KingIggy Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I suspect that Ignatieff will flip-flop yet again. President Bush didn't have the luxury afforded to such wonks or wonkettes. For starters, Bush was a maniac, a retard, and an IDIOT, just like anyone who views his catastrophic 8 years as a success. Secondly, changing your opinion or view of reality based on aquiring new facts and insight is not flip-flopping, it's LEARNING. Apparently, you haven't ***learned*** anything from the CATASTROPHIC BUSH-CHENEY experience, or you'd be smart enough to flip-flop away from your initial MISTAKEN support for the Bush-Cheney cult/dogma. Got it yet ? Apparently not. (It's easy to predict the Neo-Con response - blind faith in their cult hero... typical Fascist TWITS... THEY NEVER LEARN !!!!! LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Well, it proves the theory that Bush-Cheney (Limbaugh, Coulter, Rove, Rumsfeld) Neo-Conservatism is more of a dogma (or religion) than a science.Dogma? Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Coulter, Rove and Rumsfield seem to be still on one side of the fence.Your guy Ignatieff is different. He once supported the war in Iraq but now he doesn't. He was once an American but now he's not. Now, he's Canadian. He once thought the State should be restricted. Now, he seems to think that the State is critical to a civilized society. He was once a friend of Bob Rae. Now, he's not. Ignatieff switches; he's a flake. ----- Michael Ignatieff only claim to fame is his birthright. (He lived in a family where he learned how to sound smart but he has nothing original to say.) Given how Trudeau sliced genuinely federalist Mulroney, God knows what he would have done with poseur Ignatieff. Ignatieff is no Trudeau and the federal Liberals are mistaken in believing Ignatieff is a new Trudeau. He's not. Trudeau had sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 If your only 'argument' = Iggy=Flake, then you lose the debate. Big minds change their views over time, small minds shrivel up, dry up and refuse to let go of their dogma. (typical rightwingers) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Flush once more.KingIggy - I'll assume that you are only 15 or 16. Give it some time and hopefully, you'll gain a more balanced view of Canadian politics. There are no demons - Liberal or Conservative - or NDP for that matter. Depending on the decade, Liberals or Conservatives represent 30 to 40% of the Canadian voting public. Comments such as yours show a lack of respect for a huge block of Canadian society. You personally may not agree with Harper or the Conservatives at this point in time - and that is your right..... but to disparage the huge number of Canadians from coast to coast who voted for them just alienates you as a noisy fringe element. The vast, OVERWHELMING majority of Canadians did NOT vote for Harper. All Harper supporters are part of a small minority who didn't learn from the Bush years. http://votestrategic.ca/ownwords.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) If your only 'argument' = Iggy=Flake, then you lose the debate.Big minds change their views over time, small minds shrivel up, dry up and refuse to let go of their dogma. Ignatieff is over 60 years old.He has had time enough to think about Quebec and English Canada. (Yes, he has changed his mind on this issue too.) ---- When Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau arrived at the federal Liberal leadership (Trudeau at 48), they had thought alot about Canada and they had clear ideas. At 62, Ignatieff may have thought alot about Kosovo, the Kurds but he has nuanced ideas about Canada. The vast, OVERWHELMING majority of Canadians did NOT vote for Harper.Harper has a solid 35% of the vote - and I think that Harper will get another 5%. Ignatieff can at best share the anti-Harper vote.From everything I read, Ignatieff's one claim to fame is that he's not Harper. Edited May 31, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Why are Neo-Con rightwingers so wreckless and destructive ? Why are Neo-Con rightwingers so blindly hypocritical ? They constantly preach fiscal conservatism and freedom... and then they implement the war on drugs, increase military spending, reduce gov't revenue (through careless tax cuts) and do nothing to help strengthen the social safety net during the recession (which was created by the Neo-Cons in the first place). It took awhile for most of us to realize that the Right has no intention of trying to produce balanced budgets, because the goal at the outset was to bankrupt the system to excuse cutting all government services.......except for the military and law enforcement, as you mentioned; because every right wing banana republic makes sure that their is money to keep the army, police and the prisons operating! A minor difference I would have with your analysis is that Neo-conservatives are a specific subset of the movement, whose leadership in the U.S. actually started out as the Defense-hawks in the Democratic Party; so they are not always social conservatives or opposed to domestic spending -- they just want most of the money spent on foreign wars and regime change. Many of the so called "Paleo-conservatives and the Religious Right, are worse than the Neo-cons on most issues. Next thing you know, we are stuffing our prisons with pot smokers and plunging the country into debt. Are the Conservatives trying to walk Bush's path, in a sly and deceptive manner ? Yes, they are. They are trying to appear moderate, but their core principles are the same : War, Persecution and Greed. Their DOGMA is the same. Stephen Harper has created something that didn't exist previously even in the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day -- he is consciously apeing the American style Republican conservatives. This is why he is making appeals to religion and substantially increasing military spending, with most of that going to no-bid contracts. http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0071 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) ....Those deaf, dumb and BLIND enough to wave the Bush-Cheney flag AFTER the entire world witnessed the destructive and wreckless Bush-Cheney legacy (catastrophe), are the FIRST to help boost the Neo-Con of the North, Stephen Harper.In fact, anyone who votes for Harper is effectively voting for the Bush-Cheney Neo-Con cult/dogma. You still don't get it.....whatever PM Harper does is irrelevant in the context of "American NeoCons". Canada didn't matter in Iraq.....and where it did (Afghanistan), the military mission came from the Liberal Party. Your position only continues the "apeing" of American policies to gain stature fore or against. Pathetic..... Edited May 31, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 ....Stephen Harper has created something that didn't exist previously even in the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day -- he is consciously apeing the American style Republican conservatives. This is why he is making appeals to religion and substantially increasing military spending, with most of that going to no-bid contracts. That's OK....liberals in Canada are also "apeing" the Americans, trying to find their own Obama. Good luck..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 That's OK....liberals in Canada are also "apeing" the Americans, trying to find their own Obama. Good luck..... America slowly evolved not into a democracy - but into a corporate empire controlled by a few men - The control the media - thus the vote - thus no real democratic out come - if a person needs to spend almost a billion bucks on becoming a president then that cuts out the majority of contenders to this ceremonial throne. All Harper is doing is partaking in the Canadian corporate evolvement of Canada - a bit behind the Americans - It consists of those ambitious masters of industry and banking and trade - who have rose to the top - and now these men want to formally own a nation - to have the biggest corporation imaginable - that's what Cheney was - a very ambitious corporate - who wanted to control "America inc. - and he did - we have our won Dick Cheneys in Canada - and Harper is their boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Many people are convinced that America is in fact a corporate entity. Many of their own citizens fear the "military-industrial complex". The truth is that democracy in America is dominated with dollar bills. From the very essence of pork barrel spending to the high brow efforts of NASA, the Americans try and spread the wealth of the nation out in various means. Putting their tax dollars to work means creating jobs for the citizens and then receiving taxes from the productive efforts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) For starters, Bush was a maniac, a retard, and an IDIOT, I would agree that Bush was an idiot. Harper might be stubborn as a politician but he surely isn't like Bush. just like anyone who views his catastrophic 8 years as a success. When people become loyal to a politician or party it clouds their judgement, King Iggy. Edited May 31, 2009 by noahbody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Well, it proves the theory that Harper-Bush-Cheney (Limbaugh, Coulter, Rove, Rumsfeld) Neo-Conservatism is more of a dogma (or religion) than a science. Ok you had me going for a while there.But it's obvious you are posting comments like this just to get laughs.Everything you have written is kind of funny but can't you come up with something more original than these tired,old and ultimately childish insults that are repeated endlessly by the left wing zealots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) .... All Harper is doing is partaking in the Canadian corporate evolvement of Canada - a bit behind the Americans - It consists of those ambitious masters of industry and banking and trade - who have rose to the top - and now these men want to formally own a nation - to have the biggest corporation imaginable - that's what Cheney was - a very ambitious corporate - who wanted to control "America inc. - and he did - we have our won Dick Cheneys in Canada - and Harper is their boy. Maybe, but they are just pretenders. America is a corporation.....it's right in the name....."United States". That's not a given name from conquest as in "Canada". By definition, Canada cannot have a credible "Dick Cheney". Edited May 31, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 That's OK....liberals in Canada are also "apeing" the Americans, trying to find their own Obama. Good luck..... It's difficult to say whether a Liberal would be trying to imitate Obama, or would be reaching back 40 years to try to figure out how Pierre Elliot Trudeau somehow managed the trick of turning himself into a charismatic celebrity politician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Many people are convinced that America is in fact a corporate entity. Many of their own citizens fear the "military-industrial complex". The truth is that democracy in America is dominated with dollar bills. From the very essence of pork barrel spending to the high brow efforts of NASA, the Americans try and spread the wealth of the nation out in various means. Putting their tax dollars to work means creating jobs for the citizens and then receiving taxes from the productive efforts. Eisenhower warned about that military industrial complex almost 50 years ago, which turned America into a nation dependent on the military to secure oil developments overseas, and the use of military spending to drive economic growth. But the latest financial collapse seems to be more centered on the growth of Wall Street and the financial services sector as a percentage of GDP, while allowing manufacturing to collapse. he sad thing today is that the new Obama Administration is following almost exactly the program of the Bush Administration, allowing the banks to shift the financial obligations of their greed onto the American Taxpayer, while there is no talk of bringing back banking reforms that were instituted during the Great Depression to prevent the banks from engaging in high risk investments or regulating these new derivative markets that are taking over the bulk of trading from the actual trading floors that can be monitored. And as long as people like Tim Geitner and Larry Summers are in charge of financial policy, any changes will be minor window dressing......unless this apparent "recovery" turns out to be nothing more than a mini-boom within a Bear Market.....then we will see what real financial calamity looks like, and maybe real financial reforms will actually happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Eisenhower warned about that military industrial complex almost 50 years ago, which turned America into a nation dependent on the military to secure oil developments overseas, and the use of military spending to drive economic growth. But the latest financial collapse seems to be more centered on the growth of Wall Street and the financial services sector as a percentage of GDP, while allowing manufacturing to collapse. All the while, Canada is/was dependent on the Americans doing both, no matter what. Now that American consumer spending drives far more of it's economy, the military industrial complex bogeyman becomes even less relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 All the while, Canada is/was dependent on the Americans doing both, no matter what. Now that American consumer spending drives far more of it's economy, the military industrial complex bogeyman becomes even less relevant. He may be less relevant but the bogeyman is still hidding under the bed and can grab your ankel at will when you get up to pee - don't underestimate the continued abilty of the "complex" to get suddenly simple and destroy you at will with great vigor and unmeasurable force - who are you kidding BC - the AIC - is still the ace in the sleave of America - don't you dare fain weakness to me my good fellow - you are still dangerous..but we love you so don't hurt us - okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 ....who are you kidding BC - the AIC - is still the ace in the sleave of America - don't you dare fain weakness to me my good fellow - you are still dangerous..but we love you so don't hurt us - okay? I'm not afraid of my own country.....but you can be if you wish. In the mean time, Canada's economy shrivels in sync with whatever the Americans do...be it consumer or "complex" related. Still waiting for the great PM Eisenhower speech to explain that to the locals. Or we could go back to the good old days of fighting about stumpage fees. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 The vast, OVERWHELMING majority of Canadians did NOT vote for Harper.All Harper supporters are part of a small minority who didn't learn from the Bush years. http://votestrategic.ca/ownwords.htm There's very little hope for you....using your logic, Liberals are even a smaller minority. Perhaps you are actually 12 or 13 years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 There's very little hope for you....using your logic, Liberals are even a smaller minority. Perhaps you are actually 12 or 13 years old. Some 10 year olds have more wisdom than some that are 40. That's not the point - I believe the point here might be - do we have real conservatism in our nation? Is Harper a representative of some other entity - that is not quite conservatism - nor is it really right wing - or extreme right wing - I am begining to understand that the powers that be and those that might be his puppet masters are not interested in conserving what is great and good - that they are not conservatives but some new beast that does not give a damn about right or left, but plays all sides of the political specturm - and please don't use the term neo-con - that really means nothing - It is supposed to be New Conservatism - attatching the term NEW to conservatism makes no sense - conservatism means old - the old way the way tested by time and practice - reliable and sustaining and "conserving" and protecting what is best in life - what is best for the people of a nation....question - Is the Harper camp really consevative or are they just representatives of big buisness gone international and just using Canada as a base of operations? With no real loyalty to Canada - if that is the case we are better go go with the devil we know - Ignatieff - because apparently I do not know what Harper is about - does anyone truely know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) You still don't get it.....whatever PM Harper does is irrelevant in the context of "American NeoCons". Canada didn't matter in Iraq.....and where it did (Afghanistan), the military mission came from the Liberal Party. Your position only continues the "apeing" of American policies to gain stature fore or against. Pathetic..... Like most bull-headed Fascists, you are wrong several times simultaneously, and totally oblivious to it. 1) EVERYTHING Harper says and does is always relevant, in ANY context, and so are his ideological, rhetorical and behavioural ties to the American Neo-Con CULT (including speeches to right-wing American think tanks). 2) Canada DID matter when we had a centrist foreign policy which said NO to the Iraq smashing. It's about finding rational alternatives to preemptive war (AKA something you can't comprehend). 3) The rational, scientific Centrist view refuses to blindly accept/adopt rampant militarism and rabid nationalism as a legitimate foreign policy (AKA SYCC). Even discussing the nature of the combat ROLE in Afghanistan isn't ruled out. 4) I command you to continue boosting Harper and bashing Ignatieff. The Liberal minority government is just about here. Edited June 1, 2009 by KingIggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I would agree that Bush was an idiot. Harper might be stubborn as a politician but he surely isn't like Bush.When people become loyal to a politician or party it clouds their judgement, King Iggy. That's a superficial retort. Iggy hasn't had 8 years with Majority status. If he did get it, and failed like Bush, Iggy would/should rightfully be bashed - not faithfully defended. With the pattern I identified, of cutting taxes, increasing military spending, increasing the drug war, and plunging the country into debt, Harper=Bush. So why did a moderate like Joe Clark leave the Northern Neo-Con party ? Because they're the Northern Neo-Con party. Keep trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Ok you had me going for a while there.But it's obvious you are posting comments like this just to get laughs.Everything you have written is kind of funny but can't you come up with something more original than these tired,old and ultimately childish insults that are repeated endlessly by the left wing zealots? Obviously, you have the repressive mind-gate up and fortified... rendering you OBLIVIOUS to reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Eisenhower warned about that military industrial complex almost 50 years ago, which turned America into a nation dependent... What's hilarious is that the current broken, bruised and tattered Republican party (cult) could heal itself by becoming the Eisenhower party yet again. But those Fascists are too macho and bull-headed to figure it out... lol, they ARE Fascists, after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 All the while, Canada is/was dependent on the Americans doing both, no matter what. Now that American consumer spending drives far more of it's economy, the military industrial complex bogeyman becomes even less relevant. You like to dismiss things which are crucially relevant... typical bull-headed fascist. How many Billions go into funding the American M.I.C. (actually, it's TRILLIONS) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.