Big News this AM
- Thread starter Maggie
- Start date
- Status
Thornc wrote:
Well, look who armed Iraq with 57% of their arms. Russia! Number 2 is France at 13% (France built Saddam a nuclear reactor. Thank goodness the Israelis bombed it to smithereens or there would be no Israel at this time), followed by China at 12%.
Hmmm. I wonder if those countries were feverishly against enforcing the UN resolutions. Just wondering.
Look down on the list. Look WAY down if you want to find the USA's contribution. I'm sure that whopping 1% came from the little bit of help they gave Iran (who was backed by the USSR).
Open up your eyes.
And please cut the Israel bashing. Some might think you are one of those leftwing Jew-haters. Israel is the only democracy in the Mid East and it is a teeny country surrounded by Arabs who want to kill every last Jew. They have been at war ever since their homeland was returned to them.
Hah! Let's not forget. I'd give you the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute link (a Peace group in a socialist country which is hardly friendly to a conservative govt in the USA), but they have taken it down off their site. However I found a copy of it here.
Well, look who armed Iraq with 57% of their arms. Russia! Number 2 is France at 13% (France built Saddam a nuclear reactor. Thank goodness the Israelis bombed it to smithereens or there would be no Israel at this time), followed by China at 12%.
Hmmm. I wonder if those countries were feverishly against enforcing the UN resolutions. Just wondering.
Look down on the list. Look WAY down if you want to find the USA's contribution. I'm sure that whopping 1% came from the little bit of help they gave Iran (who was backed by the USSR).
I'm not sure about Pakistan, but I do know that they are an ally in the War on Terror. As for Israel, it is a democracy. Do you think France and the UK should give up their nukes. I even had more faith in the USSR only using nukes as a deterrent, than I do Iran and an Iraq under Saddam.
Open up your eyes.
The nerve of the world being worried about the Mad Mullahs building nukes!! They are such a tolerant society!
And please cut the Israel bashing. Some might think you are one of those leftwing Jew-haters. Israel is the only democracy in the Mid East and it is a teeny country surrounded by Arabs who want to kill every last Jew. They have been at war ever since their homeland was returned to them.
cleopatra, this thread was long forgotten!
I have no comments to your comments other that those I already did!
And just to clear things about Israel,
my wife usually says that I am to much pro Israel and now you are saying the opposite! I think it all depends on were you stand! In my modest opinion both israelis and palestinians are right and wrong on that big mess! And last time I checked the only time in the world someone used nuclear weapons it was a peace loving democracy!
And finally and I really mean finally, Israel is not the only democracy in the midle east; that of course if your CIA information is not wrong.... Egypt
I have no comments to your comments other that those I already did!
And just to clear things about Israel,
my wife usually says that I am to much pro Israel and now you are saying the opposite! I think it all depends on were you stand! In my modest opinion both israelis and palestinians are right and wrong on that big mess! And last time I checked the only time in the world someone used nuclear weapons it was a peace loving democracy!
And finally and I really mean finally, Israel is not the only democracy in the midle east; that of course if your CIA information is not wrong.... Egypt
Brad wrote:
You have a Sept 10 mindset. Remember John Kerry's infamous "when we are attacked, I will respond quickly and forcefully" statement at the DNC? How do you think that made the citizens of NYC feel? You appear to want to see a mushroom cloud over Chicago before you feel there is "conclusive evidence".
Millions of people gave it a standing ovation? I don't suppose you
have any reliable proof of that, do you? Looks like so many re-evaluated their position, that they have Bush leading in the polls, future markets, and betting sites.
I can't believe that you would fall for such propaganda by Michael Moore. I guess PT barnum was correct.
Here is the truth about Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore even refused to give one dollar in damages that that Illinois newspaper asked for, after they confronted Moore about his superimposing one of their Letters To The Editor, trying to pass it off as the newspaper running a front page article saying Gore won the 2000 election.
Moore bragged that he would pay anyone $10,000 if they found a factual error in his crockumentary, yet he lacked the integrity to pay even one dollar (and he admitted he superimposed the front page on that letter to the editor).
What in the world are you talking about? Plastering over what headlines? The conservative Bush owns the liberal media? Utterly ridiculous.
Why do you think Bush ignores the media? He knows the liberal media is out to get him. They have openly admitted it.
How can he control what they report? Remember how quickly the liberal media buried the Sandy Berger "stuffing top-secret documents down his pants" incident? If you don't remember, I don't blame you. The liberal media buried it in 2 days (and tried to blame the Republicans for "leaking" the story). Do you think they would have done that if it was Condi Rice doing that?
Remember the hundreds of stories they wrote about Joe Wilson's accusations against Bush? When the 9/11 commission determind he lied, the media mentioned it for one day, then buried the story.
They NY Times announced the results of the Australian elections on page A34. Why? Because he won a larger majority than he had and he is a staunch ally of Bush's. If Howard had lost, it would have been front page headlines in 36 pt font.
Btw, sorry for calling you Peter. At least you got me there.
Wow. I give you proof after proof of his constant violations of the ceasefire agreement and UN resolutions and you think the content is "weak." OTOH, you gave me one link (both your links were the same story from the same source) to disprove all the evidence I gave you.
What part of a) breaking the ceasefire, b) breaking 17 UN resolutions, c) playing hide-n-seek with the UN inspectors, d) firing at coalition aircraft on nearly a daily basis, e) attempting to assassinate a US president, f) sponsoring international terrorism and making no attempt to hide it, g) dispose of ALL WMD and, h) training al Qaeda terrorists at Salman Pak - didn't you get?
Come on Brad. Get serious. Confessed al Qaeda members are hauling around 20 tons of Javex to do laundry?
You have a Sept 10 mindset. Remember John Kerry's infamous "when we are attacked, I will respond quickly and forcefully" statement at the DNC? How do you think that made the citizens of NYC feel? You appear to want to see a mushroom cloud over Chicago before you feel there is "conclusive evidence".
Like the Michael Moore link you gave me?
Translation: I can't effectively rebut your points, so I don't want to play anymore.
Of course I never put any money in his pocket. He supports terrorist groups. He got Hezbollah to distribute his propaganda piece in the Mid East. Shame on these people who support the blowing up of busloads of Jewish women and children.
Millions of people gave it a standing ovation? I don't suppose you
have any reliable proof of that, do you? Looks like so many re-evaluated their position, that they have Bush leading in the polls, future markets, and betting sites.
I can't believe that you would fall for such propaganda by Michael Moore. I guess PT barnum was correct.
Here is the truth about Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore even refused to give one dollar in damages that that Illinois newspaper asked for, after they confronted Moore about his superimposing one of their Letters To The Editor, trying to pass it off as the newspaper running a front page article saying Gore won the 2000 election.
Moore bragged that he would pay anyone $10,000 if they found a factual error in his crockumentary, yet he lacked the integrity to pay even one dollar (and he admitted he superimposed the front page on that letter to the editor).
(the 20 tons of chemicals al Qaeda had that were seized in Jordan)
What in the world are you talking about? Plastering over what headlines? The conservative Bush owns the liberal media? Utterly ridiculous.
Why do you think Bush ignores the media? He knows the liberal media is out to get him. They have openly admitted it.
How can he control what they report? Remember how quickly the liberal media buried the Sandy Berger "stuffing top-secret documents down his pants" incident? If you don't remember, I don't blame you. The liberal media buried it in 2 days (and tried to blame the Republicans for "leaking" the story). Do you think they would have done that if it was Condi Rice doing that?
Remember the hundreds of stories they wrote about Joe Wilson's accusations against Bush? When the 9/11 commission determind he lied, the media mentioned it for one day, then buried the story.
They NY Times announced the results of the Australian elections on page A34. Why? Because he won a larger majority than he had and he is a staunch ally of Bush's. If Howard had lost, it would have been front page headlines in 36 pt font.
Btw, sorry for calling you Peter. At least you got me there.
Thornc, Egypt is in Africa on the maps I've seen.
How you can consider yourself pro-Israel when you complain that they have nukes (which any sane person knows that they need to defend themselves), and think since Israel (a democracy) has them, so should the Mad Mullahs from Iran - is beyond me.
That.is.all.
How you can consider yourself pro-Israel when you complain that they have nukes (which any sane person knows that they need to defend themselves), and think since Israel (a democracy) has them, so should the Mad Mullahs from Iran - is beyond me.
That.is.all.
shirazbai, that link you gave is a film made by the extreme leftwing "peace" activist Robert Greenwald, whose last feature was an adoration of Sixties juvenile delinquent Abbie Hoffman, which closed almost as suddenly as it opened.
Additionally, the Deulfur (sp?) Report that just came out said he had the capability of starting up his WMD programs in weeks.
Sounds like you were expecting a football field sized warehouse full of nuclear weapons with their red lights flashing and clearly stamped: WMD! Next stop, the Great Satan.
No, it was a contimuation of the earlier war. There was a ceasefire agreement signed. Saddam did not surrender. Iraq signed the ceasefire agreement after committing the greatest act of enviromental terrorism in history.
There were WMD found. Duh. I gave numerours links. I grant you there were no huge stockpiles (as the doves quickly moved the goalposts to "stockpiles" once WMD were found), but there were WMD found. Thats what happens when you announce months beforehand that you are going to invade. Kinda like the police announcing to a drug dealer that they are going to raid his house in a few months.
Additionally, the Deulfur (sp?) Report that just came out said he had the capability of starting up his WMD programs in weeks.
Sounds like you were expecting a football field sized warehouse full of nuclear weapons with their red lights flashing and clearly stamped: WMD! Next stop, the Great Satan.
shirazbai wrote:
As for your insinuations about them enforcing the UN resolutions and broken ceasefire to "grab the oil", then I wonder why oil is over $50/barrel. Where is all that sweet oil?! The "peace" activists assured us that we would be positively swimming in black gold. Where is it?
*puts on tinfoil beanie* I bet Halliburton has something to do with it. *takes off tinfoil beanie*
"It is an insult to us Iraqis when people say that this war was not worth it. It tells us that we are subhuman and do not deserve the right to freedom, democracy and the pursuit of happiness."
Is that what you think of the Iraqi people?
It was a genocide going on there. The nerve of you not calling it a "real genocide". Shame.
Btw, if you are so stridently against Bush liberating over 50 million people in 2 countrys, why are we to believe you when you say the US should go and stop the Sudan genocide?
After all, the UN is hopping into action regarding Sudan. Oh wait. They aren't.
Except that Vladmire Putin told the US that Russian intelligence knew that Saddam was planning to strike the US. Face it. Saddam hated the US. His actions were perfectly clear. The state of Iraq was even found guilty in a court of law for training al Qaeda terrorists to commit 9/11.
As for your insinuations about them enforcing the UN resolutions and broken ceasefire to "grab the oil", then I wonder why oil is over $50/barrel. Where is all that sweet oil?! The "peace" activists assured us that we would be positively swimming in black gold. Where is it?
*puts on tinfoil beanie* I bet Halliburton has something to do with it. *takes off tinfoil beanie*
You have nerve. Let me tell you what Iraqi blogger Omar wrote a while back at Iraqthemodel.blospot.com. I'm parphrasing here, but...
"It is an insult to us Iraqis when people say that this war was not worth it. It tells us that we are subhuman and do not deserve the right to freedom, democracy and the pursuit of happiness."
Is that what you think of the Iraqi people?
It was a genocide going on there. The nerve of you not calling it a "real genocide". Shame.
Btw, if you are so stridently against Bush liberating over 50 million people in 2 countrys, why are we to believe you when you say the US should go and stop the Sudan genocide?
After all, the UN is hopping into action regarding Sudan. Oh wait. They aren't.
Babarlish, why are you so against the US stopping the advancement of communism, stopping genocides, and liberating people when you wrote that list of countries they have bombed and attacked?
Sounds like you hate Ronald Reagan because he aided the downfall of the USSR. Ever notice how many former Soviet states are in the Coalition of the Willing? I have. They KNOW what it is like to live under tyranny.
Btw, I like the way you chopped up the former Yugoslavia to make it seem like more countries. Very Michael Mooreish of you.
Pretty neat the way you blame the US for "attacking" Kuwait. I hear the Kuwaitis were very upset at the US for that.
And the only reason "Canada's record is perfectly clean when it comes to aggression" is because Canada has no choice. The Liberal Party has allowed Canada's military to become an embarrassment. When Canada is attacked by al Qaeda - and they will be (al Qaeda again this week said Canada is #5 on their hitlist) - Canada will have to rely on the US military to save them, just like the US military had to go to Toronto and help them out in that ice storm.
We saw what happened to that submarine this week. Another Canadian soldier killed by the Liberla Party. Those subs were junk that the UK wanted to get rid of and Canada foolishly bought them.
I find it interesting that some like to mock the size of some of the countries in the Coalition of the Willing, but consider this:
Tonga has 45 troops in Iraq. Tonga has a popultion of only 100,000.
To match Tonga's percentage, Canada would have to come up with 13,500 troops. They can't. They will go crawling to the US to save them, just like Europe did during the Cold War.
I hope that Bush gives Canada absolutely no reconstruction contracts in Iraq. The nerve of that Paul Martin asking Bush for jobs there, when his predecessor stabbed Canada's biggest trading partner in the back, instead greedily taking more oil money from TotalFinaElf in his family's pocket. The blood of the Iraqi people is on Jean Chretien's hands.
Sounds like you hate Ronald Reagan because he aided the downfall of the USSR. Ever notice how many former Soviet states are in the Coalition of the Willing? I have. They KNOW what it is like to live under tyranny.
Btw, I like the way you chopped up the former Yugoslavia to make it seem like more countries. Very Michael Mooreish of you.
Pretty neat the way you blame the US for "attacking" Kuwait. I hear the Kuwaitis were very upset at the US for that.
And the only reason "Canada's record is perfectly clean when it comes to aggression" is because Canada has no choice. The Liberal Party has allowed Canada's military to become an embarrassment. When Canada is attacked by al Qaeda - and they will be (al Qaeda again this week said Canada is #5 on their hitlist) - Canada will have to rely on the US military to save them, just like the US military had to go to Toronto and help them out in that ice storm.
We saw what happened to that submarine this week. Another Canadian soldier killed by the Liberla Party. Those subs were junk that the UK wanted to get rid of and Canada foolishly bought them.
I find it interesting that some like to mock the size of some of the countries in the Coalition of the Willing, but consider this:
Tonga has 45 troops in Iraq. Tonga has a popultion of only 100,000.
To match Tonga's percentage, Canada would have to come up with 13,500 troops. They can't. They will go crawling to the US to save them, just like Europe did during the Cold War.
I hope that Bush gives Canada absolutely no reconstruction contracts in Iraq. The nerve of that Paul Martin asking Bush for jobs there, when his predecessor stabbed Canada's biggest trading partner in the back, instead greedily taking more oil money from TotalFinaElf in his family's pocket. The blood of the Iraqi people is on Jean Chretien's hands.
Brad
Member
WOW
I say WOW again!! Cleopatra, welcome back!
How long has it been since you last high-tailed it outa here? Almost three months I think. Hmmm, that should have been long enough to snot together a nice rebuttal I hope.
Well, come back again real soon when you have something good to contribute, ok?
Bye!!
PS hope you enjoy the dead thread
you do know I'm kidding, eh?
I say WOW again!! Cleopatra, welcome back!
How long has it been since you last high-tailed it outa here? Almost three months I think. Hmmm, that should have been long enough to snot together a nice rebuttal I hope.
Well, come back again real soon when you have something good to contribute, ok?
Bye!!
PS hope you enjoy the dead thread
you do know I'm kidding, eh?
Korax wrote:
Btw, most of Europe is in the Coalition of the Willing. Or are you like John Kerry...where Europe = France?
jbiff wrote:
Of course they are hated. You always are when you are the undisputed top dog. Jealousy is a powerful emotion.
Btw, most of Europe is in the Coalition of the Willing. Or are you like John Kerry...where Europe = France?
jbiff wrote:
Please don't patronize me, jbiff. I have said nothing to you. If you can rebut my points, you are welcome to try.
Cleopatra,
I suppose you also identify with Marie Antoinette when she made that infamous quote: They have no bread? Then let them eat cake! You don't understand that the 3rd world nations are in a state of virtual slavery relative to the the well-fattened 1st world. (read U.S. - top dog nation of the 1st world). And you don't see anything wrong with this picture?
I suppose you also identify with Marie Antoinette when she made that infamous quote: They have no bread? Then let them eat cake! You don't understand that the 3rd world nations are in a state of virtual slavery relative to the the well-fattened 1st world. (read U.S. - top dog nation of the 1st world). And you don't see anything wrong with this picture?
Hi Brad
It's been a while. I had surfed through here when I first registered looking for some tips. I found some good ones, but they seem to have kinda petered out in the last little while.
I mostly check out the "lotto tips" section and the "wheeling strategys" section - even though I don't understand much of the abbreviations that you people use.
Also, most of these wheels seem large. I only wheel 9 numbers (3 cards).
As for the lotto 6/49 section, it seems mostly to be "lucky" or "due" numbers. No knock against that, but it's not really what I am looking for. I dropped in today to see if anything new had happened and remembered that I was supposed to reply back to some people on this thread.
I didn't realize the thread was dubbed to be "dead."
Cheers to the Afghanis who had their first free elections in history last week. Boo to the liberal media who barely mentioned such a historic event.
Cheers to the Iraqis who are having their elections in January.
Cheers to President Bush who liberated over 50 million people from brutal tyranny.
And cheers to me winning the lottery so I can live the lifestyle of a Cleopatra. (crossing my fingers)
It's been a while. I had surfed through here when I first registered looking for some tips. I found some good ones, but they seem to have kinda petered out in the last little while.
I mostly check out the "lotto tips" section and the "wheeling strategys" section - even though I don't understand much of the abbreviations that you people use.
Also, most of these wheels seem large. I only wheel 9 numbers (3 cards).
As for the lotto 6/49 section, it seems mostly to be "lucky" or "due" numbers. No knock against that, but it's not really what I am looking for. I dropped in today to see if anything new had happened and remembered that I was supposed to reply back to some people on this thread.
I didn't realize the thread was dubbed to be "dead."
Cheers to the Afghanis who had their first free elections in history last week. Boo to the liberal media who barely mentioned such a historic event.
Cheers to the Iraqis who are having their elections in January.
Cheers to President Bush who liberated over 50 million people from brutal tyranny.
And cheers to me winning the lottery so I can live the lifestyle of a Cleopatra.
(crossing my fingers)No mirage. I do understand that. That is why I am in favor of democracies and am dismayed that so many want people to live under brutal totalitarian regimes.
Democracies are generally relatively affluent and don't often attack each other.
What do you want? The US to hand over all their money to the poor nations? That's socialism. You don't understand that these poor nations are poor because of the dictators who run them. Look at how filthy rich Saddam was and how filthy rich Yassir Arafat is.
Socialism builds on a fallacy, one of the most fundamental of all fallacies, namely that people aren't individuals or, if they insist on being individuals, that you can "de-program" them. Also, the fallacy that human beings really aren't looking out for themselves, that they aren't egotists and that you can train them to be happy with breaking their backs for "the common good", as defined by the ruling elite.
Because you HAVE to have a "ruling elite" in a socialist system. People are stupid, according to that ideology, and they need to be shepherded to protect them from their own stupidity, shepherded by people more "enlightened" than they. They're not "evil", there is no such thing as "evil", they're just misled and, if they can only be shown the error of their ways, they'll realize the superiority of pursuing the "common good" above the needs of the individual. "Needs" are to be defined by the "enlightened" elite, after all, not by the rabble who think they know what's good for them.
All of this is utter bull**** and leads directly to the extermination camps so common under socialist regimes. Why is somebody lit by the Holy Fire of Marx so unlikely to listen and agree to disagree?
Quite simple, really. The other side has all the facts. They have a hundred years of history, hundreds of millions of victims of socialism buried in unmarked graves; they have, in short, that most powerful of arguments: The Real World.
Socialism does not have ONE success story to its name, not one, in spite of the fact that it's been tried over and over again in a myriad of guises. Not surprising, considering that it's a house of cards built on a flawed foundation, but it makes it impossible for an Enlightened One to argue. All they have are their mantras, their catechism, and that's what they'll repeat, over and over again. Because if they don't, they'll have to admit to themself that their dream of being a Member of the Club is nothing but a dream, that they're "just" an individual in pursuit of happiness like everybody else and that there is no way in Hell that they'll ever achieve that down the road they're going, except by going there over the corpses of innocents.
I have a friend who is from Sudan and he confirmed this to me. The "leader" and his "friends" who get cushy govt jobs are rich; the rest of the population gets crumbs.
I also have a friend from El Savador who practically thinks Ronald Reagan is a God. Why? Because the communists tried to kill him and his family and he knows that Reagan fought the communists who were infiltrating Central America in the 80's.
Democracies are generally relatively affluent and don't often attack each other.
What do you want? The US to hand over all their money to the poor nations? That's socialism. You don't understand that these poor nations are poor because of the dictators who run them. Look at how filthy rich Saddam was and how filthy rich Yassir Arafat is.
Socialism builds on a fallacy, one of the most fundamental of all fallacies, namely that people aren't individuals or, if they insist on being individuals, that you can "de-program" them. Also, the fallacy that human beings really aren't looking out for themselves, that they aren't egotists and that you can train them to be happy with breaking their backs for "the common good", as defined by the ruling elite.
Because you HAVE to have a "ruling elite" in a socialist system. People are stupid, according to that ideology, and they need to be shepherded to protect them from their own stupidity, shepherded by people more "enlightened" than they. They're not "evil", there is no such thing as "evil", they're just misled and, if they can only be shown the error of their ways, they'll realize the superiority of pursuing the "common good" above the needs of the individual. "Needs" are to be defined by the "enlightened" elite, after all, not by the rabble who think they know what's good for them.
All of this is utter bull**** and leads directly to the extermination camps so common under socialist regimes. Why is somebody lit by the Holy Fire of Marx so unlikely to listen and agree to disagree?
Quite simple, really. The other side has all the facts. They have a hundred years of history, hundreds of millions of victims of socialism buried in unmarked graves; they have, in short, that most powerful of arguments: The Real World.
Socialism does not have ONE success story to its name, not one, in spite of the fact that it's been tried over and over again in a myriad of guises. Not surprising, considering that it's a house of cards built on a flawed foundation, but it makes it impossible for an Enlightened One to argue. All they have are their mantras, their catechism, and that's what they'll repeat, over and over again. Because if they don't, they'll have to admit to themself that their dream of being a Member of the Club is nothing but a dream, that they're "just" an individual in pursuit of happiness like everybody else and that there is no way in Hell that they'll ever achieve that down the road they're going, except by going there over the corpses of innocents.
I have a friend who is from Sudan and he confirmed this to me. The "leader" and his "friends" who get cushy govt jobs are rich; the rest of the population gets crumbs.
I also have a friend from El Savador who practically thinks Ronald Reagan is a God. Why? Because the communists tried to kill him and his family and he knows that Reagan fought the communists who were infiltrating Central America in the 80's.
cleopatra said:
Cleopatra,
I don't usually do long posts unless it relates to the lottery. I try to avoid socio-political posts. Your discription of "socialism" does not sound very different from "fascism". However, I would point to the example of Sweden, where the social and political system is a soft form of socialism as well as a democracy. The Swedish have the best of both - a good social safety system and free enterprise and one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Any situation where a way of life (or death) is forced upon another people by extreme violence or at gun point is the use of forced military might, is a form of dictatorship. My guess is that you would disagree with this as there are cases where self defense is necessary even when pre-emptive.
However, there are also more subtle forms of exploitive mass control besides the overt use of weapons. One example would be propaganda. Another form of exploitation is a social structure where poverty is systemic as a way to maintain power in the hands of the elite. These other, more insidious forms of control exist everywhere, no matter what the style of political system.
(- Looking forward to your response but in the meantime I have to get back to compiling my lottery stats. And I do hope you get your big win so you too can live in the style to which Cleopatra was accustomed....
)Hi mirage,
They do have a high standard of living but most economists use Per Capita GDP as the benchmark for standard of living.
Per Capita GDP:
Sweden $26,800
Canada $29,800
USA $37,800
I hope that Afganistan and Iraq (two countries formerly under fascist regimes) become prosperous democracies in the future.
Sadly, some people are strongly against this happening...and I am not just talking about the Islamofascists. Unfortunately many Westerners are against this happening.
Take care, Mirage.
Not surprising as Mussolini and Hitler were both socialists.
Sweden's long-successful economic formula of a capitalist system interlarded with substantial welfare elements was challenged in the 1990s by high unemployment and in 2000-02 by the global economic downturn, but fiscal discipline over the past several years has allowed the country to weather economic vagaries.
They do have a high standard of living but most economists use Per Capita GDP as the benchmark for standard of living.
Per Capita GDP:
Sweden $26,800
Canada $29,800
USA $37,800
Very true. However there are two situations that come to mind where fascism was destroyed by military force and democracies were installed. These two countries are Japan and Germany - two of the more prosperous countries in the world now.
I hope that Afganistan and Iraq (two countries formerly under fascist regimes) become prosperous democracies in the future.
Sadly, some people are strongly against this happening...and I am not just talking about the Islamofascists. Unfortunately many Westerners are against this happening.
Take care, Mirage.
NEWSWEEK reports that President Bush, appearing before
> a right-to-life rally in Tampa, Florida on June 17,
> stated: "We must always remember that all human beings
> begin life as a feces. A Feces is a living being in
> the eyes of God, who has endowed that feces with all
> of the rights and God-given blessings of any other
> human being." The audience listened in disbelief as
> the President repeated his error at least a dozen
> times, before realizing that he had used the word
> 'feces" when he meant to say "fetus."
> a right-to-life rally in Tampa, Florida on June 17,
> stated: "We must always remember that all human beings
> begin life as a feces. A Feces is a living being in
> the eyes of God, who has endowed that feces with all
> of the rights and God-given blessings of any other
> human being." The audience listened in disbelief as
> the President repeated his error at least a dozen
> times, before realizing that he had used the word
> 'feces" when he meant to say "fetus."
Brad
Member
Funny stuff Peter, in a sad way cuz we're talking about a Prez here ...
I'm thinking his ear piece musta been plugged up, or maybe there was too much static on the wireless that day, and he was ad-libbing ...
transmission overheard coming from Cheney's walkie talkie : FETUS you moron!! ... say FETUS!!
I'm thinking his ear piece musta been plugged up, or maybe there was too much static on the wireless that day, and he was ad-libbing ...
transmission overheard coming from Cheney's walkie talkie : FETUS you moron!! ... say FETUS!!
Oct 21/04
This thread has really grown. I remember seeing this thread way back and didn't expect this thread to grow. I may as well put in my two cents.
First of all, I don't think people hate Americans, people just have a dislike for George Bush and his policies. Also its democracy that allows people to have forums like this, so repect each others views and lets be civil.
Liberal or Conservative, its just a label politicians use to pit us against each other to manipulate us. We live in a democracy but we are subject to propaganda, and fear tactics to distract and manipulate us. All I can say is look at the facts, and reliable evidence and ignore the rhetoric. Politicians are liars, and like to keep ya dumbed up so you don't think for yourself or look at the real picture. Do your homework, and vote for the guy that is least dangerous.
Now getting back to Cleo's statement about socialism as a failure in Canada. Yes we have higher taxes, but we also have free universal medicare. If ya think that is a bad thing, I think your kidding yourself. If you look south of the border someone declares bankrupcy every 30 seconds because they are sick. Imagine your kid needs a new heart and you can't afford the operation. So the doc says your S#### out of luck. To me that is a tragedy. What is also a tragedy is, you get sick so you have to sell your house to pay for your treatment. You get the treatment and get better but now you have nowhere to call home. That kinda stuff happens in 3rd world countries and south of the border. But all you hear is socialized medicine is the bane of the Capitalist world. The usual arguments are you don't get to choose your doctor and you don't get the best quality care. The quality of Canadian healthcare is very good, and much better than the alternative of being dead or broke.
Take a look south of the border right now, they don't have enough flu vaccine so there is panic. Seniors can't afford medicine so the are coming to Canada so they can buy affordable medicine so they can eat, and live. South of the border in the name of profit its ok to screw over seniors, and the politicians say its ok because they get a fat cheque donated to the party for doing nothing. So before reciting back articles and books on the bane of socialized medicine, take a look around and look at the evidence.
Tommy Douglas who was from Saskatchewan was a man ahead of his time and changed Canada for the better in my opinion.
This thread has really grown. I remember seeing this thread way back and didn't expect this thread to grow. I may as well put in my two cents.
First of all, I don't think people hate Americans, people just have a dislike for George Bush and his policies. Also its democracy that allows people to have forums like this, so repect each others views and lets be civil.
Liberal or Conservative, its just a label politicians use to pit us against each other to manipulate us. We live in a democracy but we are subject to propaganda, and fear tactics to distract and manipulate us. All I can say is look at the facts, and reliable evidence and ignore the rhetoric. Politicians are liars, and like to keep ya dumbed up so you don't think for yourself or look at the real picture. Do your homework, and vote for the guy that is least dangerous.
Now getting back to Cleo's statement about socialism as a failure in Canada. Yes we have higher taxes, but we also have free universal medicare. If ya think that is a bad thing, I think your kidding yourself. If you look south of the border someone declares bankrupcy every 30 seconds because they are sick. Imagine your kid needs a new heart and you can't afford the operation. So the doc says your S#### out of luck. To me that is a tragedy. What is also a tragedy is, you get sick so you have to sell your house to pay for your treatment. You get the treatment and get better but now you have nowhere to call home. That kinda stuff happens in 3rd world countries and south of the border. But all you hear is socialized medicine is the bane of the Capitalist world. The usual arguments are you don't get to choose your doctor and you don't get the best quality care. The quality of Canadian healthcare is very good, and much better than the alternative of being dead or broke.
Take a look south of the border right now, they don't have enough flu vaccine so there is panic. Seniors can't afford medicine so the are coming to Canada so they can buy affordable medicine so they can eat, and live. South of the border in the name of profit its ok to screw over seniors, and the politicians say its ok because they get a fat cheque donated to the party for doing nothing. So before reciting back articles and books on the bane of socialized medicine, take a look around and look at the evidence.
Tommy Douglas who was from Saskatchewan was a man ahead of his time and changed Canada for the better in my opinion.
- Status