Black Dog

Well, we xcan also look at Bush's legions of failures as president (notably pissing away the largest surplus in history, misleading the public to justify a poorly planned and executed war, alowing the alleged perpatrator of the biggest mass murder in U.S. history to escape). I'm curious: you've been quick to slag of Bush's detractors without evidence, yet overlook the glaring evidence of his failings, something I can only ascribe to idealogical blindness. Translation: "I can't counter any arguments with facts or evidence, only irrational faith in the system and my chosesn political doctrine, therefore I'll simply deem those who oppose me "irrelevant". If you mean "clueless" as in "out of touch with reality", you may, sadly, have a point. However, I personally perfer world leaders who project the qualities of a world leader, not the local dog catcher.

Pure irrational hatred. I rest my case. If your case was "I'm a moron" you'd have the jury convinced. But you haven't refuted any of Argus' claims (Bush's performance in academia and business is well-documented). You're just contradicting him without any evidence. Indeed you seem to have an irrational affection for Bush that borders on blind faith. Well, Bush is nothing if not a uniter. On this thread alone, a libertarian anarchist, a conservative and a social democrat all are united in their disdain for Bush. That speaks volumes.

How thick are you? I don't care what bloody religion the President follows in his personal life, so long as those beliefs don't dictate policy. Bush is not that president. Bush doesn't even fit Christ's definition of what a Christian should be. No one is claiming religion was the "sole" cause. If you have a citation, by al means, let's see it. Real unemployment is much higher. Unemployment figures don't include people who are unemployed but have given up looking for work, or people whose unemployment benefits have run out. Factor in an additional, what, 5 million peole in jail? and you have a false picture for the U.S. economy. Actually that sounds more like George "I truly am not that concerned about (Osama bin Laden)" Bush.

The above personaes are total media fabrications. I watched the debates and numerous speechs and saw Kerry as a strong, confident speaker, in contrast to Bush, who smirked and stammered his way through the debates and pounded out stale platitude after stale platitude. But in this age of instant punditss, the establishment media has a way of fooling people into denying what their own eyes and ears tell them. Bullshit. The Kerry campaign pointed out the obvious failings of the Bush administration, while the Bush camp hammered away at the fear button, convincing Americans that a vote for Kerry would essentially guarantee a terrorist attack. You can't get much more irrational than that.

Because, as I pointed out, Bush in a position to impose those beliefs on others. I'm only intolerant of people who distort the teachings of Christ or Mohammad, or whoever,when they try to use their views to deny rights to others or, to paraphrase Hugo, use violence and coercion to punish people for their lifestyles, sexual preferences or habits, or to expropriate their belongings, or wage a "just war". Hold up. You mentioned the moral/rel;igious factor in your very first post when you stated: Now you seem to be backpedaling away from that claim. (Not to mention that you still haven't supplied any examples of the democrats bashing religion.) If the economy is so good, where are all the goo djobs? If Iraq isn't so bad, why is the violence there showing no signs of letting up? If Bush is so trustworthy, why has he lied to the American people so many times?

Which really speaks to the larger point, which is that religion and moral beliefs are personal, private matters. You brought it up by saying: Now, I know you don't have any examples of this. It's a straw man. But the point seems to be Americans voted for Bush because they agree with his moral/religious stance. Be that is it may, the fact remains that morality and religion are, as I said above, deeply personal issues that cannot and should not be legislated. However, it's the expectation of the religious right/"family values" that Bush will do just that by, for example, banning gay marriage, etc. Hence my utter distate and loathing for Bush and the faux-Christians who would support him.

No he didn't. As Hugo pointed out, the money changers were trespassing, using the Templre premises for personal gain. Christ's singular act of violence thus remains entirely consistent with all his other teachings. The kind of Christianity you defend has little in common with Christ's teachings: indeed, the following passage could refer to the White House's current denizens.

I feel the same way about the U.S. religious right as characterized by folks like George Bush, Pat Robertson etc., as I do about the Taliban. The only hypocrites are those who defend one and demonize another without seeing the commonality between them. Like the false Christians, you are twisting the scripture for your own purposes. I think the "real" Christ would probably react in a similar way to those who make a mockery of his teachings today to support their political agendas of fear, ignorance and greed.

Bad analogy. Let's call the bar the couple were kicked out of teh Republican party. Let's say they head across the street to the Democrat bar, only to be refused service there as well. Different managers, different establishments, same policies. You are simply condfusing the difference in brand names with an actual difference in the product. Of course, both are toothpastes, both do the same job and, unlike the two mainstream parties, both leave your mouth feeling minty fresh. Yours is a difference without a distinction.

The false Christianity most Americans (Bush included) ascribe to is grounded in bigotry and intolerance. I think it's OK to bash anyone who touts a theocracy. I don't care if they are Christian, Muslim or Rastafarian: religion has no place in public discourse. If that's offensive, well, tough.

The majority of Americans at one time valued slavery. That doesn't make it right. The regressive brand of fundamentalist Christianity peddled by Bush et al is a vile thing, majority or not. Bush started teh war with Iraq which is chewing up American lives daily and providing massive fodder for anti-American sentiment the world over. The big winners of this election are folks like Osama bin Laden. The Democrats long ago sacrificed any principles they might have had. Maybe this defeat will be a signal to them to go back to their roots as the party of the downtrodden and the working class, as opposed to the current Republican Lite brand. But I doubt it.

On the bright side, we in Canada can expect to see a "brain gain" as intelligent Americans come north and leave the States to the Bible-thumpers.

Hi-larious. Bush used the same tactics as the Liberals here: demonizing his opponent and playing the fear card, yet this earns him praise from Canadian conservatives. This just goes to show that conservatives have no principles, only an unending lust for power and control.

Your example makes my point: both choices are identical, will accomplish the same task and serve the same purpose. The only difference is in the packaging. Therefore, since there is no difference between the alternatives, choice is an illusion.

And having done so in record numbers, the citizenry can now sit back down on their collective asses and wait four years for the next opportunity to select their favorite empty platitudes and jingoistic rhetoric. Another quotation that is particularily relevant today:

Kerry lost because Bush, though a demonstratable failure with no clear policies or direction, used the politics of fear to project the image of a strong leader, proving once again that a lie, repeated often enough, becomes true. It's a sad day for America and the world. The America of four years from now will be far worse off; a deeply divided pariah-state. How many more of her sons will die in foreign sands? How many more will go hungry, lose jobs and livliehoods? How many more will sicken and die in the wealthiest country on earth?How much more poison will be poured into the land, air and water? Hatred of Bush is far from irrational. It is a hatred of greed, war, bigotry, corruption, waste, ignorance, and fear.

If there's no fundamental difference, then there is no alternative, is there? As Gore Vidal said, there's only one party in America, the Property Party, with two right wings. The only difference lies in the platitudes that ooze out of the respective candidates. How can you tout a sytem where people are given such a choice? A system with a two-tiered electorate? A system so easy to corrupt? There are other democracies in the world, functioning democracies that make the U.S. look like the backwards, oligarchal state that it is.

What were you smoking, man? It's still up in the air. Yeah, a choice between two rich, white, Ivy League educated male Skull and Bones members representing parties with little discernable difference in platforms. And a system where the average voter's choice ultimately means nothing. I sincerly hope that someday the U.S. and Canada will take their place among the true democracies of the world. But that day is stil a long way off. Longer if Bush wins.

Hitler's Nazis gained power through the democratic process. However, by the time the "Final Solution" was enacted, that process had been dismantled by the Nazis through the Enabling Act. As for the Patriot Act, the circumstances by which it was put in place bear many similarities with Hitler's Enabling Act. Both were put in place following a national emergency (9-11/reichstag Fire), both expanded government powers and curtailed civil liberties.

Based on yesterday's happenings on the gridiron, it looks like a Kerry win.

How many have been captured or killed? Beats me. OBL is looking pretty fit. I wonder how many others have signed up? There were 17,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan as of July (with that number expected to shrink to 13,000). There's an additional 2,500 troops from other countries, which still leaves a significant shortfall, given that the UN estimates it would take at least 30,000 to secure the country. In the meantime, there's 130,000 Americans bogged down in Iraq. Care to explain how, with OBL clearly still in the region of Afghanistan/Pakistan, having that many troop sin Iraq is helping bring him to justice?

Three years ago, Bush pledged to capture bin Laden "dead or alive". The latest video apperance by the Al Qaeda cheif demonstrates Bush's failure to hold those responsible for 9-11 accountable. Instead of hunting down and bringing bin Laden and his associates to justice, Bush moved the focus to Iraq, a country that posed no threat to the U.S. Why? Why would anyone consider Bush even remotely qualified to lead the fight against terrorism when his leadership to this point has been woefully inadeequate. Now, while America has not experienced an attack on its own soil since 9-11, global terrorism is, by the CIA's own admission, a significant threat.

Harry Strom lost to Lougheed in 1971, finishing 37 years of SoCred rule and beginning three decades of Tory dominance. Nothing wrong with free tuition, but Alberta has definitely been on the recieveing end of a brain gain.

The principle of employment equity is to give preference to qualified candidates who are members of an underrepresented minority. In other wordsa, if teh choice is between two equally qualified canddidates, one of wqhich is a white male and the other, say, an aboriginal woman, the latter would get the job. There seems to be a perception that such practices lead to minorities being hired willy-nilly, regardless of qualifications. I doubt that's the case.