peter_puck

We don't live in an ideal world. There are very few Paul Bernardos, but a whole lot of Islamic militants. We are having a debate about this particular terrorist scumbag because he is from a western country. There are thousands and thousands of others who are not ? Are we supposed to spend a million dollars a pop to jail each of them ? Are we supposed to reveal all our intelligence to the Al Queda terrorist so he can get a "fair trial" ? Our we supposed to reveal who let us know he was a terrorist so his buddies can behead the informants entire family, infants and all ?

Yes, highway speeds do rise and fall, but the police account for that. For most of my adult life I have driven at least 20 Km/h over the speed limit on highways. I have been "painted" by police radar probably hundreds of times. How many tickets have I gotten ? ZERO Why? because I drove in a sane manner, I did not weave in and out of traffic, I did not speed in snow storms, I did not tailgate. It makes me wonder what the people getting the tickets were doing. As for speed not causing crashes - that is just silly. A car is harder to control at high speeds. It also does alot more dammage when it stops in a hurry.

Ummm...... It is more accurate. I have spent many minutes trying to figure out why it would not be ethical, but I have failed to come up with even a single reason. It is certainly more ethical than the concept of undercover cops and wiretaps (not that I am saying that either of those are unethical)

Not really. Which is worse, owing my wife $100 000 or owing the credit card company $100 000? Who is better off, someone who has $100 000 in assets and owes $50 000, or someone who owes $25000 but has not assets ?

I think the system needs to more transparent. If the prosecution can fire the judge for makinga ruling he doesn't like you have a problem, but its not clear what happened in this situation. The bottom line is, however, that you cannot try every Al Queda operative captured in a foreign land as you would a normal citizen. Some murder trials are now running into the millions of dollars. Imagine fighting world war two like that ? I think the system has to be transparent to prevent abuse, but I think the trials should be as quick and effecient as possible.

I did not say that the American public was any dumber than anyone else - in general. Study after study, however, has shown them to know less about the world than the people in any other country. They do studies every once and a while asking people to point out a continent on a globe. US looses that competition by a long shot. This is not related to intelligence, just geography and history. This is no better illustrated than by Bush being able to convince people there is a connection between Al Queda and Saddam. Most US citizens don't seem to have a clue what Al Queda is about, therefore they fall for that sort of crap. As for Gulf War sanctions - I think they were a dam good idea. They were effective in preventing Saddam from rearming or getting WMD's. Had they just been left in place, Saddam would have died of old age and the world would be a much safer place.

Pierre Trudeau, as much as I dislike a lot of his politics was a extremly bright man. To compare his to Bush is like comparing foot fungus to Ebola.

He will leave office a hated man. Possibly the worst president of all time. I don't think that legacy will sit well with him.

No, the other poster said that the real reason for the invasion should have been told to the American people. I pointed out what the real reason was, and that if it was explained, nobody would be interested. I just got a piece of spam telling me that I could increase my gas millage by putting these stuipid pills in my gas tank. I may buy them because I feel they will work, but the guy that is selling them may be doing so because he wants to rip people off and spend the money on Russian hookers. If he advertised the real reason he wanted to sell me the crap, I would not buy it. Same with Bush. Bush said he was going to Iraq because of weapons of mass distruction and a Iraq-Al Queda link. When it comes to international affairs the US public is as dumb as those guys who buy the gas pills. How many times did the Bush administration say "This is not about oil" ? I can see on the surface the logic of this arguement, and I know lots of people thought like this. But, it has accomplished the exact opposite of what it intended. The US has spend ooodles of money and tied down/worn out its military. Iran and North Korea have left the reservation because they are not as afraid of the US as they used to be. Iraqs oil production is no where near what normal output should be. The US is in no position to control those resources once it leaves. The US is also very unpopular all over the country.

If people understood what was at stake in Iraq, they would never have voted for the idiot-in-chief. In Iraq, all that was at stake was the Bush legacy, both his and his father's. Really, what sort of threat was Iraq to the US ? Saddam and Al Queda were bitter enemies. There are graves all over Iraq full of Al Queda types that dissappeared in the middle of the night under Saddam's regime. Saddam served to contain Iran, another bitter enemy of the US. Saddam had a military that the US could smush like a bug. Unlike Iran and Syria, he had no WMD's. Now, you have Al Queda being able to get recruits which, until the US invasion, was one of the most secular in the middle east. Iran has left the reservation, with a REAL nuclear weapons program. Islamic terrorist organizations are seeing their ranks swell from people's reaction to the invasion.

It amazes me that even when his conservative allies turn against him, some people can find a way to believe Bush is a victim of the leftist media.

Of course Bush is not running, but neither is Reverend Wright. They have managed to stick Wright to Obama, and I think it would be even easier to stick Bush to McCain. The Republicans got crushed in the last congressional elections because of Bush. Voters are stuipid. How many really understands the Obama health plan, or McCain's reasons for staying in Iraq. How many can comprehend the long term damage the current budget deficit is causing ? Attack ads work because they are simple. People understand "John Kerry" is a liar , "Obama is an uber Liberal", "Michael Dukakis is a cary carrying member of the ACLU" "Bob Dole is mean" they are very simple ideas that stick in peoples heads. All you need is lots of money to beat these simple ideas into peoples heads. In the past the money has come from the religious right, now it may come from the left. It really is unfair, but its the way things go. McCain probably hates Bush more than I do (he has very good reason) but the Democrats will probably be able to paint him as a Bush clone. I really hope it doesn't happen though. McCain should have been

Personally, I think that Canada owes an apology to the entire Kadr family. The reason I say this is because their 6 yearold cousin has an AK-47 pointed at my head. If it were not for that, I would advocate shipping them back to the rock under which they came.

As a country they do not have the debt problem the US does. If you take government debt as a percentage of GDP, the Japans debt is greater than the US, but you have to look at the whole picture. You have to look at consumer debt and corporate debt, as well as where the government debt is held. In consumer and corporate debt, the US kicks ass (in a bad way). Even if you look at the government debt, you should consider external vs internal debt. Japan holds a huge percentage of its own debt. The government may have large amounts of debt, but it is owned by Japenese people (Ie they have SAVINGS!!) . Where in the US, debt is owned by the Chinese while the average citizen owns 10K in credit card debt (I just made that figure up as an illustration). If you look at this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_external_debt Japan would rank near the bottom if you did external debt per capita. The US has roughly 15 to 20 times the amount of external debt the US does (per person).

Bush bashing is a great corner stone! He is about the most hated/incompetent US president in history. In the last congressional elections, Republican candiates avoid him like the plague. Besides, negative politics is the only thing that works any more. The massive negative campaigns of the Bush camp managed to get an utter lightweight elected.

I guess it depends on your definition of superpower. It does not have nearly the navy/army/air force that the us does. In terms of the economy, they don't have the MASSIVE debts that the US has. They don't have the bloated welfare state, or the bloated prison system or the bloated rednecks commuting 50 miles in his hummer either. On the other hand, they don't have much in the way of natural resources. The US atleast has lots of coal, which will save it from becoming a third world country - no matter how much dammage Bush does.

Let me get this straight...Limbaugh thinks McCain is to far left, but that Colin Powell would make a good president ?He is clearly lying.

I think it would depend on who wins for the Democrats, and how. If Obama wins, Condi Rice might be useless. On the other hand, if Clinton wins because of the Super Delegates- Rice may be of help. It depends on the reaction of the conservatives as well. If the democratic candidate enrages conservatives base then he could afford a more mainstream running mate. On the other hand, if the base does not care anymore, he may need a conservative running mate. McCain is an outside the box sort of guy, I kinda think/hope it will be a suprise. I sure hope it ain't Huckabee

Bush got rid of Iran's worst military threat (Sadam). He helped fight Iran's greatest economic threat (the Kyoto (SP!) accord.) He helped deal with the greatest political threat (the moderates) by allowing the conservatives to claim Iran was "at war" with the US. He also allowed them to gain huge influence in Iraq. He put the US army in a position where Iran's proxy militia's could cause thousands of casualities. You think they supported him because they had a bad experience with Jimmy Carter ???

Umm not that Reagan was not one of the greatest US presidents - but he was suffering from Alzheimers near the end of his time in office.

While "over blown confidence combined with a false self sence of high intellect" describes him rather well, I don't think it makes him a drug user. He is really just a not-too-bright(in presidental terms) spoiled rich kid in over his head.

I was just trying to point out that Bush does not deserve ALL the blame. I am really dissapointed that otherwise fiscally conservative members of congress did not veto some of the Bush spending bills. Clinton should have tried to tackle oil dependence, but oil was at $20 a barrel and he probably could not have done much.

I could not agree more - his spending habits are worse than Clinton's. I blame every president since Nixon, but Bush is the only one who had the political climate to act. The future became clear with the rise of China (which he helped by letting them into the WTO)

He won the first election because of chads, supreme court justices and gobs of money and dirty politics. He won the second because he was a war time president (and gobs of money and dirty politics). If he was running again today, he would loose to that Reverend Wright goof. He has made massive blunders in the war on terror, Iraq, oil and the economy. He has racked up more debt than all the presidents before him combined (and started with a bigger surplus than any president before him). He has waged some of the sleaziest political campaigns in modern US history. He lost control of the house and senate. He has probably cemented the United States fall from great power status. (thought, to do anything about it, his father/ or Clinton would have probably tried to do something about it. What was this guys qualifications for the job anyway ? Bush senior was a long term senator, a vice president and a very bright guy. I am not a fan of Clinton, but he was a very bright man who brought himself from nothing. Same with Obama, same with McCain (who would have been ending his 2nd term if not for the sleaze unleashed on him by Bush and his allies during the last race.). As I see it, the only real qualifications this guy had were A) who his daddy was, The willingness to kiss (french) the ass of the social conservatives.

Of course it is a supply problem. The price of oil is at $115 a barrel all over the world. Okay..lets agree with your theory then, that environmental government regulations have stopped all these new refineries in the US. Why would someone not just built one in Mexico......or Canada....or Hati...and shipped the refined product to the US. Pipelines already exist near Sarnia (and probably other places). The problem is that the oil companies know that production ain't gonna get above current levels, so why add capacity when the plants will sit unused. Again, this does not effect the price of oil in the United States. The price of oil is GLOBAL. If the Chinese take oil from Cuba and ship it to China, then thats one less barrel of oil that they buy from Nigeria - which is then shipped to the United States. This is a weird little strawman. I have heard few environmentalists talking about prices one day going down. Thats been the oil companies.