine I’ve just learnt that under certain circumstance your posts are highly partisan backed up by highly partisan sources. End result? You have said nothing but stated your preference again and again and again.n We all know how you feel about Bush . 

If Macnutt’s posts information that is regularly questionable, then view his posts with a grain of salt (not a bad pun) instead of leaping over each post like vultures fighting over a carcass (great imagery) 


Roll up Roll up experience the fun of the fair!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Stinand, it was Winston Churchill who said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." And he said, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." And he said, "Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."

Great man, that Churchill. Never did so many owe so much to so few..........including him. Pax.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah right Andy ........ - you're caught in a contradiction in which you admit the skip then pretend to evaluate the sources. Sorry but your AADD is showing.  

I'd hardly say sources like the Globe and Economist are highly slanted and based on suspect data.
For someone who thrives on sound bites I can see where actually taking the time to read articles and links might be too boring.
I'm subscribed to both which actually costs money and I probably spend $3-400 a month on magazines, journals and books which I actually read.......not skip over.

That's one reason FN and I share a number of common ground views despite being opposed on others. I respect his reasoning and his sourcing of information, his background and erudition so I'll take time to have a look at what he says. 
Perhaps a wider reading regimen might be in order, skipping is for kids.

You also seem to miss that "observing" the nature of what is being said - ie the Le Monde poll about the dramatically differing views of the French polled vis a vie the American people versus the the Bush regime and it's policies is different than ascribing to exactly that view.

If a journalist from India takes a certain viewpoint, that viewpoint is informed by his background and approach to the issues specific to him. Trying to find common, intelligent thought out threads yet coming from diverse background, ie a Beijng newspaper cartoon about American human rights problems speaks to a fairly universal view of certain events and trends rather than a western centric view.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the view of sourced material, obviously Iranian newspapers have a certain "bent" but it's common ground that is often surprising.

Illustrating a discussion with relevant, respected sources is hardly being polemic or providing suspect information.

If you view the Globe, or the Economist, The Star or Le Monde, Washington Post, New York Times, Nature all of which I've used, along with stats from the Canadian Gov economic sources to counteract the nonsense claims that Macnutt throws about, as suspect...... then I have to question whether ANY information source is of any relevance at all to you.

Feedback between opinions of myself, others here, journalist and experts in their fields are valuable ways to assess peoples, political systems and decide future courses of action.
I'm a centrist, always have been but you can't seem to figure that out.
It's called scholarship Andy, not showmanship.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Interesting David but can you view Bush and America with the intellectual and non-partisan eyes that you claim? You have told me certain things personally that fuel your dislike….. no hate for the American government and Bush that are not intellectual, but emotional issues that you cannot overcome, which is fair and understandable. You can skip that question in your usual fashion of selective answering.

Lets move on from there. Repetition is the mantra of schoolchildren learning their multiplication tables. You use an example of the French …snip” The Le Monde poll about the dramatically differing views of the French polled vis a vie the American people versus the Bush regime and it's policies is different than ascribing to exactly that view.

As an Englishman this is old news that goes back to Joan of Arc through De Gaulle to the present cheese eating surrender monkeys that the French really are. You present these with your usual Wizard of Oz flourish like this is some new information. You read it I live it bad example. 

Your post is interesting however you should practice what you preach. The other night I called you and asked what channel you where watching the election you informed me CNN. Oh great the entertainment new channel with so many choices you pick the most pro American garbage channel You may subscribe $ 00 to $400. a month on magazines but are they publications with diametrically opposed viewpoints?

You’re a great guy David and a dear friend but a person who sees both sides of an argument, you are not . See the first question in the post and supply your answer….


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

stinand rumbled


> As an Englishman this is old news that goes back to Joan of Arc through De Gaulle to the present cheese eating surrender monkeys that the French really are.


and grumbled


> See the first question in the post and supply your answer….


I am left in awe of this topic ....


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

First, apologies to all re: hybrid cars. I should know better than to make a statement about any car since 1959. Anyway, they seem to be fairly common here. In an event of cosmic flux, there was also an article in the paper talking about the price of them over standard cars. Goes back to my point about political will: there should be a tax credit for this kind of eco-benefit.
I'll stand by the hydro monopoly statement, but I'll so some homework. My understanding is that nobody in Ontario could produce their own hydro at all, then shortly before full dereg, personal use was allowed.

Other than that, I'm still reading too many "*******" spewings for my comfort zone. It's not really a fun visit.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Still dodging Andy, retreating to paternalism as is your wont.

You questioned sources, stated clearly they were sourced for bias and were 'suspect"..
Are the sources above what you consider one sided and biased? If so, there is obviously nothing that you would consider legit except perhaps the BBC which I do catch on occasion, Not that you bother to read the material sourced anyway .

Is Bush radical and far right? - of course, that's not news - why should I defend an ass who has made a mess of US foreign policy in the eyes of 1/2 of his citizens and around 80% of the rest of the planet in the interest of being even handed.

As to election coverage, I slipped over to BBC briefly and in this case it looked like something cobbled together by a high school video crew. Hardly sterling presentation.
I watched CNN as it appeared they had more people on the ground in swing states than anyone else.
It is after all, as you have said .....oh yeah quite repetitiously.....that news has become entertainment and that was certainly clear on election night.

I was working and watching the results, then I went to bed. I get very little "news" from TV broadcasts period as they are rarely in depth .....they are your fav sound snips - easy to digest without thinking too much.

Docus and indepth series like the CBC OIL SERIES, "The World over a Barrel" at least give some background and analysis and a cogent case for their views. Not "sound bites'.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Playing the devil's advocate, I'm wondering not about the veracity of facts one way or the other, but about the nature of the liberal democrat-- which, in case any of you are in the dark on this subject, we all are. Rather, I am curious as to whether--at the very least within the ehmac community--the conservative has become the minority. I'm sure no one would disagree. But what about the cause of most left-winging democrats? Isn't our pressing cause the protection of minority beliefs, no matter how unpopular? And if they're unpopular within the aforementioned minority? 

I don't know macnutt, but isn't he "persecuted" here? Were you all part of the "neo-con conspiracy" (as is so idiotically put), you could cast such aside, believing him unfit to be listened to because of the greater good of virtue, etc.. However, it has fallen to the liberal egalitarian to embrace the minority, the unequal, the persecuted, the unpopular, because, as you must believe, all truth is very much


> in the eye of the beholder.


(-Dr. G.)

-Ted


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey that's exactly why I've lamented not having more moderate conservative voices here like FN and a couple of others.
Much of Ontario's greatness was built by the likes of Davis and there is real need for it in Canada - Martin's version of Blue Liberal is the closest thing and that's long overdue for a retread.

Take CubaMark as an example, he supports an alternative social structure far more left than anything I'd consider but he also brings to it informed thoughtful opinion and historical and factual basis upon which to form an opinion. He makes you think.

So too Ducette. I dislike the idea of an independent Quebec because I like a Canada that has Quebec in it.
At the same time given the history I can empathize with a French Canadian person who wishes to chart their future as an independent nation.

But the kind of bigoted and often simply factually wrong posts .......conveyed as pronouncements from on high ....that characterize too many of MacNutt's rants.........sorry...outright blather has its limits for me. Again I'm hardly alone on this.

There's only so much time and there a terrific number of thoughtful, articulate people here at ehMac to swap viewpoints, some tears, some laughter with.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc the Wise is now Macdoc the Poet ("There's only so much time and there a terrific number of thoughtful, articulate people here at ehMac to swap viewpoints, some tears, some laughter with.") Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Rhythm in passion....I liked that last line too - thanks..........especially from you.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Poets write so that all may see the beauty of the world around us all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Did you ever read Deliverance by James Dickey? 
Taught me just how amazing a poet could be with prose. The climb up the cliff from the river,,,..."fingers clinging like roots"  
Steinbeck could do it too. Cannery Row, Mice and Men and of course Grapes......magical. Where did that book thread go.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

YES, poetry. Also, once this book-- "The Republic" that dealt with poetry; a roman, Virgilus; an Italian, Alighieri; an englishman by the name of Spencer, Swift, and then, later, why poetry is necessary for the people, Strauss. (hic) take my tone with some consideration. (hic) sorry


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmm....seems to be catching......is there a vaccine.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Poetry is not merely to show the beauty that many *ahem* see as subjective or, more popularly, as "in the eyes of the beholder"-- or else, why must one be brought to see anything other than what he believes?! Truth is the ends of poetry, not merely "the world" because the world is often not beautiful. As Sidney said:


> Poesy, therefore, is an art of imitation, for so Aristotle termeth it in his word [Greek], that is to say, a representing, counterfeiting, or figuring forth; to speak metaphorically, a speaking picture, with this end,— *to teach and delight*


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

> To teach and delight


Now, there's a forgotten concept. I'll keep that one, thank you.
My favourite prof once said, "There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers on the exam paper."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> compared to how much heat I get for pointing out holes in Michael Moore's arguments, when they are both using essentially the same tactics.


I found that out the first time I offered an opinion on Moore.

It never ceases to amaze me how some otherwise bright individuals cannot see through MM and his propaganda.

Cheers


----------



## Kirtland (Aug 18, 2002)

> * It never ceases to amaze me how some otherwise bright individuals cannot see through MM and his propaganda.*


You can replace the MM in the above quote with George Bush.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"...to teach and delight."

Teaching is such an important calling that I think that it is more than merely a "job". I think this piece by Leah Becks is a great reminder about who a teacher is/might be for all of us …

The Star Polisher 

I have a great job in the universe of occupations. What do I do? I'm a "star polisher."

It's a very important job. If you want to know how important, just go out at night and look at the stars twinkling and sparkling.

You see, I'm a teacher. The stars are the children in my class. My job is to take them in - in whatever shape they come - and shine and buff them and send them out to take their places as bright little twinkling beacons in the sky. 
They come into my room in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes they're bent, tarnished, dirty, crinkly and broken. Some stars are cuddly, soft and sweet.Some stars are prickly and thorny.

As I buff, polish, train and teach my little stars, I tell them that the world cannot do without them. I tell them they can do anything they set their minds to do. I tell them they can be the brightest, shiniest stars in the sky and the world will be a better place because of them.

Each night as I look at the sky, I'm reminded of my very important job and awesome responsibility. I go and get my soft buffing cloth and my bottle of polish in preparation for tomorrow and for my class of little stars.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sinc, 

Michael Moore at least engages debate. Love him or hate him, he asks some pointed questions. He may dumb it down and oversimplify to increase the audience (similar to Bush) but most of his primary arguments do stand up to inspection. His conspiracy theories are just that, theories, but his books are referenced, page by page, and he has a significant audience. As a mouthpiece, he has been a lot more effective than most commentators. He's a Don Cherry for the Left. Many of his antagonists prefer attack him rather than what he says which is futile. He's an easy target, but he's not alone in his subject matter and there are multiple, albeit less well known, authors who have found plenty to question.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC,

For what it's worth, I know a lot of folks who are certainly not Bush supporters, but who think less and less of Mr Moore.

I thought he raised some very interesting points in Columbine, and even some of his answers were reasoned. However, his more obviously contrived stuff just served to weaken his case, IMO.

F911 was even worse. What may have been a few valid points were obscured by zealousness.

it's a pity. We could do with some thoughtful, provocative examination of the things he cares about.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_cannot see through MM and his propaganda_"

for the umpteenth time the methodology of F9/11* IS* propaganda.







MMs propaganda is a response to the Bush spin and uses the same techniques.

Moore's GOALs are somewhat different than Bush's but his techniques are the same.

MM propaganda goals are *to influence people to question Bush and his policies *

Bush's propaganda goals are *to influence people NOT to question Bush and his policies *

BOTH are propaganda and both are viewed with that in mind with the exception of a few literalists.
The goal is to influence.
The tool is propaganda.

Moore's message is clear, the greater or lesser accuracy of detail has SOME impact on believability just as the accuracy of the WMD info sent out by the Whitehouse influences even bodies like the UN.

No great congratulations are due in determing that a piece of entertainment INTENDED to BE propaganda actual IS.









MM has made that clear all along. Some people don't get it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pelao - yes - contrived info weakens but it's to be expected in propaganda and particularly in a piece designed also to entertain.

The balance is in trying to get the widest viewing - something a dry as dust academic style docu will not achieve.

Take Jay Leno - his monologues are obviously contrived from taking a humorous spin on the actual events.
He also obviously spun it against Bush.

MMs are longer monologues with a clear viewpoint, some humour some pathos and even some contrived bathos.
That would be effective propaganda that appeals to people to spend their money on to view.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Dr G.
Star Polisher is nice, cc'd it to a friend who is an over stressed teacher.
Thank you,


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ms. Plath would concur.  



> Axes
> After whose stroke the wood rings,
> And the echoes!
> Echoes traveling
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Archangel, I use the "star polisher" and others such genre bits for my students. I an a professor in the Faculty of Education here at Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

The term "neo-con" has shown up several times lately. Can somebody provide a definition? Or compare/contrast with "neo-liberalism"? Thanks.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Archangel, my understanding of the term is that the traditional conservatism of Goldwater, Reagan, et al, is being replaced with a totally different social/economic/political agenda. Barry Goldwater, just before he died, expressed concern over this agenda. Reaganomics was one of the first pseudo-neoCon experiments, with "trickle down" wealth at its core. Goldwater was a "rugged individualist", with a desire to get the federal government out of many institutions. Today, there is a strong emphasis upon a religious "moral majority" being at the heart of their core values, and government serving the wealthy to a far greater extent than Reagan envisioned. If the "trickle down" does not take place, I don't see this as a worry for the neoCon advocates, who preach a form of "Social Darwinism" (i.e., "survival of the fittest", with the fittest being economically well to do, and morally "right" in their values). I may be way off the mark, and I state openly that this is my view of what neoCon means in my interpretation.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dictionary.com defines it thusly:

ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism     P   Pronunciation Key  (n-kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

Cheers


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> The term "neo-con" has shown up several times lately. Can somebody provide a definition? Or compare/contrast with "neo-liberalism"? Thanks.


That's easy...Just look up "Mike Harris" on Google.

Or if you are too lazy to look...

Just look here 

Dave


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I had forgotten about the "New Era philosophy of the 1920s", lead by Calvin Coolidge's famous statement "The business of America is business." So went the 1920's............right up until it went over the cliff with the Great Depression in 1929.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Also see Trotskyism


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Vacuvox, it is a most interesting article. Bush should be able to attempt to "tear down" the last remains of the old order of conservatives, who were fiscally responsible in their goals, while trying to get government to disengage from the lives of the average person. Now, fiscal irresponsibility has reached such a point that it staggers the imagination, and government is directly involved in the everyday lives of average people, "for the good of the country which is under a terror alert".


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<blockquote>Macdoc offered: *for the umpteenth time the methodology of F9/11 IS propaganda.*</blockquote> 

What I've always found the most interesting, is that if Bush (or Macnutt, even) leaves out facts, puts facts out of context, make poor associations, or just plain makes something up, well, that's just not cool.

But if Moore does it, it's a-ok.

It's an interesting double standard.

<blockquote>*The balance is in trying to get the widest viewing - something a dry as dust academic style docu will not achieve.*</blockquote>

It doesn't have to be dry as dust, Michael Moore is after all a funny guy. What would be nice, though, would be if he used some real evidence, though. Lord knows that there is probably a lot of it out there to be used.

Maybe if he'd tried thoughtful examination of actual events and motivations instead of spinning conspiracy theories, he would have had some impact on the polls, and later the election.

But again, this is probably a debate better saved for another time.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Maybe The Corporation is a better model. It is equally or more entertaining than F-911 but also more responsible? Maybe you have an opinion on this PB.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I've not yet had occasion to watch the corporation, unfortunately.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mmmmmmm I'd say Sinc that may be a source of the term but it does not delineate the current embodiment.

This seems to me a pretty good outline for the US NeoCon movement.



> Neocon 101
> 
> Some basic questions answered.
> *What do neoconservatives believe?*
> ...


You can take a quiz here to see where you stand

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html

•••••

As to neo-Liberals - there is not always parity in political movements, NeoCon is after all a name not a small letter approach such as liberal or conservative and it seems not to be in play much but here's the info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

I'd have to say this is closer to the offsetting values



> The term neoliberalism does not mean a version of *new liberalism of John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, Franklin Roosevelt*
> 
> •••••
> New liberalism (also called modern liberalism or social liberalism) is a stance in political economy that argues for extensive government regulation and partial intervention in the economy, though much less than what is advocated by social democrats. It is also a stance in general policies, based on the idea that society has no right to moralize its citizens, but that society has the task to guarantee equal opportunities for each of its citizens.
> ...


I'd say the two sides of gap are NeoCon and Modern Liberalism.

What is amazing is the "balanced budget" aspects of current liberal bodies - Keynes has been pretty much discounted intheir ranks but "stimulating the economy" with tax cuts and government spending is OKAY with NeoCons.

What a "Looking Glass world" we have here Alice, right is left and left is right and.........


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I took the quiz and here is a surprise for you MacDoc:

"Neocon quiz results

Based on your answers, you are most likely a liberal. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective."

Notice it did not say definitely, rather most likely.

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Hey, I'm a Liberal too.

I'm glad I now know that.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Thanks for the help, it was not a matter of laziness. It was a question of finding a common definition or agreement.
For the next few months, I will be a facilitator of a course which uses the phrase "neo-liberalism". In our context it refers to the modern approach of giving corporations the same privileges as individuals, or at least masking their intents, in the same jargon. The end result being that governments are now moving, have moved, to protect corporations from individuals whereas the movement before had been to protect the individual from corporations, albeit very slowly.
Like most jargon, the same term can have different meanings in different circumstances. Looks like The Who got it right: the parting on the left is now the parting on the right.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I strongly recommend "The Corporation".

I also recommend reading the book first, the movie, although more entertaining, can't cover all the details and has no footnotes.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I took the test... apparently I'm a realist.

--

I've always been troubled by the term neo-conservative as much of what they believe is the antithesis of conservatism, at least as I define it. I've heard many people use the term 'conservative' in a manner synonomous with 'proponent of free market economics', and I consider that to be incorrect. Certainly individual rights and freedoms are an integral part of conservatism, but so is pragmatism and a cautious attitude towards tinkering with the construction of the state. In fact I would go so far as to say that conservatism is inherently anti ideological, in contrast to the so called 'neo-conservatives' who appear to be very ideologically driven.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Me an isolationist neoconservative??????  What kind of a test is this??????????????????????

Just fooling. A "rock rib" liberal. 

From where does the term "rock rib" come??


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Excellent distinction and as hard as it is for liberals to deal with NeoCons it's even harder for real small c conservatives. I'm real glad to see Tory in Ontario - interesting balance - Tory - McGuinty and Miller representing the complete middle spectrum.
Where Ontario historically is most comfortable.

I sort of liked the Wired description about Arnie which characterized "radical centrism".

Non ideological, pragmatic and borrowing from concepts that actually work regardless of perceived political source.

FN for PM...you da man.


----------



## archangel (Jan 1, 2003)

Still preparing for citizenship tests.



> I'm real glad to see Tory in Ontario - interesting balance - Tory - McGuinty and Miller representing the complete middle spectrum.


unless you're being ironic, isn't McGuinty Liberal and therefore Whig?


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Hey I took the test It told me I was a realist. Hmm I thin that probably accurate “Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision“

Now I know why I never agree with David


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Now I know why I never agree with David


You and many others!

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No problem, you're loss.  

••

I suppose McGuinty COULD have descended from cattle drovers in Southwest Scotland given his name.

But I'll stick with current designations of Conservative, Liberal and NDP for Ontario rather than cater to the archaic amongst us.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

According to the quiz I am a liberal too!

Liberal
Liberals are:

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson

Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter


I do agree with most of the mentioned Items above! good quiz..


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

most likely a liberal... what else is new? Bloody liberals...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

With that tag line "libertine" might fit better


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc,

You wouldn't want me as PM... but thanks anyway.









I picked up Dalton Camp's biography last week so I'll see what I can learn from one of the last of the 'Red Tories'.

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Daltons' sorely missed. Another small c that are too few these days.
Really enjoyed his commentary and columns.

Not want you as PM??........bit of an Attila streak there lurking perhaps  

I'll trade you for the Clinton bio when I'm done - exchange viewpoints for a while.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Now If I was PM of Canada there would be some major changes, actual changes not ideological ones as favoured by many here.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Stinand, make me your Benevolent Dictator in Charge of Education, and I shall turn the educational system around in this country. All I need is absolute authority.....and a bit of money.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Does this help Dr. G.?

It is currency that is accepted anywhere.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, that's a start. Now to convince the people that they need not be afraid by my changes to the educational system and they way they parent their children. How about this:

I am certain that my fellow ehMacLanders expect that on my induction into the Benevolent Dictator in Charge of Education I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am not sure if I ever mentioned to you Dr. G., that our daughter is also a teacher. She currently teaches a grade three class in south Edmonton in the mornings, and a pre school class in central Glenora in the afternoons.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good for her, Sinc. Teaching is both a worthy profession (rather than merely a job) and a calling. Pass on the URL of my K-3 PD website for the VITAL Project, SVP,

http://www.cdli.ca/~lwilliam/


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

It would appear that the quiz has me pegged as a........Liberal.  Hmmmm....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr. G., I passed the URL along to her and will let you know if she has any comments regarding the site.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Many thanks, Sinc. The project has stalled with our reorganized school boards and teachers being sent all over the new combined district.


----------

