yoyodyne

IMR, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but aren't these ideas somewhat contradictory? BD, I'm with you. The fetal homicide laws serve two purposes: one, to open the Roe v. Wade argument up and two, to placate the fundamentalist segment of the voting public. Everyone on the left talks of the doom of Roe v. Wade being overturned, but I'm not so sure. And I'm not so sure that the right really wants Roe v. Wade to go away, as it's such a nice windmill to tilt against. What do you think might happen if Roe v. Wade went away in the US?

Those are 40 million unwanted little teeny globs of protein. Had Roe v. Wade not been around, a significant portion of those 40 million would have ended up as unwanted and abused children. A significant portion of those would have ended up as criminals and would now be draining society as either active criminals, or as prison inmates. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/990812/abortion.shtml We've got enough people on this planet, period. We've finally found a good way to keep more people from getting on this planet. Just because some folks choose to follow the teachings of a 2000 year old book of fiction doesn't mean that it's in any way just or correct. And just because that 2000 year old book is interpreted by those in power to make abortion "morally wrong" doesn't mean that others couldn't spin other passages a completely different way. In fact, I would submit that many other religions would possibly condone abortion on the grounds that it would be stopping one life before it starts in order to save tens or hundreds of thousands of other lives. Other non-Judeo Christian religions don't make the distinction of "humans are superior to animals, so feel free to kill whatever you want for whatever reason you want." Taking any life, be it human or animal is wrong. Let me explain: a common rule of thumb is that human carnivores consume approximately 90 animals per year. We won't even count collateral damage of destroyed habitat, roadkill, added pollution, hunting, etc. I'm not sure that anyone has even quantified the amount of fresh water, energy and natural resources a human being consumes. Over the course of a typical lifetime, every extra human being will directly take the lives of 6000+ animals for food alone. From this standpoint, doesn't it make sense to stop one being before it can end the life of thousands? Personally if I had the choice between aborting a fetus or not, I'd rather have a few more acres of green space and a bunch more furry creatures than another future jackass SUV driver any day. Let's face it, abortion is an issue because the evangelical Christians (and particularly the Catholics) are making it an issue. The Catholics have been against birth control from the very beginning because it cuts into their business. Fewer babies mean fewer Catholics mean less money flowing into the church coffers. Abortion is simply an extention of this philosophy of "growing the business" for the church. One other interesting point (that has nothing to do with abortion) regarding the Catholic church and politics. The Catholic church talks in the same breath about abortion, the death penalty and war. At least I give them points for being consistent (and learning from the crusades) in that killing is wrong. Why is it that (according to the right) "killing" small fertilized lumps of protein is wrong, but killing prison inmates and many innocent foreign citizens is just ducky?

eureka, I agree completely with your world-shift and checks-and-balances idea. Europe may be the check in the system at the moment (kinda), but eventually it will probably be China that will be the other superpower, assuming that the US is still a superpower by the time China becomes one. I would also submit the idea that on a smaller scale, the Republicans in the US Government are in a similar situation, what with controlling the executive and legislative branches of government, and also have no check to keep them in line. This is a good time to be a rich Republican, and a bad time to be anyone else.

Why do I insist on trying to change people's viewpoints? Because I sincerely believe that most people in the US, if they just spent 20 minutes reading the facts about the last 3.5 years of Bush and the damage that he has inflicted on everyone except the extremely rich and large corporations, would actually change their minds. And here's the thing that I feel justifies my efforts: I voted for Bush I and Bush II. Yep, I was a registered Republican all of my life up until about 2 years ago. Once I started to see the corruption, the insider deals, the lack of respect for basic human rights, and the assault on the Bill of Rights, I knew I couldn't be a part of it anymore. It was a friend of mine that got me thinking and researching, and I believe that there are a lot of people that just don't realize what this administration is doing. If your only reason for voting for Bush is that you've always voted Republican, then you deserve to feel dumb. If your only reason for voting for Bush is because the only research you've done on the man that is in control of the US and indirectly an awful lot of the world is through radio talk shows and political ads, then you deserve to feel dumb. Voting is a responsibility, something that very directly affects your life and the lives of 7 billion other people. I'm just trying to get people to get over their old stereotypes of how political parties used to be, and get them to focus on what's going on now. If you believe that Republicans are the fiscally responsible party, you are misguided, and I think people just need to know the facts. If I may use an unfair stereotype back at you: Why is it that you Republicans/rightwingers insist on only listening to what you already think is right? Are you that afraid of having to admit you might be wrong? I invite examples of situations that Bush handled extraordinarily well regarding 9/11. Situations that, say, anyone with a high school education couldn't have handled just as well. Donning a fire helmet, grabbing a bull horn and praising the firefighters is something anyone could do. Sitting in a classroom, frozen for 7 minutes while the country is under attack is something anyone could do. And BTW, the defense of the president "not wanting to panic the children" is really lame, ok? If planes are hitting buildings and someone needs to be giving orders to fighters to shoot down more planes, the welfare of school children should probably come second to the potential of saving thousands more lives by getting out and giving orders. He's the commander in chief of the military that is supposed to be protecting the country, right? Why, because he tied our troops up in a war that didn't need to be fought? Because he didn't finish the fight in Afghanistan? Because now there are many more terrorists in the Middle East than there were 3 years ago? Look at it from the standpoint of someone who lives in the Middle East. The US invades Afghanistan. No matter how you feel about the US, you can maybe let it slide because the US was attacked first and we were looking for Osama. Now the US invades Iraq. For no good reason. Let's say you are in the Middle East, young, poor, and are looking for someone to direct your anger to. What better place than the world power that just invaded your neighbor for no real reason other than trumped up intelligence? How is this competent leadership? Again, I'm looking for examples. I submit that if the US had NO leadership whatsoever, and invaded nobody, we'd be better off. We wouldn't have not captured Osama, we wouldn't have captured a dangerous dictator with no weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn't have given the nice folks in the Middle East about a billion more reasons to hate our guts, and we would still have our military in one piece to defend us against REAL enemies, not made-up boogie men that need to be "wacked" so that our "mob" can make more "blood money." Was Saddam a bad guy? Yep. Was it worth $4600 to me to get rid of him? Not a chance. Do I feel safer now that he's gone? Not one teeny tiny bit. Interesting theory. If you added the phrases "turned the corner" and "the American people are safer", you'd have all of the Republican talking points in one message. I'd like some examples please. Let me give you some of my own. There are 900,000 fewer jobs in the US at this point in time than there were when Bush took office. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...JjJU&refer=home This is worse than it seems, because generally you need to create about 150,000 jobs per month to stay even with the expanding number of people that need jobs. So we're in a HUGE hole for jobs, IMHO mainly because Bush's policies favor corporations that like to outsource jobs to overseas. Even worse, the 144,000 jobs that were created last month were still a net loss when you factor in the need for 150,000 jobs per month just to keep up with new demand. Bush says we're turning the corner; to me, it looks like he crashed the car a few miles back. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../08/07/JOBS.TMP Which all makes for a nice sound bite of "Bush is certain to be the first president since the great Depression to have a net loss of jobs." That sounds bad to me, and doesn't really sound like we're really improving, does it? I'm not sure that I want to gamble with the "well, I really botched it the first 4 years, but give me another chance, I promise I'll work harder this time" defense. And I won't accept the "we're in a recession" or "we're in a war" defense for the jobs issue. In the last 75 years, there have been a lot worse recessions and a lot worse wars/military actions than this, and the job situation STILL wasn't this bad. A recent example: Dubya's dad enherited a recession and a huge deficit from Reagan and was still able to make jobs, so I'm not buying any arguments along those lines. It's the game that the Republicans like to play. You hear "we added 1.7 million jobs in the last year." What they failed to mention is the millions of jobs that were lost in the two years before that, and oh, by the way, the 5.4 million jobs that needed to be created in the last three years just to keep up with the number of new people looking for jobs. And yes, 9/11 was bad. But we didn't have to get involved in Iraq. And if it was that important to go to Iraq, we probably should have paid for it right away, and those who would benefit most from the Iraq war (multinational corporations) should pay the biggest burden. But according to our president, somehow it's GOOD for the economy to allow the large multinationals to have PO boxes in Grand Cayman and Bermuda so that they can get the benefits of the US war machine without having to actually pay any US taxes. http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.d...INESS/106190067 9/11 is just a smoke screen to keep you from finding out how the government is really spending your money. Most of it wasn't spent on making you safer, most of it was spent on making rich people even richer. http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0402.htm The tax cuts amount to about $750 Billion dollars so far, about half of which went to the wealthiest 1%. I would submit to you that the benefits of the Iraq war would most benefit those individuals who would be the most likely candidates for officers in multinational corporations. Since a lot of their corporations aren't funding the war in Iraq because of the aforementioned tax dodges, maybe those tax cuts should have been rolled back and they should have paid for the war out of their pockets instead. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf One final point. Bush's plan was to cut taxes to stimulate the economy to create jobs to grow the economy. I won't even factor in the initial loss of jobs in the first two year, I'll give him a free pass on those. No matter how you look at it, if it costs roughly $450,000 per job to create new jobs, you're doing it wrong.

I'm here in the US watching it happen, kind of watching a car crash in slow motion. I talk to normally rational people about who they are going to vote for, and in this area of the US (plains states, Nebraska specifically), it's almost always Bush. When I ask why, the answer is generally something along the lines of one of the following: "Well, Kerry would be worse." "We can't afford to have a Democrat in the White House, they spend too much money." "My political beliefs just align better with Bush." Sadly, whenever I try to challenge these statements, it's like trying to discuss religion with deeply religious people. The discussion runs something like: Me: "So who are you voting for for president?" Bush voter: "I'm voting for Bush again. We just can't afford to have a Democrat in the White House. Clinton just spent money like he was out of control!" Me: "You do realize that there was a budget surplus coming out of Clinton's era. Really it was Reagan and Bush I that had deficit budgets for 12 years and it was during Clinton's time that we went from deficit spending to surplus." Bush voter: "Um... well, I'm voting for Bush." Me: "It's funny how the Republicans spun the whole thing and blamed the Democrats for the huge budget deficits when it was really Reagan's trickle down economics that didn't trickle down. It also had to do with his and Bush's tendency to borrow money against the future instead of doing the responsible thing and raising taxes." Bush voter: "Well, I'm still voting for Bush." It's at this point that I give up. I think that it all comes down to repetition. The Republicans say things often enough and no matter how insane it is, eventually people start to believe it. Combine that with the hugely powerful influence of corporations on politics, and I'm not sure that there's really much of a democracy left in the US. Is there any hope of making a difference, of swaying opinions, or does it really have to get way, way worse before it gets better? Why doesn't anyone listen? And why is it so easy for those in other countries, like my friendly neighbors to the north to see how messed up things are, and yet there are 50 million people who are ready to vote Bush in again for another 4 years?

If I may present some of President Bush's flip-flops: Social Security BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01] ...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02] North Korea BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02] ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04] OPEC Note: This one doesn't technically count, as he wasn't president when he promised this one, but it was a campaign promise that was reversed. BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00] ...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04] Iraq Funding BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04] ...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04] Osama BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01] ...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02] The Environment Note: Another campaign promise broken. BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[if elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00] ...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03] Gay Marriage Note: More campaign talk BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00] ...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04] Nation Building Note: Campaign talk BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00] ...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03] Saddam/Al Qaeda Link BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02] ...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03] UN Resolution on War in Iraq BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03] ...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03] Palestinian Conflict BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03] 527s and Campaign Finance Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02] …Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04] BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000] ...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02] Confidentiality of Medical Records Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01] …Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department…asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [businessWeek, 4/30/04] Winning the War on Terror Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04] …Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04] …Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04] (Taken from http://www.americanprogressaction.org) That should be a good start. But really, here's the thing to me. The whole idea of "flip-flops" is silly anyway. Do you want a leader who can't admit mistakes? Someone who can't learn from mistakes? Someone who can't change their mind about an issue? Political issues are ever evolving, and this idea about "flip-flops" is just plain silly, only because it's saying that not learning from your mistakes and not admitting that you've made mistakes is a good quality, and being able to change your mind based on new information is a bad thing. Is "staying the course" when you've determined that that course is wrong a good quality in a leader? I know that the neocons are pushing the idea that John Kerry is wishy-washy and changes his mind on things, but I think what the conservatives tend to do is look at issues as black or white, right or wrong. Personally, I think that most political issues are many shades of gray, and as time progresses and new information comes out, those shades of gray change to reveal new answers. What do you think? Are political issues shades of gray that can change over time, or are they black and white answers that never change?

You know, it's interesting to hear you guys talk about Canadian culture. At this point in US politics, I feel as though I relate much more to the feelings expressed by you Canadians than I do with the US. For example: Self-centered Americans - what better example of this than the autos that Americans drive? I see Humvees driven by rich soccer moms all the time. Why, oh why would someone pay upwards of $50K just to have the biggest, baddest SUV out there? For that matter, unless you live in rocky wilderness (I live in a metro area BTW), there's no legitimate reason to own an SUV at all. I tie the rise in SUVs in the US back to heavy corporate influence on the part of big oil and the big 3 auto manufacturers. Foreign policy - I have no idea what we are doing in Iraq. It was a sham from the beginning, it's been proven to be a sham, and yet about half of the voting population in the US seem to be ignoring that fact. How can you support a leader that involves you in a war that didn't need to be fought? How many more needless wars are we going to get into? And what happens when we attack someone who does have chemical / biological / nuclear weapons? As for Bush being a dangerous idiot, I'm with you 100%. I'm afraid that the guy sees himself as being the second coming of Christ, and that it's his job to bring about the Rapture or something similar. He honestly scares me as much as the bad old days of the cold war. Religion - I agree with your ideas about religion as well. Religion and politics should not mix in my opinion, and unfortunately, the conservatives mixed it up 30 or 40 years ago and created a huge mess. Now nobody can just "live and let live," because it's a political battle. What I wonder is what happens if Roe vs. Wade does get overturned and abortion is made illegal in the US, what bandwagon do the Republicans go after then? Porn, premarital sex, sneezing without covering your nose? And religious tolerance in the US is pretty much a joke unless your religion looks and smells like Christianity. I think that the tenents of Scientology are strange, but no more strange than Christianity... yet the Scientologist are harassed to no end. Environment - This has to be the biggest example of corporate influence on government that I can think of. Bush has rolled back 50 years of environmental laws, all in the name of larger profits. I almost fell on the floor when I read that the US was supporting commercial whaling, now that the population of whales is starting to bounce back. The one thing in the ocean that isn't getting totally wiped out, so we've got to go after it to make a buck. These bastards would sell their own mothers if it were profitable, I swear. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that even in the backwards midwest US where it seems as though everyone votes Republican without thinking about how much long-term damage it's doing to the world economy, environment, and foreign relations, there are a few of us that think for ourselves. I appreciate your comments about not being anti-American towards specific Americans, but being anti-American toward our culture and our leaders. I support that idea, because I think our culture and our leaders are pretty screwed up too. I almost feel as though I'm a Canadian living in an American body. I've got more questions to ask later if you all don't mind further enlightening this ignorant American. And Hawk, I appreciate your comments too. It keeps us tree-hugging lefties in line.

I think that trickle down economics is like any pyramid scheme: if you are in early, it works. Otherwise, you are boned. In the case of trickle down, if you are in the top 1% of earners and you get the big tax break, it works really well, because now you've got a big chunk of extra money to invest overseas or hide away in your Cayman corporation. That's the problem with the trickle down idea. It assumes that the money is going to trickle down >into the United States<. Funny how Bush forgot about offshore tax dodges. If the jobs aren't staying here, why should the tax money? It amazes me that nobody seems to know that the huge tax rebates of Bush went mainly to really rich people. 33% of them so far went to the top 1%, and by 2010, 50% of them will go to the top 1%. I can see why the top 1% votes for him, but why would the bottom 99% vote for him? How much of that 33% is trickling down onto the bottom people? According to all of the figures out there, not very much. Here's one of the best summaries of what Bush has FUBARed for everyone so far: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...&articleId=8344 I'm not one of those people that thinks that the government should be responsible for everything. But some of his "privatization" ideas for Social Security just frighten me. Why? Because everyone seems to feel as though the government owes them something. No matter how much of a died-in-the-wool libertarian Repub you are, the government owes you a retirement. If you privatize social security, that means that you are giving Bush and his cronies (cough... Ken Lay... cough) the chance to bilk many, many people out of their retirement funds AGAIN. Not only that, but there's a lot of people that are going to invest their funds in stupid things, like fur-bearing trout farms or somesuch. When these people discover they've got nothing, the government is going to have to bail them out... AGAIN. Why not just leave it in the Social Security pot, dole it out as it's been doled out in the past, strongly encourage people to invest in IRAs and 401Ks, and just leave it alone (other than the little thing of dealing with the defunding of it in the next few years that Alan Greenspan has been screaming about, but never mind that now). As far as I'm concerned, IRAs and 401Ks ARE private Social Security anyway, and the real Social Security is just a nice bonus or cheap insurance in case you get severely hurt. Whenever privatize comes out of Bush's mouth, it means that the little guy is going to get screwed yet again. And please, 911 was world-changing. But it's just an excuse for running up the deficit with tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare for the richest companies in the world (an estimated $1 trillion to the drug companies over the next few years), and military actions in places that had nothing to do with 911. And the scary thing is that Bush isn't listening again to the terrorism experts about coming attacks, because it would cost his big donors money. The chemical industry is wide open for attack, with the potential for killing hundreds of thousands of people... but we won't push anything, because that would cut into profits. The airline industry pushed back against spending $1K per plane reinforcing the cockpit doors before 9/11, so it happened and cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars. Is this the guy you want around for another 4 years?

Thanks for the replies folks. Let me ask a few followups if I may: 1) You mention anti-Americanism. Is this a feeling that runs fairly steadily no matter the US regime, or does this feeling change based on leadership? I look at, for example, Ireland, and the Irish seemed to LOVE Bill Clinton, but aren't very enthusiastic about Dubya. Does this feeling change based on the relative "sanity" of the US leadership? Is it anti-Americanism or anti-Bush? 2) How does the high percentage of Catholicism affect Canadian politics? In the US with how the Republican have neatly wrapped themselves around the anti-abortion issues (and neatly forgotten the death penalty and war issues), it would certainly spell trouble for the Democrats. Are you Canadians more "sane" about the church and state issues than we are in the US? 3) Are your liberals the environmentalists, like in the US? 4) Off the wall question here: do you think that it is the violent, cowboy history of the US, and the peaceful non-violent history of Canada that accounts for the extreme differences in the use of guns in violent crime? 5) Seriously, since you guys are so close to the US and you see what goes on in our country, do you just sometimes point and laugh at our political system? That we allow ourselves to get sidetracked by Swift Boat Vets, because that way the people really don't focus on the real issues? Or is the political system in Canada as dirty and distracting as in the US? Thanks for the discussion so far! Jeff

Well, 100K people would have swayed the vote in Florida. In fact, had everyone in Florida who wanted to vote been allowed to vote, we'd have a different incumbent president, now wouldn't we? http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=33&row=1 Interesting choice of examples for your argument... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3617289.stm It seems as though if the President were spending more time reading his PDBs and less time playing golf, perhaps 9/11 wouldn't have even happened, hmm? Following your logic, the PDB illustrated the "open expression of total hatred" and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were the "retalliations for acts already committed." From me filling in those blanks, I'm guessing that you can draw a conclusion as to who the idiot might be. While this may be true, Bush's war on terrorism doesn't appear to be going terribly well: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/.../powell.terror/ In fact, many believe that the war on terror has only created more terrorists: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...MNGTS7E5RK1.DTL I'm not sure that you really want to go into the "true results" of what Bush has done to the US up to this point. A net loss of a million jobs, 5 million more people living in poverty, 50% of the tax cuts going to the top 1% of the wage earners while the wealth of the bottom 40% gets cut in half. It's not really where to start on what Bush is doing wrong, it's where to stop.

Hello all! I've been curious about Canadian politics and how it relates to US politics for a while now. I'm a US citizen and a student of political science, so I'm aware of the broad differences between our two political systems (parliamentary democracy vs. federal republic). I have done some reading about the period of time in Canadian history where Kim Campbell was PM, but I'm interested in it from the perspective of a Canadian citizen. 1) I've seen Kim Campbell on Real Time with Bill Maher, which is really what got me interested in this in the first place. She seems like she's very bright and articulate, but yet Canadian history isn't very nice to her. I understand that she was PM at the end of a bad run for the Torys, but what was it exactly that the Progressive Conservatives did that crushed them so badly? What do you, as a Canadian, remember as being the reason that the Torys were crushed? 2) Was Kim Campbell a terrible PM or was she just in the wrong place at the wrong time? 3) The Torys suffered a huge loss in 1993, but arguably conservative power in the US continued to grow (yes, Clinton was president, but I believe the Republicans had control of both the house and the senate). Now the conservatives in the US have control of the house, senate and the executive branch. I know there isn't any correlation between the two governments, but I just wonder why the Canadian people got more "liberal" at a time when the US people continued to get more "conservative." Any thoughts? 4) Are the Progressive Conservatives the same as the Conservatives? And the Progressive Conservatives are called the Torys, correct? From what I can tell from the Canadian Conservative web site, the ideas are similar to those of the Republicans, which would be the conservative party in the US. 5) Have the Torys in Canada attached themselves to the moral issues (anti-Hollywood, pro-church, anti-abortion) that the US Republicans have? If not, is there a party in Canada that has crossed over from political issues into moral issues? A lot of this information is available online, but it's hard to determine what is fact or opinion or propaganda. I'm just looking for real person opinions on this. Jeff