Slap down!! Obama, Pelosi & Reid best listen

[Hondo]

For those of you from out of town, the State of Massachusetts has long been a bastion of liberalism within the United States. Prior to his death and throughout the odd scandal, Senator Ted Kennedy, of the American Kennedy Royal Family held his Senate seat for more than 20 years continuously. Ted Kennedy was a liberal's liberal who, like many politicians, would embrace any socialistic cause as long as it didn't affect his personal fortune.

As some of you may know, Mr. Obama has not been doing a good job, has not kept campaign promises, and is trying to force a healthcare bill down the throats of Americans that they don't want and he is exempt from. His popularity pole numbers are the lowest of any American President after one year in office. He and his minions say the polls are wrong.

You had to know all of that to appreciate the signifigance of this.

My America is not dead. Tonight, even after Mr. Obama's campaigning in person for the temporary, sitting Democratic Senator, the State of Massachusetts has chosen a conservative Republican as it's newest Senator to represent the State of Massachusetts. This man was elected to go to DC to tell Obama "NO!" on healthcare reform and a host of other items. At this time we can't yell any louder than this but we can continue to repopulate the Congress and Senate at every opportunity. Do you think the signifigance of Massachusetts sending a conservative to DC will be lost on other sitting Democrats? The support you and Reid and the harpie thought you enjoyed is going to begin to crumble behind you as the others begin to listen to their constituents again.

You see Mr. Obama, the polls weren't wrong, you were. In fact, you were never right. You're just a slick package that stands out in the crowd and talks the talk but can't walk the walk. Hell, you couldn't roll the walk in a chair.

[gloomyDAY]

I've definitely not been happy with our current President. The situation in Iraq may be stable, but Afghanistan is far more worrisome. Reminds me of Vietnam far more than Iraq ever did. Anyway, this is definitely a shot across the bow for the Democrats.

Appeasing the sleazy Russians by taking apart the missile defense system in Poland, Gitmo is still open, debt keeps mounting, Afghanistan is being fumbled, some copy-and-paste universal medicare, etc. Forget about it!

[F1boat]

You can't fix the world, buddies... all the problems came after you interfered in things in the other end of the world. From the endless wars came the crisis and now IMO Obama has nothing useful to do and, unfortunately, I have to accept that he is not as good as hoped. Still, if the Republicans return, I will only have to pray for the freedoms of you guys from the Religious Right who run the GOP now... and for the world.
About the medicare IMO everybody deserves help from doctor when ill. This is the meaning of the vow of Hippocrates.

[Rollo]

My America is not dead.

Can it get approval for basic medical procedures, probably not, and if it does it would probably go bankrupt trying to afford the expenses because it had didn't have adequate insurance.

Still, I'm very lucky I don't live there. I can walk into any GP's office I like and not pay through the nose for it.

[Mark]

Still, I'm very lucky I don't live there. I can walk into any GP's office I like and not pay through the nose for it.

Well I can walk into the GP surgery I'm registered to and be told to come back in 3 days time, but still, it's free :D

I'm not exactly sure where peoples objection to healthcare comes from? From a British point of view, it's entirely alien, weird and, odd!

As far as being happy with leaders, nobody likes Gordon Brown. But David Cameron is surely a demon sent from hell itself, so, some choice..

[Sonic]

I'm not exactly sure where peoples objection to healthcare comes from? From a British point of view, it's entirely alien, weird and, odd!


Indeed. I'm getting a first hand view of our health service at the moment and it has been excellent and all free at the point of service.

As for Obama, as I understand the US system, the President had just enough seats to do pretty much whatever he wishes, but is it now the case that he can not force through his policies?

[Mark]

As for Obama, as I understand the US system, the President had just enough seats to do pretty much whatever he wishes, but is it now the case that he can not force through his policies?

I thought the Senate was 59 plays 41 so 1 seat wouldn't make any difference. But I'm sure someone else will clarify?

[Hondo]

Indeed. I'm getting a first hand view of our health service at the moment and it has been excellent and all free at the point of service.

As for Obama, as I understand the US system, the President had just enough seats to do pretty much whatever he wishes, but is it now the case that he can not force through his policies?

I wouldn't count on that. As a general rule, once you begin to beat them at their own game, they change the rules.

The beauty of this election is that its not about party lines, it's about them not listening to the people that put them in power. Every bit of legislation that has been passed since Obama rode into town has been done so against the will and wished of the majority of the American people. The representatives themselves admit the majority of communications they received have been against those bills.

As far as the healthcare goes, it is now being formulated in secret. We don't know what is in it or how much it will cost. They want to throw it together and sneak it out for a vote before anybody has a chance to look at it and understand it. Thats not the way to do the peoples business, not over here anyway.

For the Brits, your system is what you were born and raised under. It's what you're used to. On the forum, most of you say you like it. On most days I manage to have a look at the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Guardian. Sometimes I even get a look at the Evening Standard. All of this is online of course. Almost every day each paper has a health service horror story and also stories about the desperate financial condition of the health care system in general. My question is, can you opt out of the national system and not have any health insurance at all? Believe me when I tell you many Americans don't have healthcare insurance simply because they don't want to pay for it. They'd rather spend the monet on good times and toys. A lot of people over here that look kind of like Obama think you have free health care over there. They don't realize the huge tax bite you endure to pay for it. Because of the way our tax systems work most of those people pay little or no income taxes.

Probably the best answer is that by and large, Americans are used to taking care of themselves, themself and government solutions generally end up as poor solutions. We don't trust our governments and Obama is a shining example of why we don't.

[Mark]

For the Brits, your system is what you were born and raised under. It's what you're used to. On the forum, most of you say you like it. On most days I manage to have a look at the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Guardian. Sometimes I even get a look at the Evening Standard. All of this is online of course. Almost every day each paper has a health service horror story and also stories about the desperate financial condition of the health care system in general.

Because British people like to moan, and the newspapers are the moaners in chief :p . Yes, there's lots of bad stuff in the NHS, but there's lots of good too, but good stuff doesn't make the newspapers!

[Rollo]

A lot of people over here that look kind of like Obama think you have free health care over there.

Good, if they lived in the UK they would. People in the UK share the health service. Are you saying that the people of the USA are more selfish?


Probably the best answer is that by and large, Americans are used to taking care of themselves, themself...

I guess you are.


and government solutions generally end up as poor solutions. We don't trust our governments...

Neither does the rest of the world; that's why health care is in the government domain, for precisely that reason. Through the instrument of democracy, we can vote people out.
However, can you vote people off the boards of any of the HMOs which own don't directly own shares in?

America fought a war amongst other things based on the tag line of "taxation without representation", yet with the health care system they're perfectly fine with paying more than anyone else on the planet not to have a say in how it's run.

[Hondo]

Good, if they lived in the UK they would. People in the UK share the health service. Are you saying that the people of the USA are more selfish?



I guess you are.



Neither does the rest of the world; that's why health care is in the government domain, for precisely that reason. Through the instrument of democracy, we can vote people out.
However, can you vote people off the boards of any of the HMOs which own don't directly own shares in?

America fought a war amongst other things based on the tag line of "taxation without representation", yet with the health care system they're perfectly fine with paying more than anyone else on the planet not to have a say in how it's run.

Much depends on whether you view healthcare as a right or as an option you have the right to pursue. If you have the belief that amongst your rights is the obligation of the government to feed you, employ you, provide housing for you, provide clothing for you, and healthcare for you, then thats what you're free to believe. If all of you were so happy to share, Button wouldn't live in Monaco, with Max and Hamilton wouldn't live in Switzerland. It's funny how those that contribute the least yell the loudest to share.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

From an outside point of view I think the general feeling in Europe is that Obama is doing a good job for America. We think he is a far better President for the worlds superpower than Bush was.

The thing is on this forum is that none of the Americans like Obama at all. I can't believe that this is the overall view of Americans. Is it just that the motorsport fans in America (and therefor most of the US members on this board) are generally conservative? So they will never like Obama.

This is one thing I like about the NHS and European Union in general.
http://www.frenchduck.co.uk/images/EHIC.JPG
Free to apply for, so my taxes entitle me to free health care wherever I go in the EU. Wunderbar! :D

[Hondo]

And thats fine for all of you. It's what your used to. We are not fond of taxes. I don't have any complaints with the American health care system

[Brown, Jon Brow]

And thats fine for all of you. It's what your used to. We are not fond of taxes. I don't have any complaints with the American health care system

But do you think the views on of the Americans on this forum represent the majority of the US or does it just happen that most of the Americans on this forum are conservative?

[anthonyvop]

From an outside point of view I think the general feeling in Europe is that Obama is doing a good job for America. We think he is a far better President for the worlds superpower than Bush was.
Why do you feel That?

I want my President to do what is best for the US. If the rest of the world likes it great. If not too bad.


The thing is on this forum is that none of the Americans like Obama at all. I can't believe that this is the overall view of Americans.

Believe it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084818.shtml

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Why do you feel That?

I want my President to do what is best for the US. If the rest of the world likes it great. If not too bad.



I can fully understand that you want your leader to do the best for your country, and this is more important than what the rest of the world thinks.

Over here Bush was seen as a bit of an embarrassment for your nation. We found him to be a bit unintelligent and inarticulate. This is speaking about him as a person, not his policy.

[Hondo]

But do you think the views on of the Americans on this forum represent the majority of the US or does it just happen that most of the Americans on this forum are conservative?

The polls all show that the majority of Americans do not want this Healthcare bill. I was listening to a radio talk show the other night and a guy was going on and on about socialized medicine and good the system was and blah, blah, blah. No matter how much he was pressed, he evaded naming the country he was citing. He finally broke down and said Luxembourg. Well no joke! A countries mass and population is going to make a difference in what can be realistically be done and what can't. Your system is running out of money and will continue to do so as your demographics change.

Sorry, back to your question. Many Americans have health plans they are happy with. Most of the Unions are happy with theirs. Federal government employees absolutely love theirs. Right now, very little is known about the bill because the Democratic leadership is working on it behind closed doors. Once they get it done they intended to get it whipped out and passed with a fast vote before anyone could read the finished product. Two questions come to mind. If the plan the Federal employees have now is so good, why not offer it to everyone? If the plan they are drafting to FORCE the rest of us to take is so good, why are the federal employees exempt from having to accept the new plan?

If that alone doesn't have you smelling a rat, you need a new nose or learn to enjoy life as a sheep.

[edv]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/012010_nowwhat_20100120_105124.jpg

[Hondo]

Simple. Now we get to see him being a prat and tossing his toys out of the pram. He's going to get real petty and start punishing the people.

He ought to resign the office today because he's done. The people won't forget and he won't be trusted again.

To put this in perspective, Brown was elected to stop the Obama machine. For Massachusetts to elect a conservative to do this would be like Queen Elizabeth II abdicating her throne to Robert Mugabe to clean up Parliament.

[F1boat]

Why do you feel That?

I want my President to do what is best for the US. If the rest of the world likes it great. If not too bad.



Believe it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084818.shtml

Yes, tony, but that's exactly why some people hate the USA and you seem to think that this is not normal.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, tony, but that's exactly why some people hate the USA and you seem to think that this is not normal.

You miss the point entirely. Tony is a little blunt, but what any nation elects as leader is none of the rest of the world's business if the election is a true open election with no restrictions of note on who is running and who can vote. In case you don't grasp this, a FREE election. If I dont like the leader of Finland, or I don't like Gordon Brown, that may be my opinion, but I don't live there. He is elected to do what is best for his country. If it happens to be good for the rest of the world is his second priority. He isn't elected to make Canadians happy, he is elected to represent the wishes of the citizens of his country.

In Obama, the US has a leader who had a pretty decent mandate, with his party holding a filibuster proof majority pretty much in the Senate and House of Represenatives. They had their way to pass pretty much whatever they liked for a year. The Healthcare bill was the one thing they really rammed through. It had NO Republican support. NONE. Now, in Canada or the UK, you see this with majority governments, but we have to grasp that in the US, no bill really goes through this way. Bi-partisan comprimise and ear marked spending is often grafted on to bills to get votes so there is "political cover". This didn't happen. The Republicans for the most part didn't vote for anything todo with this. A HUGE political gamble.

The Result? What happened last night in Massachuesetts was a titanic shift. This was the seat the Kennedy family basically had owned since JFK hit the Senate in the 50's and was likely Democrat before that. Massachuesetts was the most libreal state in the union. It is one of two states to have extensive healthcare from the state. A republican governor actually was the one to bring that along (but with the whole statehouse pushing him with Democratic affliliations, he likely had little choice), and going into this election there was not anyone out there I think who thought the Democrats wouldn't hold onto this seat.

Boy...a lot of people were wrong eh? I guess that government run healthcare in Mass proved to the great majority that they didn't want this plan made national.

What you guys in Europe fail to grasp is that the US isn't a place where Healthcare is hard to get, and its expense is counterbalanced by much lower taxes. What the average American pays for a lot of services and products is MUCH lower than the price in Europe. Whether it be cars, housing, or taxes, Americans pay less, and want to keep it that way. So if they pay for healthcare, so be it. The Average American who wants healthcare has it, doesn't go broke getting it, and is generally happy with it. I am not just saying this, polls taken in the US have proven it. The numbers of uninusred are a bit misleading. THose who genuinely need help can apply for the state run medicare/medicaid programs, and those who were veterans get healthcare through the VA. The remainder of uninsured are either illegals, or people who CHOOSE to pay cash. America is all about options people...and responsibility being the watchword of being a citizen. A US citizen has an obligation to look after himself in return for the freedom to not be told what to do in a sense, and most Americans like that I think.

I do know this much. When asked about healthcare, I find they always think in Canada it is "Free"....and then I tell them where we pay a lot more for taxes, gas, and what isn't covered by the government plan, and they all the sudden think their HMO's and private plans are not that bad after all.

What happened last night was the kick right in the teeth of the Obama administration. They ASSUMED they would win that seat, they ASSUMED the protests and hostility to the healthcare bill was a few radicals, and they ASSUME they know what is best for everyone. That my friends is arrogance, and that is a death knell for any US president. Nothing Obama has done has given me the sense he really gives a rat's behind what the average American thinks while he tries to be loved overseas. Barack...the people in MASS hate your guts now...just wait till the Red States get a crack at you in November!!!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I think what ticked off many people in Europe was that our healthcare systems were being used as an reason against the reform. When in actual fact our healthcare system is very popular. Getting an unpopular Tory MEP to talk a load of lies about the NHS on Fox News annoyed me in particular.

We also get a bit confused when we see footage of Americans protesting against the reform IN TEARS screaming 'I don't like America is becoming like Russia'. It seems a bit pathetic to us.

[Tomi]

We also get a bit confused when we see footage of Americans protesting against the reform IN TEARS screaming 'I don't like America is becoming like Russia'. It seems a bit pathetic to us.

Lol, basic education might help.

[wedge]

I think what ticked off many people in Europe was that our healthcare systems were being used as an reason against the reform. When in actual fact our healthcare system is very popular. Getting an unpopular Tory MEP to talk a load of lies about the NHS on Fox News annoyed me in particular.

Fox News

God Bless America

LOL!!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think what ticked off many people in Europe was that our healthcare systems were being used as an reason against the reform. When in actual fact our healthcare system is very popular. Getting an unpopular Tory MEP to talk a load of lies about the NHS on Fox News annoyed me in particular.

We also get a bit confused when we see footage of Americans protesting against the reform IN TEARS screaming 'I don't like America is becoming like Russia'. It seems a bit pathetic to us.

What makes me chuckle is they had to fly to the UK to find people who don't like the NHS when there are a number of Canadians who at first glance seem to love our system, but will moan and complain about it, and then say "well it still is the best system.". Now It may be in the eyes of some, but we don't get what we pay for, and I think if Americans had an honest discussion (not likely to happen) on what a healthcare system should be all about, the Canadian model is what they would like on some level, but do not want to pay for it. Then some US rednecks just think socialized medicine is a bad thing...and there is part of me that agrees with them.

The US has had more than their share of Nobel Prize winners in medicine and the US medical community leads the world in pharmaceutical research. You turn their system into the NHS or Canada's programs would this level of research continue? The whole world benefits from this stuff.

It could be said the Yanks are the people who buy the newest technology at that high price. THey are the fat rich guy who had the first DVD player, the first Blueray and first HDTV who overpaid for the technology but are glad to have it. Don't complain.....in the end all of us with our overpriced socialist medicine are benefitting....

[Rollo]

in the end all of us with our overpriced socialist medicine are benefiting....

"overpriced"? According to the OECD the average spending per person (USD):
US - 7290
Can - 3895
Oz - 3137
UK - 2992

Yay! Our "overpriced socialist medicine" spending is more efficient than "affordable free market" spending.


Many Americans have health plans they are happy with. Most of the Unions are happy with theirs. Federal government employees absolutely love theirs.

I love the fact that Americans spend more on health care than anyone else, they deserve to.

[harvick#1]

I love the fact that Americans spend more on health care than anyone else, they deserve to.

the major problem is the reason why are healthcare is through the roof is because of several reasons.

1. all the people that can't afford health care or are illegals are going to the E-rooms and basically not paying their bills which will jack up rates more.

2. everyone now is so health conscience that every time they cough, they run to their doctor to whats wrong with them.

[anthonyvop]

Yes, tony, but that's exactly why some people hate the USA and you seem to think that this is not normal.
So you would be ok if the leader of your country directed his policy to appease other nations even if it hurt your country?

[anthonyvop]

"overpriced"? According to the OECD the average spending per person (USD):
US - 7290
Can - 3895
Oz - 3137
UK - 2992

Yay! Our "overpriced socialist medicine" spending is more efficient than "affordable free market" spending.



I love the fact that Americans spend more on health care than anyone else, they deserve to.
If you make more than 37,000 pounds you pay 40% income tax. Starting in April those making over 150K will be paying 50%. In the US the highest tax bracket is 35%
Then you guys also have the VAT. We don't
And how much do you pay for gasoline? I pay $2.79 a Gallon and still think the tax is too high.

So you guys pay for health care services whether you use them or not. We just pay for services used.

If you ask me you are paying way too much for Health Care.

[Rollo]

Do you not include the fact that you're paying taxation at three levels? City taxes, State income taxes and Federal income taxes? What of that incessant sales tax that you pay on everything (and in some cases sales taxes are also assessed at county level as well)?

[F1boat]

So you would be ok if the leader of your country directed his policy to appease other nations even if it hurt your country?

I believe that the politics of confrontation are counter-productive and in the end hurt the country. My firm belief is that the future of the world is of mutual understanding and respect. I do believe that in long term a politics of bullying and confrontation will prove very, very harmful. I also believe that if one leader uses his power to bully other countries, the hatred of other people the leader of that country will be justified.

[Mark in Oshawa]

"overpriced"? According to the OECD the average spending per person (USD):
US - 7290
Can - 3895
Oz - 3137
UK - 2992

Yay! Our "overpriced socialist medicine" spending is more efficient than "affordable free market" spending.



I love the fact that Americans spend more on health care than anyone else, they deserve to.

Rollo...who calculates that OECD average? How is that figure arrived at? Is the people doing the calculation factoring in things like quality of service? If I have to wait 3 months to see a specialist for a lump under my arm, and it turns out ot be cancerous, you ever consider that if I was in the US I would have seen the specialist and likely be receiving treatment? Do the OECD people rate the speed and quality of the care?

The American likely pays more up front, but they pay less in taxes vs their over all income than people in nations with socialized healthcare. Here, we have a VAT (we call it the GST), we have provincial taxes, a provincial health care tax levy paid by our employers (gee, who knows how many people employers haven't hired because they don't want the extra costs in levy's and payroll taxes?) and a higher income tax than our American cousins. Tax Freedom day ( the day where your obligations to the state have in theory been paid for) is over a month or so later in most Canadian provinces than in the US. So you factor that in, and I say the OECD is not telling the whole story.

IN short, I don't mind my socialized medicine, but I am healthy, and have a family doctor. However, we have a severe doctor shortage in Ontario, it isn't getting better, and we wait for certain procedures, so am I getting my money's worth? If I was sick, or without a doctor, I would be upset, because I am paying the same in my taxes as the guy who has a doctor and is healthy.

There is much to be said for being able to pay for health services oneself, but in Canada it is AGAINST THE LAW to pay a doctor for a procedure where you "jump" the line. So spare me about how the Americans are fools for paying more. They also GET more.

[anthonyvop]

Do you not include the fact that you're paying taxation at three levels? City taxes, State income taxes and Federal income taxes? What of that incessant sales tax that you pay on everything (and in some cases sales taxes are also assessed at county level as well)?
I live in Florida. We pay no state or City Income tax.
We have a sales tax of 6% for state and local services as well as aProperty Tax. but that is only on the value of the property you own and again is for state and local governments

So even with that I am paying much less than people in my equivalent income bracket do in the U.K.

I find great amusement that 2 of the states with the Highest State income taxes are also the states with the biggest budget problems.....New York and California.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I live in Florida. We pay no state or City Income tax.
We have a sales tax of 6% for state and local services as well as aProperty Tax. but that is only on the value of the property you own and again is for state and local governments

So even with that I am paying much less than people in my equivalent income bracket do in the U.K.

I find great amusement that 2 of the states with the Highest State income taxes are also the states with the biggest budget problems.....New York and California.

Tony, they don't grasp all this. They think you are somehow deprived for not paying more taxes for "more" products from big government.

ME? I would love it both ways. Low taxes and full service, but alas, that isn't realistic.

Society should look after the less fortunate, but if you have a good job, and are successful, private healthcare should be the way to do, encouraged and paid for by those who can afford it; and it shouldn't be made as a bad thing.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh...and to drag this thread back on topic; I heard a writer from one of the Boston papers (Globe?) on a talk show from Toronto yesterday. HE basically said the arrogance of the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley sealed her fate. Teddy Kennedy always campaigned hard and looked people in the eye and ASKED for their vote every 6 years. for over 50 years the Kennedy family never appeared to take the election of the Democrats for granted. Martha did. What is more, her party and her President did.

This election is in American terms an earthquake of large proportions. The people who either declined to vote, or mainly independents flocked to the polls. When this part of the populace is motivated to vote against the status quo, it means a big swing is coming, and if in libreal Massachusetts this can happen, then the November Congressional/Senatorial races will be a BLOOD bath. The Democratic majority in Congress and in the Senate ignored the signs...and they are lucky they got this warning shot....because in November, the war will really be on...

[Mark in Oshawa]

From Jan. 22/09 edition of the National Post in Canada, an excerpt of Conrad Black's column :


"The president has three principal problems. He is well to the left of the public and of what he promised the voters in 2008, and it is an old, passe leftism, that is authoritarian, deviously presented and was discredited in this country decades ago; the sort of nostrums that caused Bill Clinton and others to become 'New Democrats.' He is increasingly perceived as having credibility problems and of being cold, cocksure, narcissistic and intoxicated by what he modestly called 'the gift' of his own articulation. And as president, he has been quite, and quite surprisingly, incompetent."(Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/22/conrad-black-the-lessons-of-massachusetts.aspx#ixzz0dMloXDl8



It is curious easily this sums up the whole Presidency of Barack Obama. Massachusett's voters sent him a message...and I am betting he isn't listening.

[Blancvino]

But do you think the views on of the Americans on this forum represent the majority of the US or does it just happen that most of the Americans on this forum are conservative?

The view in general on Obama in America is he is in over his head. About 33% love him and another 10-12% are ok with him. The rest, don't care for him. I personally think he is a good man, but a weak president. If McCain won, things would be just as cocked up. We did not have a good choice in the last Presidential election. We have no one to blame but ourselves. We made choices and now we live with them until the next election.

You folks in the Europe seam, to me, to think Obama is so much better than Bush, but what has Obama done for the EU?

[janvanvurpa]

From Jan. 22/09 edition of the National Post in Canada, an excerpt of Conrad Black's column :


"The president has three principal problems. He is well to the left of the public and of what he promised the voters in 2008, and it is an old, passe leftism, that is authoritarian, deviously presented and was discredited in this country decades ago; the sort of nostrums that caused Bill Clinton and others to become 'New Democrats.' He is increasingly perceived as having credibility problems and of being cold, cocksure, narcissistic and intoxicated by what he modestly called 'the gift' of his own articulation. And as president, he has been quite, and quite surprisingly, incompetent."(Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/22/conrad-black-the-lessons-of-massachusetts.aspx#ixzz0dMloXDl8




It is curious easily this sums up the whole Presidency of Barack Obama. Massachusett's voters sent him a message...and I am betting he isn't listening.

Wow, I guess if this convicted fraudster says so it just must be!!
a little idea who Black is:
Conrad M. Black was Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Operating Officer of Hollinger International Inc.. He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Nixon Center. He is married to far-right columnist and socialite Barbara Amiel.[1] In July 2007 Black was convicted by a Chicago jury of three counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. In December 2007, Black was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison.[2]

Media Mogul and convicted criminal, yeah I care what he says.....

[Easy Drifter]

Convicted of some charges true. Found not guilty of far more and all serious charges.
The US Surpreme Court is hearing an appeal, I believe. Certainly some dubious evidence presented.
I do agree he is no sweetheart and sure loves $50 words. :D
I would never call Barbara Amiel (the former editor of The Toronto Sun) a far right journalist. The only ones who call her that are so far to the left the communists look centralist.
She is right wing but not vehemently so.

[anthonyvop]

So long as we allow the far left and far right wing members of each party to pick the candidate that'll run for President, the situation will continue.

In what universe is John McCain far right?

The biggest issue of the Republican party has been the lack of true conservative direction.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Wow, I guess if this convicted fraudster says so it just must be!!
a little idea who Black is:
Conrad M. Black was Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Operating Officer of Hollinger International Inc.. He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Nixon Center. He is married to far-right columnist and socialite Barbara Amiel.[1] In July 2007 Black was convicted by a Chicago jury of three counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. In December 2007, Black was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison.[2]

Media Mogul and convicted criminal, yeah I care what he says.....

Gee Jan, don't dispute his points. You of course, are incapable of debate when you can slag someone. He was convicted of wire fraud and bunch of financial regs that are NOT illegal in the UK or Canada, but that doesn't discount his record as a historian, one who has written a lot of historical books on political figures such as Roosevelt.

No...just dismiss him because he didn't read the fine print in the law books for SEC transactions and relied on a weasel who did and ignored it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So long as we allow the far left and far right wing members of each party to pick the candidate that'll run for President, the situation will continue.

Starter, I am still trying to figure out how you can say this. John McCain was the least favourite choice of the Far right of the Republican party. The picking of Sarah Palin for VP was the last gasp of a moderate campaign to try to energize the conservative wing of the GOP.

The Primary system that both parties use is in theory a great way for the general public to participate in the picking of a party leader, but it would never be seen by any serious scholar as a method for the radical fringe to dominate. The fact remains in most states people can vote in primaries by merely making a phone call with the election commision in their area by changing their party affiliation. So you can very easily have people who are Democrats voting for Republican candidates and vice versa in the primaries. Might explain why John McCain was the leader in a year where Rudy Giuliani was the pre primary season favourite.

Add in the role of the media to treat each primary as the final decision of a party ( usually after New Hampshire the media hype on who is ahead at that point kills any fundraising or attempts by other candidates to come back) and you have a rather muddled mess. Obama's candidacy is perfect proof of the plus's and minuss of the system. His early win in Iowa meant the media had an orgasm since they had Clinton as the victor and they were just blown away, and then when Hilary wins in NH, they were putting the dirt on Obama. Well we all know, it actually went right down to the wire pretty much, and while Obama was the candidate of the far left of the Democratic party, I didn't see the Democratic centerists and moderates towards the right bailing from voting for Obama in the general election either.

No, the US primary system is often flawed IMO, but no party nominating its candidate is a clean and logical process. The reality is tho, it is better and more inclusive than other systems elsewhere. What is more, Obamamania swept up the moderates and non poltically affliated voters in November so to blame the primary process for the election of this guy is still mitigated by the fact that in a general election, this guy won. You may not have had a great alternative (McCain wasn't and isn't the best guy in charge, he is more effective as a legislator in the Senate where his good sense and ability to find middle ground isn't a liability) but it wasn't like people who wanted a better choice couldn't have participated in the primaries.

The Dem's got the man they wanted.....and the Republicans? Well the Conservative right didn't get their choice, so your statement is flawed on that score...

[Hondo]

There was no conservative candidate in the last election. I didn't so much vote for McCain, as I was really voting against Obama.

I figured the best bet for the things I support and believe in would have been for McClain to win, then do the right thing and die of something, and hope Palin would be smart enough to know she needed some good help in there with her and recruited some.

[Mark in Oshawa]

There was no conservative candidate in the last election. I didn't so much vote for McCain, as I was really voting against Obama.

I figured the best bet for the things I support and believe in would have been for McClain to win, then do the right thing and die of something, and hope Palin would be smart enough to know she needed some good help in there with her and recruited some.

A year and change later, and I still don't know what to think of Palin. Her track record IN office says to me she knows what she is doing, but she can come off really dopey at times too. A wild card, and I was never comfortable with her in the White House, but I wasn't with Obama either and he is proving me right. That said, I didn't have a vote, because I keep pointing to everyone over the Atlantic, it isn't for Europeans to like or dislike the US president, the people of the USA elect a president to do what THEY want....

[Hondo]

Well, it should have been obvious to the entire country that Obama wasn't quailified for sh!t before he was elected. Oh he talked a great game was specific on nothing and nobody in the media ever tried to nail him down on specific issues and cures. The fact that not enough people saw or made an issue of this tells me we are no longer a smart people. If something happens to Osama Obama, we get Biden. Biden has enough political exposure and experience behind him to look ok on paper but fumbles and stumbles around more in public than George Bush. Bush may have done a lot of stuff, but he never acted all chummy about someone to the point of urging them to stand to take a round of applause from the crowd, before realizing the person was in a wheelchair. Yeah, long time buddies alright. If something happens to Biden, we got President Pelosi. There's a thought.

I don't pretend to know if Palin would be good or bad. Bad wise, you can't go much lower than Obama already has, although HE will. Palin's positives were that she had more real, hands on experience in political leadership than Obama did. And best of all, had more hands on experience in dealing with the trials and tribulations of managing a modern American family and their hopes and concerns.

Yeah, I would have voted for Palin out of all of them, and I'd like to think she would've got some decent help in there to make a success of it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I would want to agree with you Fiero, but Palin just seems out of touch. She says a lot of things that I can agree with, and her political instincts I get, but there is a factor I haven't identified that has me wondering if she really grasps things. THat said, as I said, she ran a state that was starting to be corrupted and she had no machine behind her and she won it. Sarah Palin has the charsima with the right of center voter in Alaska, and many in the rest of the US agreed, but as an outsider, I have seen her in many intereviews, and she has given good ones that make you wonder who was the lady talking to Katie Couric. I am left scratching my head.

I do know this much. Any woman who could gain the hatred and scorn before she was even nominated by those I really don't like cant be all bad....

[Hondo]

If Palin was truly that bad or stupid, the opposition would not have feared her and attacked her the way they did.

What has Obama the genius done?

[veeten]

In what universe is John McCain far right?

The biggest issue of the Republican party has been the lack of true conservative direction.

and, yet, they rally 'round a person like Scott Brown. The sad part is that so few knew his previous record in Massachusetts, but were so willing to persue the 'angry voter' mode and elect him.

as P.T. Barnum once was believed to have said, "... there's one born every minute. "

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/122389

[Mark in Oshawa]

If Palin was truly that bad or stupid, the opposition would not have feared her and attacked her the way they did.

What has Obama the genius done?

I don't disagree Fiero, but I refuse to put her on the list of great political thinkers either. IN short, the jury is still out with a lot of people after the shaky campaign that she had with McCain. Mind you, she was being so stage managed, we don't know really how much of it was her, and how much of it was the verbal straight jacket they wanted to her to operate in..

[Rollo]

In what universe is John McCain far right?
The biggest issue of the Republican party has been the lack of true conservative direction.

Most of the world's actually.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enParties.gif

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/aus2007.png

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/canada2008.png

This might be a bit hard to swallow, but because the United States has the corporation as one of its biggest drivers, then both on an economic and a social scale, it is generally to the right on both fronts. John McCain is politically cut from the same cloth as George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. As such, McCain is actually quite a bit to the right.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Most of the world's actually.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enParties.gif

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/aus2007.png

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/canada2008.png

This might be a bit hard to swallow, but because the United States has the corporation as one of its biggest drivers, then both on an economic and a social scale, it is generally to the right on both fronts. John McCain is politically cut from the same cloth as George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. As such, McCain is actually quite a bit to the right.



That is assuming that the person who did the "political compass" is an unbiased person and has a definitive formula for putting people on that graph.

The reason why US conservatives dislike McCain because while he has often espoused right of center ideas, he has spent most of his Senate career either voting against his party on occasion, or at the very least dragging his party to the center. What is more, they don't believe he is for enforcing the law when it comes to illegals, and wants amnesty. They also doubt his ideas on abortion. To many on the American right, that is enough right there.

I believe personally that I wouldn't put McCain as far to the right, and I wouldn't put him very high on authoritarian points either. McCain loves consensus. He likes to mediate and he doesn't like being alienated. For the most part, I think his presidency would have actually been less in trouble after one year than Obama because he wouldn't have be as radical on healthcare, and he certainly would have drawn in both parties with is economic reforms. That said, I don't see him as a strong leader, and I am not sure his presidency would lead to any great and wonderous changes. He would have though dealt more decisively with Afghanistan and the surge there. Obama dithered for 3 months to end up doing what was his only real choice. McCain wouldn't have let that fester 3 days. On foreign affairs, McCain would have been far superior. Also, he if was president, the Kennedy Senate seat would have been maybe still with the Democrats. Maybe....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh yes...Obama isn't to the right. Sorry....with some of the people he has working for him, Cynthia McKinney has a seat not far away....

[anthonyvop]

Most of the world's actually.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enParties.gif

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/aus2007.png

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/canada2008.png

This might be a bit hard to swallow, but because the United States has the corporation as one of its biggest drivers, then both on an economic and a social scale, it is generally to the right on both fronts. John McCain is politically cut from the same cloth as George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. As such, McCain is actually quite a bit to the right.

Who created your charts and does the Libertarian party know they stole their work.

Really? Who made that?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm always thought I was more Authoritarian than this. :erm:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.50&soc=-3.79

The test I took needed the option of neither agree or disagree to be more unbiased.

[F1boat]

In my opinion all of the candidates of the GOP were horrible. McCain is a warrior. I hate the idea of military man leading the most powerful nation in the world. Huckabee was, however, far, far worse, a priest. Religion and politics is a venomous combo and the idea of a Christian Right president of the USA is awful. Maybe Romney, as right as he was, seemed the best choice, as he was good in economics, from what I heard. Wasn't he an organizer of the Atlanta Olympics?
But if you think that the Dems are far left, u r nuts :) The Dems are at best center-left :)

[BTCC Fan#1]

Palin's positives were that she had more real, hands on experience in political leadership than Obama did. And best of all, had more hands on experience in dealing with the trials and tribulations of managing a modern American family and their hopes and concerns.

I'm fascinated by this, how exactly does Obama not have experience of raising a 'modern American family'?

Personally I'd put Palin and Obama on the same level of political inexperience, Obama was never going to live up to expectations, and now he seems to be p*ssing everyone off, not just the right, but his own base.

Despite that I find the idea of Palin running the US frightening. Quite apart from the fact she makes George W Bush look like a well-prepared boy genius, she also seems to bring along a fair share of religious mumbo-jumbo. Wasn't there footage of a whacko Alaskan vicar performing an exorcism on her or something? No thank you very much.

Just as F1boat says religion really has no place in politics, and I think Palin would pander to the evangelical vote more than most. Who else could the GOP have as a candidate though?

[Hondo]

I have to dismiss the entire chart thing as something that can happen when you give monkies crayons and markers.

Anybody that attempts to ram a socialist agenda through to law while ignoring public input and refusing to allow public review prior to passage while ruling everything else possible by executive order, is not a couple of clicks to the right of center on authoritarian. He is at least halfway across on the left side.

One more on Palin, she was smart enough to know that Obama was going to be where he is now.

Warning to conservatives for the next round, don't blindly buy into this Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Look beyond page 1 and find out what the people of Louisiana think of him and his promise keeping. Do your own homework next time so a year later you're not standing there going "gosh, I didn't know it was gonna be like this..."

[BDunnell]

One more on Palin, she was smart enough to know that Obama was going to be where he is now.

You will never convince anyone with half a brain that she is anything other than moronic, I'm afraid, no matter how long or hard you try.

[Mark in Oshawa]

In my opinion all of the candidates of the GOP were horrible. McCain is a warrior. I hate the idea of military man leading the most powerful nation in the world. Huckabee was, however, far, far worse, a priest. Religion and politics is a venomous combo and the idea of a Christian Right president of the USA is awful. Maybe Romney, as right as he was, seemed the best choice, as he was good in economics, from what I heard. Wasn't he an organizer of the Atlanta Olympics?
But if you think that the Dems are far left, u r nuts :) The Dems are at best center-left :)

The Dems as a party are center left. Where their leadership has done in the last 8 years is not center left. Nationalizing and controlling banks is not center left. Nationalizing the healthcare industry when it is one sixth of the economy is not a center left idea. Many of the people working for Obama are self admitted Marxists on some aspects of public policy. This party has moved left.

As for McCain the warrior, McCain knows what the price is to wars without purpose. He was in the uniform so he knows the value of human life. People who have seen war and suffering don't take up arms lightly.

As for Huckabee, he is a preacher, but in the US, being a minister of the faith doesn't always mean right wing at all. What is more, Huckabee is not a fire and brimstone kind of guy. He was probably the most easy to get along with of all the candidates with the opposition. He may not always move off his position, but he was well known for being a very gentle guy, and very respectful.

Romney was the center right guy, Governor of Massachusetts and took over the Salt Lake Olympics after the corruption there was exposed. He cleaned that up, went to Mass, ran that for a term, and brought in a version of public healthcare there that likely would be the American model. He did it, while not liking the idea, but realizing it was what the people there (the most libreal state in the union) wanted. Mitt Romney was the best candidate in light of the George Bush years, but he just couldn't project that charisma.

One thing is for sure, I refuse to buy this crap from the poltical compass charts that parties of the right are more authoriatarian. We he have a "libreal" party in power here and they do more restrictions and stupid laws on freedom than any Conservatives ever did...

[Mark in Oshawa]

You will never convince anyone with half a brain that she is anything other than moronic, I'm afraid, no matter how long or hard you try.

Ben, I have half a brain, and she ran Alaska for two terms, and got elected in spite of the hacks who run things in her own party. That kind of political smarts is not moronic. Just because you hate everything she stands for is no reason to discount her. As Fiero said, if she was so stupid, then why would the left just attack her rather than debate her and expose her stupidity? I think she isn't really defined yet. I wont label her out to lunch, and I don't like some of her ways of phrasing her thoughts, but I think calling her stupid is done at your peril. Just like I didn't like Tony Blair or Bill Clinton, but respect their abilities as politicians and leaders. You can admire the ability of a politician to lead and get elected even if you don't like their party or platform.

THat my friend is political maturity....

[BDunnell]

Ben, I have half a brain, and she ran Alaska for two terms, and got elected in spite of the hacks who run things in her own party. That kind of political smarts is not moronic. Just because you hate everything she stands for is no reason to discount her. As Fiero said, if she was so stupid, then why would the left just attack her rather than debate her and expose her stupidity? I think she isn't really defined yet. I wont label her out to lunch, and I don't like some of her ways of phrasing her thoughts, but I think calling her stupid is done at your peril. Just like I didn't like Tony Blair or Bill Clinton, but respect their abilities as politicians and leaders. You can admire the ability of a politician to lead and get elected even if you don't like their party or platform.

THat my friend is political maturity....

One of the great problems with politics nowadays is what you call maturity, but I feel is an overly cosy, collegiate 'respect' between opponents. I would far rather see more overt criticism of political opponents.

And what is there to debate about Palin? I can't think of anything other than her ignorance of global affairs, her appalling book (and yes, I have read it, with an open mind), her folksy manner, and the fact that she said the following in public with the apparent realisation that she was speaking out loud:

'And getting up here I say: it is the best road trip in America, soaring through nature’s finest show. Denali, the great one, soaring under the midnight sun. And then the extremes.

In the winter time it’s the frozen road that is competing with the view of ice fogged frigid beauty. The cold though. Doesn’t it split the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs?

And then in the summertime, such extreme summertime. About a hundred and fifty degrees hotter than just some months ago, than just some months from now, with fireweed blooming along the frost heaves, and merciless rivers that are rushing and carving and reminding us that here, Mother Nature wins.

It is as throughout all Alaska that big wild good life teeming along the road that is north to the future.'

That is quite simply a stupid person's idea of something profound. If anyone doesn't find that speech hilarious for all the wrong reasons — well, words fail me. She would be laughed off the face of the political earth in the UK, mark my words. And before you say Joe Biden should be as well — well, you're right. He would have been, years ago.

[F1boat]

The Dems as a party are center left. Where their leadership has done in the last 8 years is not center left. Nationalizing and controlling banks is not center left. Nationalizing the healthcare industry when it is one sixth of the economy is not a center left idea. Many of the people working for Obama are self admitted Marxists on some aspects of public policy. This party has moved left.

As for McCain the warrior, McCain knows what the price is to wars without purpose. He was in the uniform so he knows the value of human life. People who have seen war and suffering don't take up arms lightly.

As for Huckabee, he is a preacher, but in the US, being a minister of the faith doesn't always mean right wing at all. What is more, Huckabee is not a fire and brimstone kind of guy. He was probably the most easy to get along with of all the candidates with the opposition. He may not always move off his position, but he was well known for being a very gentle guy, and very respectful.

Romney was the center right guy, Governor of Massachusetts and took over the Salt Lake Olympics after the corruption there was exposed. He cleaned that up, went to Mass, ran that for a term, and brought in a version of public healthcare there that likely would be the American model. He did it, while not liking the idea, but realizing it was what the people there (the most libreal state in the union) wanted. Mitt Romney was the best candidate in light of the George Bush years, but he just couldn't project that charisma.

One thing is for sure, I refuse to buy this crap from the poltical compass charts that parties of the right are more authoriatarian. We he have a "libreal" party in power here and they do more restrictions and stupid laws on freedom than any Conservatives ever did...
Thanks for the answer. This is an interesting perspective. I have to admit that I liked Romney a lot. If the GOP has to have a president, if it is him, I'd be sort of relieved.
Now, however, I want to ask you a question because of your last remark. Please answer me honestly as I am genuinely concerned. Don't you think that guys like the Religious Right are dangerous for the idea of democracy itself? In democracy the power to rule comes from the people and you answer to the people. In a theocracy you answer to God and your power comes from him. Don't you think that if the Religious Right continues to increase its power, like in the years of Bush, this might have a crushing effect on freedom of religious and sexual minorities, that it might result as a censorship in books, movies? I have read some pretty appalling things about these guys in non-political, Human Rights websites. And it is they who I fear. Economically I am on the left and by far prefer the model of France and Germany, than to the one of the USA, but it is the theocratic movement that I truly hate.
To me it is the biggest threat to democracy. Please, share your opinion with me.

[chuck34]

Thanks for the answer. This is an interesting perspective. I have to admit that I liked Romney a lot. If the GOP has to have a president, if it is him, I'd be sort of relieved.
Now, however, I want to ask you a question because of your last remark. Please answer me honestly as I am genuinely concerned. Don't you think that guys like the Religious Right are dangerous for the idea of democracy itself? In democracy the power to rule comes from the people and you answer to the people. In a theocracy you answer to God and your power comes from him. Don't you think that if the Religious Right continues to increase its power, like in the years of Bush, this might have a crushing effect on freedom of religious and sexual minorities, that it might result as a censorship in books, movies? I have read some pretty appalling things about these guys in non-political, Human Rights websites. And it is they who I fear. Economically I am on the left and by far prefer the model of France and Germany, than to the one of the USA, but it is the theocratic movement that I truly hate.
To me it is the biggest threat to democracy. Please, share your opinion with me.

This is getting a bit absurd. You do realize that it is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion? You do understand the difference don't you? In fact I would bet that manny of the Founding Fathers would be apaled at our LACK of religion, and particularly religion's guiding moral hand in our society. It's not the right that you have to fear crushing religious minorities (at least in the country), it's the left that seems to be trying to stamp out ALL religion.

I do agree with you though that a Theocracy is a BAD thing. But in the US, even if we elected Mike Huckabee, we are a LOOOOOOONG way from that. And I am by NO means a Huckabee fan. Did we fall under the grip of the Catholic Church, and the Pope in particular when JFK was elected? No, far from it. Get over it, and realize that religion in moderation (which is what most religion in the US is) is a good thing.

[veeten]

Romney was the center right guy, Governor of Massachusetts and took over the Salt Lake Olympics after the corruption there was exposed. He cleaned that up, went to Mass, ran that for a term, and brought in a version of public healthcare there that likely would be the American model. He did it, while not liking the idea, but realizing it was what the people there (the most libreal state in the union) wanted. Mitt Romney was the best candidate in light of the George Bush years, but he just couldn't project that charisma.

Unfortunately, 'RomneyCare' is one of the little-known, or widely announced, failures that serves as the key to how 'ObamaCare' will do. Just search it, and find out for yourself. Btw, the biggest supporter of this mess was none other than his aid-de-camp, and heir apparent, Scott Brown.


One thing is for sure, I refuse to buy this crap from the poltical compass charts that parties of the right are more authoriatarian. We he have a "libreal" party in power here and they do more restrictions and stupid laws on freedom than any Conservatives ever did...

But, as the above shows, they aren't any bit imune to supporting or enacting similarly stupid ideas or favoring legislation that will bring about major problems later on. So-called Conservatives are just as willing to compromise or sell their ideals if it means re-election, the same as so-called Liberals. The real meat to any Representative or Senator is in their Legislative Record, delve into that and you will find what they REALLY stand for, not the speeches, appearances or rallies as these are nothing more than handler-coordinated, manager-designed BS sessions.

[F1boat]

This is getting a bit absurd. You do realize that it is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion? You do understand the difference don't you? In fact I would bet that manny of the Founding Fathers would be apaled at our LACK of religion, and particularly religion's guiding moral hand in our society. It's not the right that you have to fear crushing religious minorities (at least in the country), it's the left that seems to be trying to stamp out ALL religion.

I do agree with you though that a Theocracy is a BAD thing. But in the US, even if we elected Mike Huckabee, we are a LOOOOOOONG way from that. And I am by NO means a Huckabee fan. Did we fall under the grip of the Catholic Church, and the Pope in particular when JFK was elected? No, far from it. Get over it, and realize that religion in moderation (which is what most religion in the US is) is a good thing.
Allow me to disagree, chuck. I have nothing against people who want to be religious, but if someone wants to be FREE FROM it, he has every right to be so. And the religious morals, sorry, don't agree. If it is don't steal, don't kill, OK, I am all for it. But using it to terrorize gay people, to justify wars or to ban books, hell no. And for me it seems that this is what "morals" are.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Thanks for the answer. This is an interesting perspective. I have to admit that I liked Romney a lot. If the GOP has to have a president, if it is him, I'd be sort of relieved.
Now, however, I want to ask you a question because of your last remark. Please answer me honestly as I am genuinely concerned. Don't you think that guys like the Religious Right are dangerous for the idea of democracy itself? In democracy the power to rule comes from the people and you answer to the people. In a theocracy you answer to God and your power comes from him. Don't you think that if the Religious Right continues to increase its power, like in the years of Bush, this might have a crushing effect on freedom of religious and sexual minorities, that it might result as a censorship in books, movies? I have read some pretty appalling things about these guys in non-political, Human Rights websites. And it is they who I fear. Economically I am on the left and by far prefer the model of France and Germany, than to the one of the USA, but it is the theocratic movement that I truly hate.
To me it is the biggest threat to democracy. Please, share your opinion with me.

Romney is a Mormon. Many in the US didn't vote for him for THAT reason. Americans are very conscious of religion. The Mormons adhere to their own code that often rubs some the wrong way too. Mind you, the thing you maybe don't see from being in Europe is Americans are more tolerant actually of religion than some would understand. Religion in the US is part of the social fabric, and there are many politicians of all stripes with religious affiliations, and they can be on the left (Rev. Jesse Jackson) or the Right (Rev. Huckabee).

What you must understand, and what Chuck brought up is the USA is about freedom OF religion. The founding peoples of the US belonged to many religious groups, some often escaping persecution from European nations. So religion is part of the national conversation in the US.

You are wary of a religious theocracy taking over a nation. You also sound like you are not a fan of any leader being open with his religion. For me, I am much more comfortable knowing his beliefs are somewhat religious. I am NOT a church goer. I believe in god, and that is about it BUT any politician to me that claims to be an atheist is far more dangerous since his moral code isn't based in fear of retribution from a god above. Yes, he may be more "tolerant" towards gays and minorities, but I have a real distrust of anyone who doesn't believe he has to answer to a higher power. When George W Bush sounded religious, I got that was part of his moral code BUT for all the talk of how nasty or bad he was among the libreals, I keep looking for the laws that took away gay rights or the access to abortion he passed. He didn't. IT isn't that simple.

The areas where morality/religion and the law intersect are contentious, and while I would disagree with someone with religious beliefs condemning gay marriage outright, I understand WHY they feel that way. We all have a morality we go by and it affects how we view the law. The person who doesn't agree with gay rights or abortion has no less right to feel that way than you or I do to be for it. I happen to think that in the end, a middle ground is found. Neither side will agree, but a status quo is found. In the USA that is common.

When you say you are wary of Huckabee as a possible president, may I remind you two of the most nasty people to walk the earth didn't bring religion into their politics, they made the politics their religion. Stalin and Mao. Neither believed in god...so they assumed they didn't have to answer to anyone in the end. We wont know if there is anything until we die, but if we believe that there is a god we have to answer to, it does tend to make us moderate our actions. We can debate on how some interpret the bible, but being religious to an extent is a good thing in a politician. Bill Clinton went to the same kinds of Baptist churches George W. Bush did and also said "God Bless America" but for whatever reason no one got upset when Clinton did it.

The separation of church from state doesn't mean people who are in politics should shirk their morality or religion. As long as the CHURCH isn't favoured or takes over the government, than that is the separation of Church and State. I believe that was a slap at the Church of England when that phrase came out of the US Constitution.

[Mark in Oshawa]

One of the great problems with politics nowadays is what you call maturity, but I feel is an overly cosy, collegiate 'respect' between opponents. I would far rather see more overt criticism of political opponents.

And what is there to debate about Palin? I can't think of anything other than her ignorance of global affairs, her appalling book (and yes, I have read it, with an open mind), her folksy manner, and the fact that she said the following in public with the apparent realisation that she was speaking out loud:

'And getting up here I say: it is the best road trip in America, soaring through nature’s finest show. Denali, the great one, soaring under the midnight sun. And then the extremes.

In the winter time it’s the frozen road that is competing with the view of ice fogged frigid beauty. The cold though. Doesn’t it split the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs?

And then in the summertime, such extreme summertime. About a hundred and fifty degrees hotter than just some months ago, than just some months from now, with fireweed blooming along the frost heaves, and merciless rivers that are rushing and carving and reminding us that here, Mother Nature wins.

It is as throughout all Alaska that big wild good life teeming along the road that is north to the future.'

That is quite simply a stupid person's idea of something profound. If anyone doesn't find that speech hilarious for all the wrong reasons — well, words fail me. She would be laughed off the face of the political earth in the UK, mark my words. And before you say Joe Biden should be as well — well, you're right. He would have been, years ago.

It's pretty sad Ben, I admit. That is why if I lived in the US, Palin wouldn't get my vote. I wonder where she gets some of her rhetoric from. Still don't see why people HATE her tho. Dismiss her yes, but the left in the US HATES this woman as if she was the antichrist....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Allow me to disagree, chuck. I have nothing against people who want to be religious, but if someone wants to be FREE FROM it, he has every right to be so. And the religious morals, sorry, don't agree. If it is don't steal, don't kill, OK, I am all for it. But using it to terrorize gay people, to justify wars or to ban books, hell no. And for me it seems that this is what "morals" are.

Some religious people do go overboard. IT is what THEY believe, but to castigate all religious people as this is wrong. If I disagree with abortion, and I am not religious, does that make my point more valid because I am not taking a line out of the bible to reach that conclusion? Or less? If you disagree with something, regardless of where you get that motitvation from it is a valid point. We all have opinions and moral codes we live by. If a man of the cloth wants to state he is against Gay marriage and abortion, we just know he isn't going to change his mind. Now if he can convince enough people in a society that is open and free that abortion is wrong and gay marriage is wrong, then I guess there is a chance he will get his way. AT that point though, your society has to change or not change depending on how you feel. It isn't necessarily a theocracy.

I for one do not believe in abortion as a personal issue BUT I would never want to see out banned completely. I think education of young people to NOT get themselves into situations where abortion is seen as a way out is the best way to deal with it. I think this, but I am not religious. So is my point more valid? Boat, you would advocate that religious people shoudn't be in politics but If I was in politics would I therefore be more valid? No...of course not. IT isn't the religion...it is the thought and all individuals, religious or not are entitled to feel the way they feel about any issue.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Unfortunately, 'RomneyCare' is one of the little-known, or widely announced, failures that serves as the key to how 'ObamaCare' will do. Just search it, and find out for yourself. Btw, the biggest supporter of this mess was none other than his aid-de-camp, and heir apparent, Scott Brown. .

Very true. I suspect tho that Romney didn't think up this healthcare solution on his own, and he doesn't have total ownership over this program. Many fingerprints from both parties are all over this program. If it was a roaring success, believe me no one would doubt that Democratic politicians all over Mass would be looking for credit for being "leaders" of getting the bill passed.



But, as the above shows, they aren't any bit imune to supporting or enacting similarly stupid ideas or favoring legislation that will bring about major problems later on. So-called Conservatives are just as willing to compromise or sell their ideals if it means re-election, the same as so-called Liberals. The real meat to any Representative or Senator is in their Legislative Record, delve into that and you will find what they REALLY stand for, not the speeches, appearances or rallies as these are nothing more than handler-coordinated, manager-designed BS sessions.

Very true. It is why no one should be surprised that Obama is governing to the left of where he campaigned. His legislative record (when he didn't just abstain or vote present) is clearly that of a left of the party Democrat.

Some pol's will do what they can do get elected, even vote against their party or principles, but that is a bit of red herring. Most politicians have a basis for the most part that govern's their vote, and they will stick to that side on most votes. The ones who don't are the moderates such as John McCain.

[chuck34]

Allow me to disagree, chuck. I have nothing against people who want to be religious, but if someone wants to be FREE FROM it, he has every right to be so. And the religious morals, sorry, don't agree. If it is don't steal, don't kill, OK, I am all for it. But using it to terrorize gay people, to justify wars or to ban books, hell no. And for me it seems that this is what "morals" are.

You seem to be painting with a VERY broad brush here. Let's narrow things down a bit.

Name me a few SPECIFIC politicians in the US who are terrorizing gay people. Name a few SPECIFIC politicians in the US who are justifying wars based on religion. Name a few SPECIFIC politicians in the US who are banning books. It sure as hell isn't Mike Huckabee, or anyone else for that matter.

And note that not allowing gay marriage is in NO WAY "terrorizing gay people", no matter if you agree with the issue or not.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You seem to be painting with a VERY broad brush here. Let's narrow things down a bit.

Name me a few SPECIFIC politicians in the US who are terrorizing gay people. Name a few SPECIFIC politicians in the US who are justifying wars based on religion. Name a few SPECIFIC politicians in the US who are banning books. It sure as hell isn't Mike Huckabee, or anyone else for that matter.

And note that not allowing gay marriage is in NO WAY "terrorizing gay people", no matter if you agree with the issue or not.

Chuck, that is the issue. In Europe, they see marriage to the same sex as a human right. It isn't marriage in my books, but I don't get how that makes me anti-gay either. That said, believe gays can be in civil unions with the same legal obligations and benefits from marriage....but it isn't a marriage, and no clergyman should be forced to call it such. It is a civil marriage, which is a legal way of governments sanctioning it. Most of this argument gets defused when people on the pro side admit it is about the benefits and legalities, and those on the CON are allowed to still not admit it is a religious marriage.

If two gays want benefits from the other or have pension successor rights, well let them also have the cost of support and divorce. I just object to the gay movement marching into a church demanding to be married and then taking the church to court if the Reverend or Father refuses. I think as long both sides give up a bit of ground, this one is easy...lol

How did we get off the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Cabal not listening anyhow??? lol

[chuck34]

Chuck, that is the issue. In Europe, they see marriage to the same sex as a human right. It isn't marriage in my books, but I don't get how that makes me anti-gay either. That said, believe gays can be in civil unions with the same legal obligations and benefits from marriage....but it isn't a marriage, and no clergyman should be forced to call it such. It is a civil marriage, which is a legal way of governments sanctioning it. Most of this argument gets defused when people on the pro side admit it is about the benefits and legalities, and those on the CON are allowed to still not admit it is a religious marriage.

If two gays want benefits from the other or have pension successor rights, well let them also have the cost of support and divorce. I just object to the gay movement marching into a church demanding to be married and then taking the church to court if the Reverend or Father refuses. I think as long both sides give up a bit of ground, this one is easy...lol

How did we get off the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Cabal not listening anyhow??? lol

I agree with you Mark. I would mostly be ok with some sort of Civil Union type of deal, probably.

But I can't see how anyone would consider it torture to not be allowed to "marry" or have a civil union. THAT ain't torture, and if it is ... well I give up.


Ok so leave that part of it out. Are there any US politicians that are trying to discrimintate against gays (other than marriage)? Are there any US politicians justifying wars based on religious basis? Are there any US politicians banning books? That was F1boat's basis. And he is DEAD WRONG.

Perhaps in Bulgaria, their religion is quite different from the US, but I doubt it. What I think is that he actually has a religion, but most of us would call it athesim, and he's trying to FORCE his religion on everyone else. This is exactly what he is accusing the religious right of doing. Of course I could be wrong, and if I am please correct me. But that's what I see happening from most on the US Left who go on and on about "religious freedom" and how stopping any expression of religion is how they see keeping it "free".

[Mark in Oshawa]

I agree with you Mark. I would mostly be ok with some sort of Civil Union type of deal, probably.

But I can't see how anyone would consider it torture to not be allowed to "marry" or have a civil union. THAT ain't torture, and if it is ... well I give up.


Ok so leave that part of it out. Are there any US politicians that are trying to discrimintate against gays (other than marriage)? Are there any US politicians justifying wars based on religious basis? Are there any US politicians banning books? That was F1boat's basis. And he is DEAD WRONG.

Perhaps in Bulgaria, their religion is quite different from the US, but I doubt it. What I think is that he actually has a religion, but most of us would call it athesim, and he's trying to FORCE his religion on everyone else. This is exactly what he is accusing the religious right of doing. Of course I could be wrong, and if I am please correct me. But that's what I see happening from most on the US Left who go on and on about "religious freedom" and how stopping any expression of religion is how they see keeping it "free".

I will give Boat the benefit of the doubt Chuck. Much of what is shown of the religioius right in the US on tv around the world doesn't portray it in a flattering light, and it confuses the issue. The irony is as you put it. The LACK of religion in politicians and the system is just as much a tyranny when the state tells the churches what they can believe or not believe in.

Democracy is all about knowing that not everyone is going to agree on everything. No matter how successful a politician may be at winning an election, he/she still will have people that wont agree that he/she will have to at some point work with. What the anti-religious zealots don't grasp is they are far less tolerant than they think, and they have no other moral reason for it other than they just think they are right. I wouldn't put f1boat in this group at all. I think he legitmately assumed Mike Huckabee is some sort of zealot. I have seen his show a few times on TV and he is one of the most reasonable guys going. He explains his positions very clearly and understands some wont get him. If Mr. Boat saw the show, maybe he would get it....at least get that Mike isn't a zealot...

[F1boat]

Huh, Mark, thanks for the honest answer. It seems that we have actually very similar ideas about what is right and what is wrong, for an instance I believe that a civil union is a perfectly good way of compromise. About abortion I believe like Obama - that it should be legal, but rare, as education (but not abstinence-only) one should be an important issue. However, I do not think that the hard Religious right will be happy with this compromises... IMO it doesn't seem that way, not in rights of gays, not in the case of abortion, not with protecting the environment, and I am not speaking just about the Warming... And I definetly DO NOT believe that you have the right of hate speech. This is, IMO... you can't say that black people are inferior, you can't say that evil Jews control the world, you can't say that gays are accursed and will go to hell... I also believe that it is wrong for religion to interfere with libraries, to try banning books, to block scientific truths from schools, to force people with full suits on the beach... and it seems that the hard Religious Right is quite intent in doing these things, you know, when I read a page from "Theocracy Watch" I am simply very very scared, honestly. The reason to distrust religion is not that I want to force atheism, it is because religion, or maybe I should say religious fundamentalism scares the hell out of me, seriously. I am simply scared and the reason is cause the USA is a great country and has given great things to the world, although I believe that like EVERY country including mine own, it has dark pages in its history.
About the politicians, yes, Stalin and Mao were possibly the worst ever, but look at the Taliban, look at the Inquisition is the past, at the crusades, all the holy wars... religions has caused misery in the world, great pain and IMO the reason is when they are mixed with politics.
Chuck, I believe that Bush stated that the war with the Taliban is a crusade. If this is not a religious war, I don't know what is, honestly... and about religion in my country, Orthodox Christianity is relatively peaceful, although recently there are fanatics appearing here as well.
And they scare me, too.
Finally, about my religion, you may not believe it but I was very religious before, sort of conservative and now I believe that I am a moderate Green, so I love the nature and hope for happines for the humans here on Earth. About God, I do believe that higher power exist but not like some uber sort of judge and more like, if you want laugh at me, more like the Force in the "Star Wars" movies.
Thank you very much for the answers, pals.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Huh, Mark, thanks for the honest answer. It seems that we have actually very similar ideas about what is right and what is wrong, for an instance I believe that a civil union is a perfectly good way of compromise. About abortion I believe like Obama - that it should be legal, but rare, as education (but not abstinence-only) one should be an important issue. However, I do not think that the hard Religious right will be happy with this compromises... IMO it doesn't seem that way, not in rights of gays, not in the case of abortion, not with protecting the environment, and I am not speaking just about the Warming... And I definetly DO NOT believe that you have the right of hate speech. This is, IMO... you can't say that black people are inferior, you can't say that evil Jews control the world, you can't say that gays are accursed and will go to hell... I also believe that it is wrong for religion to interfere with libraries, to try banning books, to block scientific truths from schools, to force people with full suits on the beach... and it seems that the hard Religious Right is quite intent in doing these things, you know, when I read a page from "Theocracy Watch" I am simply very very scared, honestly. The reason to distrust religion is not that I want to force atheism, it is because religion, or maybe I should say religious fundamentalism scares the hell out of me, seriously. I am simply scared and the reason is cause the USA is a great country and has given great things to the world, although I believe that like EVERY country including mine own, it has dark pages in its history.
About the politicians, yes, Stalin and Mao were possibly the worst ever, but look at the Taliban, look at the Inquisition is the past, at the crusades, all the holy wars... religions has caused misery in the world, great pain and IMO the reason is when they are mixed with politics.
Chuck, I believe that Bush stated that the war with the Taliban is a crusade. If this is not a religious war, I don't know what is, honestly... and about religion in my country, Orthodox Christianity is relatively peaceful, although recently there are fanatics appearing here as well.
And they scare me, too.
Finally, about my religion, you may not believe it but I was very religious before, sort of conservative and now I believe that I am a moderate Green, so I love the nature and hope for happines for the humans here on Earth. About God, I do believe that higher power exist but not like some uber sort of judge and more like, if you want laugh at me, more like the Force in the "Star Wars" movies.
Thank you very much for the answers, pals.

Mr. Boat, what you have to understand tho is the religious right has a right to be wrong. Just like a racist has the right to feel that way. Where they have to be reigned in is if they ACT upon those thoughts or take power. This wont happen without a fight from many.

You feared someone like a Mike Huckabee and yet thought Romney was reasonable. Both are religious. Yet neither has EVER advocated anything racist or sexist. Obama's view on Abortion actually match most people and it is one of his few beliefs that the loony left have ignored, just as they ignore the fact he is against Gay marriage for the same reasons I do.

The Religious right in the US are a large lobby in the eyes of the press, but the really unreasonable silly types such as a Pat Robertson have no real influence AT all in the modern Republican party. The uber left near communists in the Democratic party have used their influence far more effectively with the Obama agenda, than any right wing zealots did with the Bush Administration.

As for your belief that the fight against the Taliban is religious, that is DEAD wrong. The US Army isnt' flying in missionaries to convert the Afghans. The US army is there because the Taliban supported a terrorist operation on their soil that carried out the bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. That is a direct attack on US soil. If such a thing happened today, Obama would do the same or be impeached. The fact Bush had a baptist background is immaterial. If Any nation, Christian, buddahist or Muslim causes 3000 American civilians to die on American soil in 2 hours, it will be attacked by the US of A. THAT is a fact....and I would expect the UK to do the same or the French or Russians.

Those who are paranoid about religion have to separate it from politics. Most politicians, even the more religious ones usually like being elected and re-elected. Therefore, they will tend to keep their religion to themselves unless they figure it will get them re-elected. In the US, religion is the same detriment to getting elected as it would be anywhere. Most wont trust someone too religiously oriented. If a religious or pious politician wants to get elected, he/she has to separate his religion from how he governs. Which isn't to say he make decisions against his faith, but the decision is made to govern for all, and not just those who elect you because of the church.

[F1boat]

Mr. Boat, what you have to understand tho is the religious right has a right to be wrong.

No one has the right to preach hatred, sorry. This is my opinion and it won't change.
About the taliban, I think that you misunderstood me. I mentioned them because THEY make war in the name of god. The answer of the USA was inevitable yet to call it a crusade is an awful choice of word IMO.
About Romney he really seemed reasonable to me, no matter his personal preferences.
And I think that you are dead wrong about Obama. You have not seen commies in action. I mean, real commies. We, in Bulgaria, have. Your President is nothing like them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No one has the right to preach hatred, sorry. This is my opinion and it won't change.
About the taliban, I think that you misunderstood me. I mentioned them because THEY make war in the name of god. The answer of the USA was inevitable yet to call it a crusade is an awful choice of word IMO.
About Romney he really seemed reasonable to me, no matter his personal preferences.
And I think that you are dead wrong about Obama. You have not seen commies in action. I mean, real commies. We, in Bulgaria, have. Your President is nothing like them.


I am chuckling. I don't have to explain communists to you for sure.

Obama isn't my president, but I live next door eh?

I am not dead wrong however on some of Obama's followers and some of the programs he has advocated in the past. What you have to grasp is the US is a very small c conservative nation. It's founding principles are based on conservative ideals, but Obama's followers would love to rewrite that constitution and take away any mention of the rights of the citizen to be free to fail and free to worship their god. People in the US as time goes on wont fall in love with Obama again believe me.

AS for your feelings on "hate" speech, the whole problem with what you advocate is who decides what is hate? The powers that be? The government? This is why I say everyone has the right to be racist or hate others. IT is shameful and wrong, but you can think what you like. No one can climb in your head and ascertain what your true feelings are. So for anyone to say you cannot HATE is to first define what is legimate dissent and what isn't? THAT is why I say, people should have the right to be wrong....just as long as they don't take power and shove people into camps.

[F1boat]

What you think is no problem. But speech is too powerful weapon. I do believe that there should be control. About the USA being conservative nation, well, I am sure that many people are liberal as well. I believe that politics is a race in which you try to present your ideas as better and I believe that in the future liberal ideas will pwn conservative. It will take time and maybe a better politicians than Barack, but I am sure that in the end modern ideas will prevail.
BTW in my country the commies are more conservative ;)

[chuck34]

I also believe that it is wrong for religion to interfere with libraries, to try banning books, to block scientific truths from schools, to force people with full suits on the beach... and it seems that the hard Religious Right is quite intent in doing these things, you know, when I read a page from "Theocracy Watch" I am simply very very scared, honestly.

You keep making these acusations about the "Religious Right" without naming any names. Please name an ACTUAL person involved in US politics that actually believes this stuff. Who are these politicians who are trying to interfere with libraries, trying to ban books, trying to block scientific truths from schools, trying to force people with full suits on the beach? There is a simple answer, and that is that there aren't any. Your "Theocracy Watch" sounds a lot like an internet conspiracy board.

You may not agree with some people's views on gays rights, or abortion. But there are plenty of religious and non-religious people on both sides of those two issues. Religion doesn't make them any more right, or any more wrong. And any sort of organized "Religious Right" that you may think exists here is a looooong way from any sort of fundamentalist theocratic regime. Take a breath, stop reading "Theocracy Watch" (whatever that is, I honestly don't know), and actually look at the situation and see what is really going on.


The reason to distrust religion is not that I want to force atheism, it is because religion, or maybe I should say religious fundamentalism scares the hell out of me, seriously. I am simply scared and the reason is cause the USA is a great country and has given great things to the world, although I believe that like EVERY country including mine own, it has dark pages in its history.

Yes religious fundamentalism scares me too. But again, the US is so far from that, that to fear one preacher holding office is absurd.

If you think that the USA is a great country and has given great things to the world then that should give you less cause for concern than you seem to have. Do a brief look at our past, our founding, and the people who wrote our Constitution and other documents. You will see a greater amount of "religion", of a sort, there than you will today.


About the politicians, yes, Stalin and Mao were possibly the worst ever, but look at the Taliban, look at the Inquisition is the past, at the crusades, all the holy wars... religions has caused misery in the world, great pain and IMO the reason is when they are mixed with politics.

So it was the Taliban that started a "Holy War", not the US. The US has made it painfully clear, go out of our way in fact, to make it known that this is a war on terrorism, NOT ISLAM. However, the oposite is true. Most of these terrorists claim they will stop if we just all convert to Islam, adopt Sharia Law, and do as they say. So why do you fear the US?


Chuck, I believe that Bush stated that the war with the Taliban is a crusade. If this is not a religious war, I don't know what is, honestly...

What in the world would make you think that? What did he ever say, or do that would give you that idea? The complete oposite is true. It is a war on terror that we are fighting, not a war on Islam. If you can find one quote from Bush saying that we are fighting a war to convert Muslims then I'll agree, but there aren't ANY.


and about religion in my country, Orthodox Christianity is relatively peaceful, although recently there are fanatics appearing here as well.
And they scare me, too.

That's the same with us. The fanatics are a small number who are mostly laughed at. I bet it's the same here as it is there.


Finally, about my religion, you may not believe it but I was very religious before, sort of conservative and now I believe that I am a moderate Green, so I love the nature and hope for happines for the humans here on Earth. About God, I do believe that higher power exist but not like some uber sort of judge and more like, if you want laugh at me, more like the Force in the "Star Wars" movies.
Thank you very much for the answers, pals.

You can believe what you want, honestly, as long as it makes you happy, and you aren't hurting anyone else, then it's all good.

[chuck34]

What you think is no problem. But speech is too powerful weapon. I do believe that there should be control. About the USA being conservative nation, well, I am sure that many people are liberal as well. I believe that politics is a race in which you try to present your ideas as better and I believe that in the future liberal ideas will pwn conservative. It will take time and maybe a better politicians than Barack, but I am sure that in the end modern ideas will prevail.
BTW in my country the commies are more conservative ;)

But speech can also be used against the haters. If someone is spewing hate speech then letting them, and using their own words against them can be VERY effective in pointing out their flaws.

The liberal/conservative thing gets very awkward as those definitions change over time. At the time of our founding, the US was a very Liberal government. But if the Founding Fathers were to come back today, they would be horrified at how Liberal and unreasonable the most Conservative Republicans are.

As far as modern conservative and liberal ideas are concerned ... The US is very conservative and probably always will be. Do to the simple fact that we are a country founded upon the principals of limited government. And the modern liberal party is trying to force MORE government down our throats. As can be seen in the recent election in Mass., no one in the US appears ready for that.

[F1boat]

Chuck, Hitler came to power with speech. It is very dangerous weapon. People like Pat Robertson IMO are unacceptable. About whether your country will stay religious or conservative, who knows? Economically we have to wait and see what happens. Socially, IMO the freedom of the person should be at first place.

[chuck34]

Chuck, Hitler came to power with speech. It is very dangerous weapon. People like Pat Robertson IMO are unacceptable. About whether your country will stay religious or conservative, who knows? Economically we have to wait and see what happens. Socially, IMO the freedom of the person should be at first place.

So since Hilter came to power though speech, we must limit the rights of Pat Robertson? And then you say that the freedom of the person should be at first place? Don't you see the contridiction there?

[F1boat]

Well, not unless you keep a simple rule - you have absolute freedom till you hit me. No matter verbally or physically. From there begins my freedom ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

What you think is no problem. But speech is too powerful weapon. I do believe that there should be control. About the USA being conservative nation, well, I am sure that many people are liberal as well. I believe that politics is a race in which you try to present your ideas as better and I believe that in the future liberal ideas will pwn conservative. It will take time and maybe a better politicians than Barack, but I am sure that in the end modern ideas will prevail.
BTW in my country the commies are more conservative ;)

Speech is a weapon only if those listening CHOOSE...I repeat CHOOSE to listen. No one who is raised and educated in a free society is taught that anti-semitism is ok, nor are they taught that racism is acceptable. However, when you start censoring speech, you are now deciding (YOU as if you were the government) what is acceptable. Gee, doesn't that sound like the former government you had to endure under communism? THEY decided what speech was acceptable.

Listen, no one in their right mind can advocate racism or a hatred and gain support. People are smarter than that in a modern society. The fact is there are people out there that advocate this stupidity, and you don't win the debate by having them censored, you WIN the debate, and the hearts and minds of the citizenry by having a better argument.

As for your assertions of the "liberal" ideas being superior to conservatives, understand that you are in a nation that just started to grasp democracy 17 or so years ago. Read American history, read British history, read Canadian history, and see the debates about the rights of man, the debate against slavery in the US (and how the Americans ignored this reality which is a violation against their own constitution), and the debates in all those nations about democracy. Read about people like Benjamin Disareli, Thomas Jefferson, Wilfrid Laurier (first French Canadian PM) and the like and see how western english speaking democracies were formed. Read about how France's democracy has evolved, and really see how many cultures have adopted it.

The concept of free speech and free will triumphing to elect leaders means you have to accept not everyone agrees and you have to find that middle ground on occasion.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, not unless you keep a simple rule - you have absolute freedom till you hit me. No matter verbally or physically. From there begins my freedom ;)

THAT's it!!! You got it now....no matter how stupid the other guy is or how racist he is in his speech, it is just speech....you can choose not to be offended and just walk away.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So since Hilter came to power though speech, we must limit the rights of Pat Robertson? And then you say that the freedom of the person should be at first place? Don't you see the contridiction there?

I wouldn't censor Pat Robertson. He has a large platform and he loses more credability every time he opens his mouth. The man is an embarassment to his faith.

[Hondo]

Chuck, Hitler came to power with speech. It is very dangerous weapon. People like Pat Robertson IMO are unacceptable. About whether your country will stay religious or conservative, who knows? Economically we have to wait and see what happens. Socially, IMO the freedom of the person should be at first place.

How do you think Obama got there? What has Obama ever done, any where?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Speaking of abuses of the power of free speech, apparently someone in the Democratic Party got a little cute with their defense of Obama. One person wrote over 70 letters to various newspapers, but it has come out that this effort likely is politically connected possibly to Obama.

The link is here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/26/newspapers-obama-fan-bogus-letter/?loomia_ow=t:s:a16:g2:r2:c0.138707:b30066798 :z

[F1boat]

THAT's it!!! You got it now....no matter how stupid the other guy is or how racist he is in his speech, it is just speech....you can choose not to be offended and just walk away.

Definetly not true. Speech can be very harmful, as I said. I would never accept Holocaust deniers or someone who screams "kill the gays! or kill the blacks!"
And about the commies, you are wrong. One of the key ingredients to their reign of terror was the hate speech. People HAD to hate Europeans, Americans, rich people, kids of reach people in the monarchy, rock music, gays (that too), minorities, religious people etc. And the commies rose to power also with hate speech.
About what I should read, I study politics so I am very aware of the crimes of the French revolution. As I am aware of the slaughter of the Indians in America. As I said before, every country has an extremely dark pages in their history. But my impression is that, even if you check the UK, or even the USA, the politics are generally going to the center-left and very liberal socially. Of course, I am not a prophet, but I do believe that this will continue. As a citizen of the EU-member I believe that the European model is the best and sooner or later more countries will see it :)

[Hondo]

F1boat is probably right about the EU system working for them but what seldom gets thrown into the debate are the sizes and the populations involved. I admit I have no hands-on experience but I'll bet it's easier to govern Finland or Bulgaria or Luxembourg, etc., than it is to govern New York City or Los Angeles or Texas, much less the entire United States. Those little economic unions are the only way they can prolong their existance before being "absorbed" by another country, again.

As far as a charmed speaker whipping up the masses goes, he can use any subject he wants and yes, in this day and age jews, homosexuality, and immigrants will still work. It only depends on what has got the population bothered and how well he can package his sales job.

[F1boat]

Well, Fiero, there are pretty big countries in the EU as well... like France, Germany, they ain't small :)

[Hondo]

Well, Fiero, there are pretty big countries in the EU as well... like France, Germany, they ain't small :)

Again, I hear you boat but, according to my sources, France is 211000 sq miles in area. German is 137847 sq miles in area. Those are both entire nations. Texas is 269000 sq miles in area. Texas is one state in a nation of 50 states, and still not the biggest state.

So to us, France and Germany are not large countries.

[chuck34]

THAT's it!!! You got it now....no matter how stupid the other guy is or how racist he is in his speech, it is just speech....you can choose not to be offended and just walk away.

EXACTLY my point!

[chuck34]

Definetly not true. Speech can be very harmful, as I said. I would never accept Holocaust deniers or someone who screams "kill the gays! or kill the blacks!"
And about the commies, you are wrong. One of the key ingredients to their reign of terror was the hate speech. People HAD to hate Europeans, Americans, rich people, kids of reach people in the monarchy, rock music, gays (that too), minorities, religious people etc. And the commies rose to power also with hate speech.
About what I should read, I study politics so I am very aware of the crimes of the French revolution. As I am aware of the slaughter of the Indians in America. As I said before, every country has an extremely dark pages in their history. But my impression is that, even if you check the UK, or even the USA, the politics are generally going to the center-left and very liberal socially. Of course, I am not a prophet, but I do believe that this will continue. As a citizen of the EU-member I believe that the European model is the best and sooner or later more countries will see it :)


So where's the line? You say it's ok to limit someone's speech so that they can't say "I hate blacks" and other nonsence. Then it's also ok to limit someones right to practice their religion. Do you not see that it is then a small quick step to your commie example of banning rock music, etc.? Do you honestly not see that once you start down the path of limiting speech that it is a slippery slope that leads to all the oppression that you saw under the Communists? After all the Communists also limited the free practice of religion, a position that you don't seem to have much of a problem with.

[Mark]

Again, I hear you boat but, according to my sources, France is 211000 sq miles in area. German is 137847 sq miles in area. Those are both entire nations. Texas is 269000 sq miles in area. Texas is one state in a nation of 50 states, and still not the biggest state.

So to us, France and Germany are not large countries.

Texas, population, 24 milion.
Germany, population, 82 million.

It's less about land area and more about how many people you are dealing with.

[Hondo]

WOW! Those suckers need to ease up on the breeding over there.

And I thought Texas was getting crowded...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

WOW! Those suckers need to ease up on the breeding over there.

And I thought Texas was getting crowded...

Ease up? We have an aging population over here!

I think it is your country that is dangerously underpopulated for its size! :p

[edv]

You guys know nothing of under-population LOL

In Saskatchewan, they say you can still see your dog running away 3 days later....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Again, I hear you boat but, according to my sources, France is 211000 sq miles in area. German is 137847 sq miles in area. Those are both entire nations. Texas is 269000 sq miles in area. Texas is one state in a nation of 50 states, and still not the biggest state.

So to us, France and Germany are not large countries.

I would also wager that in many ways, having less population is worse in a large area. Canada has 2 people per square mile officially. For the most part, we are so spread apart even with us all near the US border that the cost of running Canada on an infrastructure level is an issue. A compact nation with lots of people is a different issue.

Europe works because after 2 colossal wars in the last 100 years they have finally figured out how to get along.....

Still what you have to grasp Boat is free speech shouldn't be messed with. If someone says they hate Blacks or Jews, you ridicule them or ignore them, but you NEVER ban them from saying it. You say the Communists got power from using words? Wrong...they took power with the guns of the Russians backing them. Words were thrown on to justify their telling you how to live and how it was going to be, but it wasn't words that pulled you out of bed in the middle of night if you ran afoul of the powers that be. It was your words that scared them...and THAT is why you never endorse the government banning speech. When you give them THAT power, your lose your freedom to disagree.

[F1boat]

Still what you have to grasp Boat is free speech shouldn't be messed with. If someone says they hate Blacks or Jews, you ridicule them or ignore them, but you NEVER ban them from saying it.

No and no. If a person rallies crowds to kill with that speech, if someone commits suicide because hate speech made the society hostile to him, then all abstract ideas about free speech turn hollow. I agree that one should have the freedom to criticize government, ideology, politics, religion, lack of religion, celebrities etc. In most cases, in 99% of the cases, I'd agree that ridiculing it will be the best choice. But hate speech, no. IMO racist, antisemitic and homophobic speeches ought to be forbidden. That's my opinion and its not gonna change. Sorry.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No and no. If a person rallies crowds to kill with that speech, if someone commits suicide because hate speech made the society hostile to him, then all abstract ideas about free speech turn hollow. I agree that one should have the freedom to criticize government, ideology, politics, religion, lack of religion, celebrities etc. In most cases, in 99% of the cases, I'd agree that ridiculing it will be the best choice. But hate speech, no. IMO racist, antisemitic and homophobic speeches ought to be forbidden. That's my opinion and its not gonna change. Sorry.

Well that is your opinion, and that is too an indication of free speech. Just remember tho, if you take a bigot's words to heart, you are giving him the power to affect you. Never do that....

[Rollo]

But hate speech, no. IMO racist, antisemitic and homophobic speeches ought to be forbidden. That's my opinion and its not gonna change. Sorry.

Hate speech, sedition, libel, slander and obscenity are regulated and or prohibited in virtually every western country either by direct legislation or implication.

Actually to be fair the most racist, antisemitic and homophobic speeches are made by two certain groups of people living within the vicinity of Jerusalem.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hate speech, sedition, libel, slander and obscenity are regulated and or prohibited in virtually every western country either by direct legislation or implication.

Actually to be fair the most racist, antisemitic and homophobic speeches are made by two certain groups of people living within the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Hate speech, sedition, libel, slander and obscenity are all different things. Free speech means being able to speak your opinion freely, no matter how stupid it is. Where people trying to legislate hate speech get themselves into trouble is the fact that it is a political decision to decide what is "hate" speech.

How does one define and enforce hate speech? If I call all people living in Manchester a bunch of loons and I HATE them, is that hate speech? If I say all Jews are evil and should be killed is that hate speech? Or if I say all people who cheer for the Montreal Canadien's a bunch of morons who should be shot, is THAT HATE speech?*** I could feel VERY strongly about all of those, or none of those, but only ONE of those statements be considered hate speech. However, if I lived in Saudi Arabia or Iran, they might pin a medal on me for that middle one, or make me President. Hate speech is a dangerous thing to try to legislate.

Here, Canada has a hate speech provision in the law, and as much as I find the goal noble, I disagree with the idea. If the holocaust denier Ernst Zundel wanted to run around spouting his nonsense, that was repugent to me, but I didn't see where we should be deporting him back to his native Germany when there are people in this country who advocate hatred towards gays and Jews in the Muslim community on a daily basis and skate for it. We had a journalist hoisted in front of a "tribunal" of the Canadian Human rights Board because he wrote a book talking about the Muslim population bomb in Europe (if you look at reproductive rates of Muslims in Europe vs the native citizens, he had a point) that a Muslim group didn't like. That journalist had to spend a lot of money to "defend" himself for having an opinion that some in the Muslim community didn't like. Hate speech is a nebulous concept.

I get why people want to legislate against "hate" speech, but you don't change what is in the hearts and heads, and you are not stopping people from hating anything. Sedition, slander and the like are the way's society holds people to account for the stupid things they say, but it still remains vital that people CAN say and do stupid things within reason. When a society starts defining what is "hateful", it starts restricting people to just disagree with the status quo. That is far different than just having laws for libel and slander because a political correctness factor comes in and pretty soon, you have legitimate dissent being muzzled by the powers that be.

*** I by no means endorce hating people from Manchester, they are actually quite nice, and the same for Jews, who I have defended always and...oh well, I don't always like Montreal Canadien's fans, but I do have many as friends despite their obvious blind spot when it comes to hockey teams!!!!

[Hondo]

You guys know nothing of under-population LOL

In Saskatchewan, they say you can still see your dog running away 3 days later....

I love that! I'm gonna steal it too!

[Mark in Oshawa]

You guys know nothing of under-population LOL

In Saskatchewan, they say you can still see your dog running away 3 days later....

Fiero is stealing it, but Pat Burns said that to a Winnipeg journalist when he was coaching the Leafs on his opinion of Manitoba.

People from the US or Europe are often just not aware of how much nothing we have in this country once you get out of a few pockets of population....

[F1boat]

Hate speech, sedition, libel, slander and obscenity are regulated and or prohibited in virtually every western country

I know :) It will be good if it stays that way :)
BTW, Mark I'd really love to visit Canada. It sounds like a very cool country!

[Mark in Oshawa]

I know :) It will be good if it stays that way :)
BTW, Mark I'd really love to visit Canada. It sounds like a very cool country!

It is very cool. I looked up Bulgaria on the Wiki, and learned a bit myself about your nation. You get up my way, you have to let me know...or if you decide to vacation here or the US, I can give you tips for sure....

Watch the Winter Olympics for the cool part of the country in the far west. It doesn't look like that here...lol..but hey, It doesn't suck either...lol.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It is very cool. I looked up Bulgaria on the Wiki, and learned a bit myself about your nation. You get up my way, you have to let me know...or if you decide to vacation here or the US, I can give you tips for sure....

Watch the Winter Olympics for the cool part of the country in the far west. It doesn't look like that here...lol..but hey, It doesn't suck either...lol.

All of Canada's cool at this time of year I thought!

[Mark in Oshawa]

All of Canada's cool at this time of year I thought!

Touche...well, Vancouver itself I bet is around 5 or 10 c somedays in winter....and Victoria actually has a quite the English like climate...but the rest of the country can be freezing its collective tail off....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Touche...well, Vancouver itself I bet is around 5 or 10 c somedays in winter....and Victoria actually has a quite the English like climate...but the rest of the country can be freezing its collective tail off....

I saw the Arctic Top Gear the other day where they start on their polar journey from Resolute. I can't imaging that people would actually live up there in the wilderness.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I saw the Arctic Top Gear the other day where they start on their polar journey from Resolute. I can't imaging that people would actually live up there in the wilderness.

Not many do, but Inuit will. Mind you, I think Resolute isn't one of their favourite spots either.

The amount of mineral wealth that could be up there however keeps people going up and looking around. The high arctic, like where the Top Gear boys went likely will never be the home of a mine or any oil/gas wells, but the nearctic, in places like Inuvik, Tuktayktuk, Iqualit, Rankin Inlet and the like are actually places where the Inuit have done quite well melding some of the white man's world with their native traditions. The fact there is some mineral extraction, and in the Mackenzie Delta oil/gas means jobs up there.

It isn't my cup of tea, I hate it when it gets below -10 C here, and up there, they see weeks of -30 or -40C...but I do know the money up there for working contract skilled work can pay VERY well....

[F1boat]

Well, I'd love to see the nature, the big towns, the Niagara falls and of course the wondrous Canadian GP. I hope that one day I'd be able to do so.

[Hondo]

I know :) It will be good if it stays that way :)
BTW, Mark I'd really love to visit Canada. It sounds like a very cool country!

But don't want to visit me...prejudice of a high order I suspct...

[anthonyvop]

Hate speech, sedition, libel, slander and obscenity are regulated and or prohibited in virtually every western country either by direct legislation or implication.


Hate Speech, Whatever that is, is not banned nor regulated in the U.S. You are free to espouse any vile, illogical, ignorant or stupid statement you wish.

How else would you explain the Democratic party?

[F1boat]

But don't want to visit me...prejudice of a high order I suspct...

I think that I can't understand you...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think that I can't understand you...

Fiero is feeling hurt you don't want to come visit him me thinks..lol

AS for Niagara Falls, it is 2 hours drive from me and the Canadian GP is 5 hours to the east. Heck...I would be insulted if you went to both and didn't stop for a beer...lol

[Hondo]

Fiero is feeling hurt you don't want to come visit him me thinks..lol

AS for Niagara Falls, it is 2 hours drive from me and the Canadian GP is 5 hours to the east. Heck...I would be insulted if you went to both and didn't stop for a beer...lol

Don't fall for that crap, Boat. Mark has a little pet monkey that sneaks up and takes money out of your pocket while you're drinking your beer.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Don't fall for that crap, Boat. Mark has a little pet monkey that sneaks up and takes money out of your pocket while you're drinking your beer.

Now THAT's hurtful....I would never bring my pet monkey to the bar...I would have the pet gorilla mug him when he walked outside...

[F1boat]

Hah, if I visit Canada, I'll call ya :)
Fiero, I'd like to visit your country as well! But I dunno where you live and besides all this wishes are kinda fantasy now. But yes, for sure I'd like to see many places in the USA as well, New York, L.A., Miami, some small towns, like Forks (I'm a Twilight fan LOL), and - naturally - of course - for sure ;) - THE INDY 500.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hah, if I visit Canada, I'll call ya :)
Fiero, I'd like to visit your country as well! But I dunno where you live and besides all this wishes are kinda fantasy now. But yes, for sure I'd like to see many places in the USA as well, New York, L.A., Miami, some small towns, like Forks (I'm a Twilight fan LOL), and - naturally - of course - for sure ;) - THE INDY 500.

Forks (the town they use in Twilight) is up in some little out of the way place up in Washington State. A few hours from Seattle. I wouldn't waste my time...lol

Fiero I think is in Texas but I could be wrong...

[wedge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm

How true is this?

[anthonyvop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm

How true is this?
100% wrong.

His premise is that the Obamacare program was a benefit to all voters when in fact it was only a benefit to welfare recipients and certain well connected unions.

[Alexamateo]

"Voting against one's own interest" is purely a political opinion of course. I could say the same thing to people who favor a public health system. There are always unintended consequences.

An example would be the Americans with Disabilities Act. Designed to give protections to the disabled, it actually increased the unemployment rate of the disabled. By raising the costs if something goes wrong, it actually reduced employers willing to give someone a chance to prove themselves.

A real life example illustrating this:

My former employer hired a deaf guy in one of their Florida sites who was a terrible worker so they let him go. He sued and drug them to court leading them to settle to avoid incurring further fees the legal nightmare of trying to defend themselves. So now "hearing" is now a job requirement because on construction sites beiing around heavy equipment is too dangerous because you could get run over if your back is turned etc. etc.

So, an insightful person with disablilties might realize that some things designed to help actually do more harm in the long run, and vote against it, even though it appears "counter to their own interest."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Alex, a lot of what goes on is social engineering to "help" people but it really does nothing but hurt those it is trying to help through unintended consequences and naivety on how the world works.

It is why I dislike any politician that always claims their program will solve all ills. Usually it either rewards public sector unions, a business lobby or the political party advocating it. IT also usually is an expensive unsustainable entitlement that will be a political football...

No...the US healthcare debate wasn't quite so simple, because I do think now there is some room for reform, but I am sure the current advocates would just make a mess out of this that everyone will pay for while a few benefit.