planetx

issues that would have to be addressed. all do-able.... ALL. if this came to nation wide referendum then it would win hands down! the fact is, with most political parties supporting status quo then there is no ‘political will’. with the system of handicapped democracy that we live in then the ‘will’ will have to come from grass roots. don’t even mention cuba. that’s better left for another thread. lets talk about Venezuela. a democracy that have decided to take their black gold back! lets talk about saudi arabia, a totalitarian regime that the u.s. has no problems dealing with.

its just a convenience... provide a reference that disputes it! you won't find one!

A. charvez has poverty rates dropped to 37% from 49% since taking office. the saudi's will have _only_ money? yeah, trillions and trillions for the next hundred frickin years as the price per barrel goes through the roof! B. maybe not 12 cents, but the tar sands are in the blank from $18 a barrel C. thats what nationalizing a resource as important as oil means. giving everyone the same price in canada... its hardly any money at all as we'd still be making big money on export profits. albertans won't be giving up the high paying work. actually, albertans don't have to give up anything at all!

so what can we do about it when 'party' politics has its wallets lined with big oil money?!

want cheap gas? all candians have to do is... take it back! its our, isn't it? lets follow the lead of venezuela where gas is $.12 a gallon! and venezuela recently told big oil to get lost! its quite simple, tell big oil in the west and the irvings in the east that they've had their fun, they can all retire billionairs to their off shore paradises! but get lost! its amazing how few canadians know that once the price of a barrel of oil passed $18 then canada is the second richest oil country on the planet! rice is cheap in china, but on the east coast the irvings import oil because they have no interests in the oil sands! what the heck?! we are being gouged like there is not tomorrow! for decades big oil has been buying everything downstream from them… they drill for oil, refine it and sell it at the pumps. they have thousands of accountants working on how to increase profits! all the talk you hear in the media about lack of refineries, capacity etc… its all garbage! its all a big fog to hide how prices at the pumps rise so quickly. like that has nothing to do with oil company profits rising so quickly! most canadians have no idea of the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves while saudi arabia is the second biggest producer of oil, oil revenue there means that there is no personal income tax! secondary education and books are free! free health care that is second to none! as canadians we should be asking... are we enjoying such fruits? when will we be? don’t be so stupid to believe it!

He should unask it. His question is based on ignorance of underlying premises. It's as if I went to Hawking and asked him why black holes don't just get sown up. i'll ask it again.... because the type of responses we're receiving here is indicative of the problem. why is it that conservatives do not seem to be allowed to criticize neo conservative policies? of course, i think i know the answer. because neoconservatism defines that they cannot. its the new world and you are either playing with the team or you are out.

this is an extremely interesting article about the man and his actions in 'the house'. every american should read it... http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/ "Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance."

Yeah the dems are proof of that, and Clinton didn't think it mattered when he was under oath. hey, at least he took the oath... i guess this situation is what chenney is thinking about. "gee clinton lied under oath and got fried, i'm not doing that, i just won't take the oath"! :-)

i'm not an expert.... but whats your point exactly.

False Premise. Many paleo consevatives are not keen on the Neo-conservatives. sorry, maybe I need to explain my interest better.... my interest is in the absolute support of current neoconservative activities by people who describe themselves as 'conservatives'. are other stripes of conservatives a total minority now? neoconservatism seems to debase all criticisms, even those of other conservatives, as ‘liberal’ (the new communism).

its obvious that neoconservatism and conservatism are quite different... neoconservatism has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism for example. so what do people who are conservative immediately support neoconservatism? is it just ignorance?

The "not in public" I could go along with, and they don't have to be worried about transcripts if they've got nothing to hide, but since they want it to be "not under oath," evidently they do have something to hide. That pretty much says they are planning on not telling the truth. very good point... what he is saying is "if one of us lies then i don't want there to be anyway that we can be punished for that"

has the war in iraq been worth the money spent? i believe the answer is a definitive 'no'. the conservative movement in the u.s. have a lot of work ahead of them in attempts to distance themselves from the neocon fiscal fiasco which is the iraq war. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business...7a6408c&ei=5090

should any elected official expect the trust of his constituents if his attitude is “not under oath, not in public, no transcript”? http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/cheney.lkl/index.html

maybe a collapse of conservatism in american is absolutely necessary if politics are to get back to actual conservative values. not the springboard for the corruptive absolute control of the most powerful country in the world which is what ann's remarks provide for. any 'conservative' who justifies ann's remarks is either a freak who supports every word or someone attempting to support conservatism by looking for that grain of true conservative value. its the true conservatives who should be upset by people like ann affiliating themselves with that thought.

in general, i believe that this small group of men who took control of the most powerful country on earth have failed in their grand plan. a plan to change the u.s. government in a way that provided them with no restrictions on their actions and to create a virtual hegemony towards the 'new american empire'. i suspect that a number of factors have brought these men down including a lack if success in iraq and the fact that liberty is ingrained too deeply in american life and values. essentially, these men have been overpowered by democracy because they were unable to control it to the degree necessary. these men have been overpowered by freedom of speach because they were unable to control it to the degree necessary. ideally, these men would have liked to push the u.s. to dictatorship. but americans have had too much liberty for this to ever come to fruition despite any kind of exterior threat that can be created or imagined. the tactics used to exert control for the 'new american empire' are simple and found throughout history. but the united stated of the 21st century is not germany of the 1930's or some frail african democracy or anything of that nature.

what has yet to be touched upon is the fact that the sentence as given represents the fact that scooter has refused to provide information that would provide investigators with further information into a criminal investigation. just after the sentencing, bush indicated that he had no plans to get involved. polls and public opinion are certainly not in favour at the moment. whats changed? the white house is in total stonewall mode at the moment. from millions of 'lost emails' to confrontation regarding requests for internal materials with subjects ranging from this case to the u.s. attorneys office firings and the case for the iraq war. to anyone sensible, scooter is taking the fall for the vice president or even the president (but most likely the vp). i suspect that scooter has made it clear that the president will step in otherwise he could talk. in general, i believe that this small group of men who took control of the most powerful country on earth have failed in their grand plan. a plan to change the u.s. government in a way that provided them with no restrictions on their actions and to create a virtual hegemony towards the 'new american empire'. while a better topic for a new thread, i suspect that a number of factors have brought these men down including iraq and the fact that liberty is ingrained too deeply in american life and values.

of course they have an option! pull out of all occupied territories! release all prisoners of war! appologize! begin the process of financially helping those countries that they harmed realize the potential they may have had had they not been under military occupation for 30 years! the attacks will not end immediately. but with time they can become a peace loving country. but they must give up on the idea that they can expand their borders so that every jew in the world can come and enjoy the kind of elbow room that they enjoy in europe, the usa etc etc...

bush is the frickin cheney hand puppet. cheney is doing a great job for his constituents... of course, his constituents are oil companies and arms manufacturers.

would it not be polite to urge the un to abandon such sites that are close to active targets?

gee, must be rough living in a country with so many socialist structures like common roadways, parks, electricity, sewer, water, telephone. and when natural resources like wood, water, minerals and even oil are publicly held... how infuriating! suggest you move to somewhere where these things are owned by somebody. ps. the terrorists are the extremists... you are the terrorist.

actually, wikipedia is even more informative re neo-conservatism: "Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, supported civil equality for blacks and other minorities, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles even if that meant unilateral action. Indeed, domestic policy does not define neoconservatism — it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism. Broadly sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite." this essentially places many of those who may believe that thay are neo-conservatives in the wrong camp entirely. neo-conservatives are _not_ antiliberalists!

from wikipedia: Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism. conservative extremists are winning the war of words because they are able to use words like 'communist' and 'marxist' and _now_even_ 'liberal' as bad words! time to bring the word 'fascist' back into use to describe conservative extremists. 'neo-con' just doesn't cut it... extremists are the true enemy of the people.

when are the name callers going to wake up and realize that 'left' is not 'communist' and 'conservative' is not 'neo-con'.

wow, sweet... i'm joining the communist party! thanks for the heads-up!