George Bush

I cannot believe Americans vote for this TWAT, he is responsible for all the bloodshed. Why can't he leave Iraq and Iran with their oil.

It belongs to them you cunt.

How many more have to die to fuel your SUV, you blood thirsty Bastard.

I feel better for that

Funny tho how all his mates keep saying he's a good man, but can't show us the weapons of mass destruction....oh that's right...they are christians...used to killing over stuff that doesn't exist.

I think they must try and pretend the womads were nothing to do with it now....cos surely not even the american public is retarded enough to have FORGOTTEN WHY all their sons are dying.

Definitely a twat.

Steve Check these lyrics by DAVID ROVICS .

It is a song about Bush's Morale Crusade ( TWAT )

WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB I've seen you in the markets I've seen you in the streets And at your political convention Talking of your crusade Talking of your nation And other things too terrible to mention And you proclaim your Christianity You proclaim your love of God You talk of apple pie and mom Well I've just got one question And I want an answer Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

Maybe Jesus would bomb the Syrians 'Cause they're not Jews like him Maybe Jesus would bomb the Afghans On some kind of vengeful whim Maybe Jesus would drive an M1 tank And he would shoot Saddam Tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

I've seen you on the TV And on the battleships I've seen you in the house upon the hill And I've heard you talking About making the world safer And about all the men you have to kill And you speak so glibly About your civilization And how you have the moral higher ground While halfway around the world Your explosives smash the buildings Ah, if you could only hear the sound

But maybe Jesus would sell land mines And turn on his electric chair Maybe Jesus would show no compassion For his enemies in the lands way over there Maybe Jesus would have flown the planes That killed the kids in Viet Nam Tell me, who would Jesus bomb

Yes I hear you shout with confidence As you praise the lord And you talk about this God you know so well And you talk of Armageddon And your final victory When all the evil forces go to hell Well you'd best hope you've chosen wisely On the right side of the lord And when you die your conscience it is clear You'd best hope that your atom bombs Are better than the sword At the time when your reckoning is here

'Cause I don't think Jesus would send gunships into Bethlehem Or jets to raze the towns of Timorese I don't think Jesus would lend money to dictators Or drive those SUV's And I don't think Jesus would ever have dropped A single ounce of napalm So tell me, who would Jesus bomb?

Quality

I don't like talkin about politics,but how can shut up face to the disaster opinion from a great country like America, america of all dreams,and all my youth dreams came from this big country, america of landscape and space and creativity this is the real america that i liked since 30 years ago ,unfortunatley not america of George Bush , because in this world there are two kind of person,the first one like to dig mountain,valley,city,and maybe town to search something who looks like petrol and the second person like to dig the sky to search the invisible value

I don't like talkin about politics,but how can shut up face to the disaster opinion from a great country like America, america of all dreams,and all my youth dreams came from this big country, america of landscape and space and creativity this is the real america that i liked since 30 years ago ,unfortunatley not america of George Bush , because in this world there are two kind of person,the first one like to dig mountain,valley,city,and maybe town to search something who looks like petrol and the second person like to dig the sky to search the invisible value

Pure genius.

I too missed the bit, where after his 3 day death JC got up and went on a chuck norris revenge binge against those who'd killed him ( and lets be honest there's not a LOT more you can do to piss someone off than kill them).

BTW looks like I won the SNSS sweepstakes on where they'd go Next (after making some cock and bull up for the trailer trash).....I said Iran, Rich and his GF said Syria.

Most dangerous man on earth today. And TOTALLY without ANY education (or he'd not be a christian)

Bit of a departure from wine gums, this thread,mike?

Bit of a departure from wine gums, this thread,mike?

Only slightly

Not really....when Bush finally does the fairies' bidding and pushes the big red button......there will BE no wine gums...consider that...eh eh eh?

PS...the slight departure soundsystem...hmmmmmm

Not really....when Bush finally does the fairies' bidding and pushes the big red button......there will BE no wine gums...consider that...eh eh eh?

Wise words indeed

nice poll diggy. yes i did have a vote.

*dodges any and all incoming bombs towards her domicle from her assertation of her opinion beforehand*

I voted for Bush. My parents went through Vietnam under a far worse President (who was from Texas!) and I heard stories about how my Dad walked off his plane and was spat upon for doing the duty he was required and felt obligated to do for his country. My mom was called a whore by protestors for just being a typing assistant in an Air Force uniform. My parents raised me to believe that I must always back my troops and support a stable commitment to not willynilly withdraw them like they did back in Vietnam and get massacred en masse.

Even if I don't support the war, I support the troops. To me, strategically, what Kerry proposed to do scared me. Kerry is just as big money as Bush is. Kerry is just as sneaky as anyone would proclaim Bush to be. Independent ticket? Total waste of a vote, he was even crazier. Kerry wanted to withdraw the troops and risk a bigger blowout than what is currently going down. I voted with an educated heart. The lesser of two evils it was.

If I truly had my vote, John McCain would have been my candidate. I really hope he goes for 08'. He is to me the epitome of an ideal candidate. He has no filth under his name. He appears to be an honest man. He's actually gone to war, been a POW, and lived to go onto greater things.

I don't believe from all I have read and studied about each President that Bush is any worse than Clinton was during his "Let's get involved with Somalia, sign the Defense of the Marriage Act (Oh YES he's the one who signed that beautiful piece of history folks!), neglect Rwanda, go to Iraq and war again because of a violation of UN sanctions (yeah, we're the defense brigade of the UN)times. Every president we've had into office have had some major failure on their part. People forget over time is all.

He's no more a twat than any of the rest of them have been. No one in power has ever been ideal.

Melly,

Good answer. Hit it to the tee. The biggest difference I care about between Bush and Clinton is that Bush will send us (the military) into harm's way but will back us.

I remember when my buddy was on his way back from a float, and was sent near Iraq in a possible attack, as cruise missles hit Iraq. . .this was to deflect the media from Clinton being disbarred as a lawyer in Arkansas. I'll never forgive him for that.

JHC

Personally, I think all that "vets were abused" crap is just that--- crap. So a bunch of wussy hippies had nothing better to do than sit around airports all the time harassing trained killers? And these trained killers always flew commercial airliners when they returned from their tour of duty? Uh-huh.

By the way, I voted twat. I have no doubt that W has led us into this debacle for SOME reason-- it's just that he hasn't chosen to share that reason with the American people.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Personally, I think all that "vets were abused" crap is just that--- crap. So a bunch of wussy hippies had nothing better to do than sit around airports all the time harassing trained killers? And these trained killers always flew commercial airliners when they returned from their tour of duty? Uh-huh.

A shame you feel that way. "Trained Killers", really goes to show your ignorance on the subject. Those in the military are normal people, that joined usually because they feel an obligation to the freedom they inherited.

You obviously have no idea the toll war takes on a human spirit, the harrasment Veitnam Vets received was unfair and unjust. I would explain more, but that probably would be a waste of my time.

JHC

you don't understand... people find Bush comforting, because Bush... (1) is like/ understands/ is on the side of the common man (2) is an honest, deeply moral man who you can trust, unlike that Clinton monster. this is the type of guy you want fighting in your corner

... of course anybody could easily make a very strong argument against both points, laughably so... but HALF OF AMERICANS LIKE THE LIE, the lie is better then reality, much more comfortable... and Bush likes lies better too and in that way he is like his fans.

it also doesnt seem to bother many people that Bush has less management skills/ experience than the typical general manager at a Wendy's... why should anybody be surprised at his results?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Personally, I think all that "vets were abused" crap is just that--- crap. So a bunch of wussy hippies had nothing better to do than sit around airports all the time harassing trained killers? And these trained killers always flew commercial airliners when they returned from their tour of duty? Uh-huh.

That's just it though - they WERE abused, and not all of them were war machines. My dad in specific served in Libya and Vietnam in computer analyst outfits. He only touched a gun in boot camp. Regardless of their position in the war, no one shoould be treated with disrespect for doing their duty. If they wanted to show their displeasure and hatred for the war, why weren't they ballsy enough to spit on their elected officials? Why weren't they ballsy enough to throw bricks at their President?

And after all that? The men and women who came home not only were regarded as lowlifes for doing what they either had to or felt necessary to do - they wound up being forgotten by their government. I don't want that for any military personnel; to be beaten by not only their "enemy" but by their own people.

They've been using commercial airliners to ship home troops through many other "nobler" wars, not just the kind that are hated.

To compund Melly's point, we flew United from Kuwait back to California (Flights INTO Iraq were only military), and that was for ALL the military.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Personally, I think all that "vets were abused" crap is just that--- crap. So a bunch of wussy hippies had nothing better to do than sit around airports all the time harassing trained killers? And these trained killers always flew commercial airliners when they returned from their tour of duty? Uh-huh.

A shame you feel that way. "Trained Killers", really goes to show your ignorance on the subject. Those in the military are normal people, that joined usually because they feel an obligation to the freedom they inherited.

You obviously have no idea the toll war takes on a human spirit, the harrasment Veitnam Vets received was unfair and unjust. I would explain more, but that probably would be a waste of my time.

JHC

You're reading things into it that I didn't say.

Are you disputing that boot camp trains civilians to become killers? Isn't that the whole point of boot camp? To take a civilian who's not used to following orders, training him to follow orders, to work as a team, to kill? My statement is based on what the returning vets had to say. I have no idea of what toll war takes? Perhaps not personally, but I have heard-- and read-- what the vets had to say. They went from being people who had qualms about killing to people who had no qualms about killing. They were trained to kill. They were trained to kill "gooks," specifically. Or do I "obviously have no idea" about the use of the word "gooks" as well? Ever hear of Faces of the Enemy?

After these soldiers were trained to kill-- and some, like the Special Forces, were better trained than others-- they were sent to Vietnam to-- guess what?-- kill. And they did kill. And then they returned home, and suddenly, they had to readjust everything-- to go from being trained killers back to being civilians who don't kill. And a lot of them couldn't emotionally handle that transition. You see them on the streets today-- they're called "Homeless."

Nothing new there-- the Navajo had special rituals after war to bring warriors back into society. We didn't. We just dumped them and moved on to the next war.

When I refer to the returning vets as "trained killers," I'm not making the moral judgment you're hearing. I'm stating a basic fact-- they were trained killers. They were drafted, or recruited, they were trained to kill, and they were sent to kill. A simple, basic fact. And when they returned, and stepped off those flights, they were still "trained killers." And I find it utterly laughable to think of some wussy hippie hanging around the airports hoping for a chance to harass a trained killer. I'm also finding it laughable to think that soldiers were shipped to Vietnam on military flights, but returned on commercial flights...But maybe, just maybe, they did fly commercial... It's still not credible to think that the poor widdle vets were abused by the mean old hippies...

I guess that's the kind of analysis that occurs, however, when you get your history from Rambo.

melly wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Personally, I think all that "vets were abused" crap is just that--- crap. So a bunch of wussy hippies had nothing better to do than sit around airports all the time harassing trained killers? And these trained killers always flew commercial airliners when they returned from their tour of duty? Uh-huh.

That's just it though - they WERE abused, and not all of them were war machines. My dad in specific served in Libya and Vietnam in computer analyst outfits. He only touched a gun in boot camp. Regardless of their position in the war, no one shoould be treated with disrespect for doing their duty. If they wanted to show their displeasure and hatred for the war, why weren't they ballsy enough to spit on their elected officials? Why weren't they ballsy enough to throw bricks at their President?

And after all that? The men and women who came home not only were regarded as lowlifes for doing what they either had to or felt necessary to do - they wound up being forgotten by their government. I don't want that for any military personnel; to be beaten by not only their "enemy" but by their own people.

They've been using commercial airliners to ship home troops through many other "nobler" wars, not just the kind that are hated.

Country Joe McDonald was a Navy vet, an anti-war activist, and a hippie. He mentioned in an interview the time he was on an elevator, at the height of the war, and three soldiers got on the elevator with him. He certainly wasn't in any "spit on the soldiers" mode. More like "I hope I don't get my ass kicked" mode.

By the way, former war protester/hippie Country Joe McDonald has done more for vets than any chickenhawk Republican loudmouth has ever done. But we wouldn't know that from watching Rambo.

I take it you are getting all this from your extensive personal experience? I'm not guessing on things here, I've been to Iraq and back.

As for boot camp, you view is distorted, like most of the public. The main issue with bringing people in the military is that people were all raised differently. Everyone has different veiws, different ways of handling issues, and expressing themselves, different religons, different regions, different beliefs. It is about getting everyone on the "same page". It is not about brainwashing, which is what we do NOT want in the military. When you state "taking orders", it is with a civilian mindset. As a civilian I don't trust many people to tell me what to do, however, we in the military trust and love each other as brothers. We only tell orders that are in the best interest of what we ALL want. We look out for each other like you have never experienced. Orders can be given but it must be from a competant leader. If the guys an idiot, the orders are rarely followed to the t.

Get some experience before spouting off some ignorant information.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote: I take it you are getting all this from your extensive personal experience?

I take it you can read? Sort of?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Country Joe McDonald was a Navy vet, an anti-war activist, and a hippie. He mentioned in an interview the time he was on an elevator, at the height of the war, and three soldiers got on the elevator with him. He certainly wasn't in any "spit on the soldiers" mode. More like "I hope I don't get my ass kicked" mode.

By the way, former war protester/hippie Country Joe McDonald has done more for vets than any chickenhawk Republican loudmouth has ever done. But we wouldn't know that from watching Rambo.

I've never seen Rambo. Not all hippies were hatemongers, not all soldiers were villager killers. It's a broad paintbrush with which we paint.

I just tend to see everyone as a human being, and not as their job description. I think it's unfortunate what has been happening to all humans, and I'm at a loss for the most peacable/reasonable solution to all of it.

68 Pontiac wrote: Get some experience before spouting off some ignorant information.

I guess those films I've seen, where trainees are practicing, umm, knitting lace doilies with their bayonets... While shouting something about killing the gooks--- those were all just staged as a big practical joke by our men in uniform, and after the film crew shut down, they went back to singing Kumbaya? Well, I have to admit, I was fooled. I really, really did believe that the military trains soldiers to kill. My apologies, I was just spouting off some ignorant information. You're right, they were just knitting lace doilies and singing Kumbaya. I bow to your superior knowldege.

I don't understand how Bush is treating the soldiers with more respect by forcing them go into this near endless war for questionable reasons/ intentions?

melly wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Country Joe McDonald was a Navy vet, an anti-war activist, and a hippie. He mentioned in an interview the time he was on an elevator, at the height of the war, and three soldiers got on the elevator with him. He certainly wasn't in any "spit on the soldiers" mode. More like "I hope I don't get my ass kicked" mode.

By the way, former war protester/hippie Country Joe McDonald has done more for vets than any chickenhawk Republican loudmouth has ever done. But we wouldn't know that from watching Rambo.

I've never seen Rambo. Not all hippies were hatemongers, not all soldiers were villager killers. It's a broad paintbrush with which we paint.

I just tend to see everyone as a human being, and not as their job description. I think it's unfortunate what has been happening to all humans, and I'm at a loss for the most peacable/reasonable solution to all of it.

Melly, I'll say it again. When I refer to the returning soldiers as "trained killers," I'm not making some sort of moral judgment about them. I'm just stating a basic fact-- soldiers are trained to kill. Hippies are not. I seriously doubt that some returning vet-- a trained killer-- had much to fear from some 98 pound hippie. That's all. No moral judgment about the returning vet.

Personally, I think it's obvious that not every soldier was down with killing civilians. Some soldiers were. Some did it and never got over it. Some saw it and reported it. No reason at all to paint everybody with teh same broad brushstrokes. I'll bet there were even a few 200 pound hippies. ;) I know there are more than a few today.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Melly, I'll say it again. When I refer to the returning soldiers as "trained killers," I'm not making some sort of moral judgment about them. I'm just stating a basic fact-- soldiers are trained to kill. Hippies are not. I seriously doubt that some returning vet-- a trained killer-- had much to fear from some 98 pound hippie. That's all. No moral judgment about the returning vet.

Personally, I think it's obvious that not every soldier was down with killing civilians. Some soldiers were. Some did it and never got over it. Some saw it and reported it. No reason at all to paint everybody with teh same broad brushstrokes. I'll bet there were even a few 200 pound hippies. ;) I know there are more than a few today.

I know a number of 200 pound vets. :P Big soft bears, I tell ya! I knew what you were getting at. I understand it definitely.

It's weird, you know? How many people at any given time are trained to kill? Homeowners with guns for safety, police officers, guards, hunters, gangbangers... maybe we oughta change that amendment to from "right to bear arms" but "right to be a killer"

You are a formidable thought opponent, Comrade. Your mental gymnastics have been fun to engage in.

Love right back at ya, Melly. :)

melly wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Personally, I think all that "vets were abused" crap is just that--- crap. So a bunch of wussy hippies had nothing better to do than sit around airports all the time harassing trained killers? And these trained killers always flew commercial airliners when they returned from their tour of duty? Uh-huh.

That's just it though - they WERE abused, and not all of them were war machines. My dad in specific served in Libya and Vietnam in computer analyst outfits. He only touched a gun in boot camp. Regardless of their position in the war, no one shoould be treated with disrespect for doing their duty. If they wanted to show their displeasure and hatred for the war, why weren't they ballsy enough to spit on their elected officials? Why weren't they ballsy enough to throw bricks at their President?

And after all that? The men and women who came home not only were regarded as lowlifes for doing what they either had to or felt necessary to do - they wound up being forgotten by their government. I don't want that for any military personnel; to be beaten by not only their "enemy" but by their own people.

They've been using commercial airliners to ship home troops through many other "nobler" wars, not just the kind that are hated.

it may surprise you that yes australia too had troops in vietnam. yes they too were abused when they returned home. i don't know why this happened. many aussies were conscripted via lottery, and had no real choice in the matter.

it took 20 years after they returned that they actually had a welcome home parade.

yes there are australians currently in iraq and afgahnistan. i don't believe they should be there.

my gripe is not with our armed forces, but with those who sent them there. this is an important distinction to make.

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

melly wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Personally, I think all that "vets were abused" crap is just that--- crap. So a bunch of wussy hippies had nothing better to do than sit around airports all the time harassing trained killers? And these trained killers always flew commercial airliners when they returned from their tour of duty? Uh-huh.

That's just it though - they WERE abused, and not all of them were war machines. My dad in specific served in Libya and Vietnam in computer analyst outfits. He only touched a gun in boot camp. Regardless of their position in the war, no one shoould be treated with disrespect for doing their duty. If they wanted to show their displeasure and hatred for the war, why weren't they ballsy enough to spit on their elected officials? Why weren't they ballsy enough to throw bricks at their President?

And after all that? The men and women who came home not only were regarded as lowlifes for doing what they either had to or felt necessary to do - they wound up being forgotten by their government. I don't want that for any military personnel; to be beaten by not only their "enemy" but by their own people.

They've been using commercial airliners to ship home troops through many other "nobler" wars, not just the kind that are hated.

it may surprise you that yes australia too had troops in vietnam. yes they too were abused when they returned home. i don't know why this happened. many aussies were conscripted via lottery, and had no real choice in the matter.

it took 20 years after they returned that they actually had a welcome home parade.

yes there are australians currently in iraq and afgahnistan. i don't believe they should be there.

my gripe is not with our armed forces, but with those who sent them there. this is an important distinction to make.

Exactly.

And I really take issue with this nonsensical notion that in order to "support the troops" you must agree with the President. "Support the troops and "let the troops do their job" is just code for "Don't dissent."

How about this instead-- "The President is a lying arsewipe, and I will dissent his policies ever day" is entirely compatible with making sure the troops have the armor and other supplies they need to do their job (something the Administration never gave 2p about), and is entirely compatible with bringing them home safely.

Where is "All of the Above"?

Pretty easy to sit back in your safe European home and bitch about Bush. The Democrats gave us a pretty piss poor alternative with that fucktard Kerry.

nowhere is safe when someone retarded enough to believe in things sillier than your Holy FSM (his name be praised), has the big bombs under his fingers.

The man told lies The man ordered his staff to tell lies so that 10's thousands of young americans and Iraqi's could be slaughterd....and he could steal oil that did not belong to him. And you sacked the last guy for a blowjob.

And you sacked the last guy for a blowjob

I know, you just couldn't make it up

Bubba was not sacked, impeached but not sacked. He finished his term.

Clinton launched many a cruise missile, invaded Yugoslavia and stuck cigars up vaginas.

saves me the effort of pointing out the fact that both parties in the US are the same thing in the eyes of anyone from anywhere else on earth (that's the smattering of tiny island's off the us coast)

;)

Steve Campbell wrote: saves me the effort of pointing out the fact that both parties in the US are the same thing in the eyes of anyone from anywhere else on earth (that's the smattering of tiny island's off the us coast)

;)

don't ever make the mistake that saying that both parties are the same, not in the USA, not in the UK and not here. We are paying the price here for that now. I hope for your sake that the conservatives never regain power in the uk. trust me the conservatives now are not the same as they were. they are a whole lot nastier now.

i just can't wait for hillary to get in office... then we'll really be fucked...

johnny albrecht wrote: i just can't wait for hillary to get in office... then we'll really be fucked...

pray explain.

i think the Republicans are the ones behind the scenes pushing Hillary for president, cause they think they can beat her easily

Generic wrote:

pumped full of drugs wrote: i think the Republicans are the ones behind the scenes pushing Hillary for president, cause they think they can beat her easily

I'd vote for her, just to see if she could get an intern to go down on her in the White House...

but then again, I am easily amused!

so many people have HATRED for her thou, the election would be so devisive but entertaining

melly wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: :

That's just it though - they WERE abused, and not all of them were war machines.

Regardless of their position in the war, no one should be treated with disrespect for doing their duty.

Why weren't they ballsy enough to throw bricks at their President? don't want that for any military personnel; to be beaten by not only their "enemy" but by their own people.

They've been using commercial airliners to ship home troops through many other "nobler" wars, not just the kind that are hated.

Quality.

wars are bad news and decisions and actions that lead up to them are even more vile. Bush is a twat and a cnt because he is abusing the power invested in him.. and is, apparently, not looking to possibly constructive ways of addressing the mid -East. 2008, for the election, I hope comes quickly.

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: saves me the effort of pointing out the fact that both parties in the US are the same thing in the eyes of anyone from anywhere else on earth (that's the smattering of tiny island's off the us coast)

;)

don't ever make the mistake that saying that both parties are the same, not in the USA, not in the UK and not here. We are paying the price here for that now. I hope for your sake that the conservatives never regain power in the uk. trust me the conservatives now are not the same as they were. they are a whole lot nastier now.

I observed no difference in the change from tories to labour here.....didn;t see any improved NHS, unions being unbanned OR anything being re-nationalized.....the logo was red tho, I suppose that may matter.

As for the US....OK the republicans are run by big oil and the baccy compaines....who lobbies the democrats.......greenpeace?

What was the reason New Order gave Bush to destroy Iraq?

I wish I could mess threads!

Steve Campbell wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: US coast)

!

observed no difference in the change from tories to labour here..... As for the US....OK the republicans are run by big oil and the baccy compaines....who lobbies the democrats.......greenpeace?

who lobbies?maybe Maynards or Bassett-Trebor with the wine gum monopoly.

here's a case where I strongly hope that the usual melding of party policies does happen. and extremes mellow out.

here, last month, Canadians somehow voted in a Conservative minority gov't. apart from a Federal Acountabilty Act the platform was so far right that it was backwards. it will be good if the Acountability Act gives the transparency that it could and maybe it'll result in a better program.. have to wait and see.

Generic wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

johnny albrecht wrote: i just can't wait for hillary to get in office... then we'll really be fucked...

pray explain.

Come on Ron...you know how it is...when Hillary get's her first visit from the monthly visitor, she'll go straight for the bright red button...

I really hope that's not what was being inferred though.

just a little bit sexist there. are you sure you are a moderator?

Steve Campbell wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: saves me the effort of pointing out the fact that both parties in the US are the same thing in the eyes of anyone from anywhere else on earth (that's the smattering of tiny island's off the us coast)

;)

don't ever make the mistake that saying that both parties are the same, not in the USA, not in the UK and not here. We are paying the price here for that now. I hope for your sake that the conservatives never regain power in the uk. trust me the conservatives now are not the same as they were. they are a whole lot nastier now.

I observed no difference in the change from tories to labour here.....didn;t see any improved NHS, unions being unbanned OR anything being re-nationalized.....the logo was red tho, I suppose that may matter.

you may not have seen much change when labour got in, but let me assure you you will see change if the Tories get back in. just a few points.

.flogging off anything that hasn't already been sold .a crackdown on the welfare sector .a further deregulation of the economy (read a further crackdown on unionism). .a liberalisation of the labour market (read strip workers of their entitlements). that's just for starters.

trust me that's what we are going through here, and people thought there was no real difference between the parties.

JW wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: US coast)

!

observed no difference in the change from tories to labour here..... As for the US....OK the republicans are run by big oil and the baccy compaines....who lobbies the democrats.......greenpeace?

who lobbies?maybe Maynards or Bassett-Trebor with the wine gum monopoly.

---

here's a case where I strongly hope that the usual melding of party policies does happen. and extremes mellow out.

here, last month, Canadians somehow voted in a Conservative minority gov't. apart from a Federal Acountabilty Act the platform was so far right that it was backwards. it will be good if the Acountability Act gives the transparency that it could and maybe it'll result in a better program.. have to wait and see.

Maybe the democrats (does that name not mean the other party are opposed to democracy?) are lobbied (and therefor run) by (as you say) sweetie companies...or by birds and trees and pretty flowers.

The parties...particularly in the US are an illusion, to maintain the illusion of democratic choice itself.

Steve Campbell wrote:

JW wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote:

Ronald Kirsch wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote: US coast)

!

no difference democrats.......greenpeace?

---

The parties...particularly in the US are an illusion, to maintain the illusion of democratic choice itself.

nice thought but here, also hope that it's wrong. and that John McCain does successfully run for, and win, the US election 2008.

now if he'd go out and listen to PCL ..

melly wrote: *dodges any and all incoming bombs towards her domicle from her assertation of her opinion beforehand*

I voted for Bush. My parents went through Vietnam under a far worse President (who was from Texas!)

nixon was from texas?

it was under the nixon administration that the war expanded into cambodia and the number of troops increased in vietnam. it was also under this administration that the most violent anti-war protests took place (kent state, for example). and to think that the man ran on a platform promising that he would bring an end to the war and begin the process of demilitarization in the late 1960s.

Good

AgentWood wrote:

melly wrote: *dodges any and all incoming bombs towards her domicle from her assertation of her opinion beforehand*

I voted for Bush. My parents went through Vietnam under a far worse President (who was from Texas!)

nixon was from texas?

it was under the nixon administration that the war expanded into cambodia and the number of troops increased in vietnam. it was also under this administration that the most violent anti-war protests took place (kent state, for example).

Was referencing Johnson being in office (late 63-68) and signing the increased presence to "fight back the Communists" policies as my President from Texas barb. Going from the push he had to never give up until we "beat back those commies" which.. sounds familiar to another speech heard recently. LBJ's decisions were critized before 68 when he lost to Nixon, and there was anti-war sentiment before 68' as well. Just going off what I've learned from parents and their friends who were stationed during the time. I know there were far worse things like Kent State that happened later on.

The real difference between Bush and Johnson was that even though they were run down for essentially what people believed to be "bad decision making", Johnson was better informed on the situation surrounding his war then perhaps people would believe of our current Commander.

If I remember from what I've read correctly, in 65 they had ~180,000 US troops there. I think we have close to that sitting in Iraq right now, too. I definitely could be wrong, though. Seemed a good comparison, two hated wars and two Texas presidents.

just how was LBJ a far worse president?

Both lied about the reason for the war or expanding it but LBJ's micro-management of the war was far worse. At least Bush steps back and lets the military run it. LBJ's rules of engagement and non bombing zones were total bullshit to the military. Not saying that the results would have been different but too many US soldiers died because of LBJ. But Iraq causalties are barely a percentage of Viet Nam's death toll for US forces. Think about this, something like 3000 US aircraft were shot down in Viet Nam. Maybe 15 helicopter incidents in the Iraq mess.

What was that bumpersticker "Viet Nam: What the happened? When I was there we were winning." Maybe need a new one for Iraq.

a prime minister of ours coined the phrase of "all the way with LBJ". actually i believe that was our foreign policy at the time.

Generic wrote:

First off, LBJ did not lose an election to Nixon.

Secondly, if all you are basing your view on is Viet Nam, then you are forgetting about all the good programs that Johnson pushed through Congress to try and help poor Americans, as well as black Americans. On the other hand, I can't really think of one thing Dubya has done to help poor people. Hell, I can't think of a single thing he's done to help the middle class.

Nixon succeeded Johnson because Johnson knew he couldn't win the re-election due to the anti-war protests that followed him everywhere he went. That's what I meant by "lost". He knew he couldn't be reelected, and Nixon came flying in on the ticket stating he'd stop the war.

I haven't forgotten any of the great programs him and Lady Bird started, particularily in our own state. I was only using a small part of his presidential service in comparison to a small part of Bush's presidential service. That's all. Pointing out that other presidents had served under disliked wars, and that no president is perfect. Probably not the best way to present an opinion, but it's what I went with.

I think that it is impossible to date a man like him...