Politics

There are 2,687 replies in this Thread which has previously been viewed 877,801 times. The latest Post () was by Kevin.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

  • Hi Stumpy

    It would be nice to have all politicians on performance!

    Mike



    Amen, Mike.

    If the pols were graded on performance though, many if not most of them would end up in the hole.

    Robbie made the statement that PM Blair was pretty popular in America and he's right. In fact, I would vote for Mr. Blair for president over any of the Americans who've announced they're running because IMO, he at least has the courage of his convictions whereas none of the current crop of American presidential candidates does. None of them would recognize principle if it came up and bit 'em in the butt.

    De gustibus non est disputandum

  • Funny how distance can distort things.


    I think you would find many who would pay you to take Blair away. As for his wife Cherie she makes Hilary look like a warm kind member of the human race
    LOL


    Blair would be known as having more faces than the Albert Clock a local expression for being two faced liar.


    For George Bush's faults I would actually say he believes in what he is doing
    and has a certain Irish/Scottish stubborness about trying to achieve his aims.



    Mike

  • George Bush's has a certain Irish/Scottish stubborness about trying to achieve his aims.



    You sure have that right. 'Specially the stubborness part. :no2:

    In a way, I agree with his determination to resist the Islamofascist's announced goal of trying to spread Islam throughout the world. But as an isolationist, I'm sick of this country getting involved in crap that has nothing to do with our direct security interests. I could see the U.S. going into Afghanistan to take out al Qaeda and the Taliban since they were directly responsible for the attack in NY. But I just cannot accept that Iraq was a direct threat to this country.

    I don't accept the left's charges that Bush lied the U.S. into Iraq. More than likely, he was given faulty intelligence information and decided to act on it.

    I can even accept him sending in the troops to overthrow Hussein. Hussein was a Hitler clone who richly deserved to be overthrown. What ticks me off no end though is Bush's Wilsonian desire to "make the world safe for democracy". Hell, those ragheads wouldn't know democracy if it came up and bit 'em in the butt. Look at the way they treat their women....disgraceful.

    Well, I'd better not get started on this rant because I could go on for days about political things that just irritate the hell out of me. :cry2:

    De gustibus non est disputandum

  • Stumpy,


    I agree with most of what you have to say on this point.


    I too think we need to keep our nose in our own business.


    Look what practiced democracy got us there in Iraq, a Shiite run country that is pursecuting the few Christians that remain there. Hussein was an evil (censored) but at least the Chaldean Christians who once lived there could live in peace.


    But you're right, the Western concept of a Republic, which is what I think Bush was really hoping for, is completely foreign to the people of the Middle East. They are not loyal to the concept of a country but rather to a family clan.


    We in the US really need to seriously take up a national study of our founding fathers, especially Washington, and understand the consequences of going against those ideals our country was founded upon.

    Tbone



    "I have tried to live my life so that my family would love me and my friends respect me. The others can do whatever the hell they please."

  • We in the US really need to seriously take up a national study of our founding fathers, especially Washington, and understand the consequences of going against those ideals our country was founded upon.



    Amen.

    It's been almost a hundred years since anybody in D.C. paid heed to Washington's excellent advice.

    “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

    George Washington

    De gustibus non est disputandum

  • Hi Robbie


    I think Washington made that statement because of the "British" and the "French" were trying to involve everyone in their war at the time and if US remained neutral they wouldnt be drawn into that conflict.


    Mike

  • Jim

    Does that include the UK?

    :agent:



    There I have strongly conflicting feelings, Rob. As I've said, my ancestry is Scotch-Irish and I've been a lifelong Anglophile. I have a very soft spot in my heart for the U.K., or at least the U.K. as I remember it back in the forties and fifties. And the historical U.K. But how do I square that liking for Great Britain with my isolationalism? Believe me, it's hard to do. Let me put it this way, if Great Britain needs any kind of assistance, military or otherwise, I say we should go immediately to their side. Otherwise, we should keep our distance.

    I am totally convinced that all the problems this country has in the Middle East is caused by our slavish devotion to Israel's security. But I'd better not get into that or somebody will accuse me of being anti-Semitic.

    De gustibus non est disputandum

  • Hi Robbie

    I think Washington made that statement because of the "British" and the "French" were trying to involve everyone in their war at the time and if US remained neutral they wouldnt be drawn into that conflict.

    Mike



    You're wrong, Mike. Washington's advice to avoid "entangling alliances" was in his farewell address and that was after this country won its' independence from Great Britain. The (North American) conflict between the British and French was long over by that time.

    De gustibus non est disputandum

  • Hi Jim


    I think the term conflict over was like five minutes in the ice hockey sin bin. They British finished fighting the French King before they started with Napolean.


    Was Washington speech directed to avoiding alliances with either France or Britain and to maintain US neutrality?



    Mike

  • Was Washington speech directed to maintain US neutrality?
    Mike



    I believe that was Washington's aim - to maintain neutrality.

    That's my wish also. I've always wished the U.S. would adopt the Swiss model of strict neutrality. I'm not all that familiar with Swiss history but believe they've managed to avoid war throughout their entire existence.

    De gustibus non est disputandum

  • Hi Jim


    I understand your feelings regarding the link between the UK and USA. I have said before that I have been very unhappy with Blairs tenure as Primeminister but I am happy at the way he has attempted to maintain the special relationship with the USA.


    :agent:

    Regards
    Robbie

  • Wonder will Tony Blair be arrested or forced to resign. I don't think there is any procedure to impeach him.



    I read a day or so ago that the PM had been questioned by the police in connection with the selling of peerages. Anything to that, Mike? If so, that will sure lower my estimation of the man.

    De gustibus non est disputandum

  • Questioned for a second time Jim and there is talk of secret email system in Downing Street. Even his own party want to go before local May elections. He starting to make Richard Nixon look like a saint



    Mike

  • Oooh how I love this thread. So nice to have so many people think in the same stratosphere that I do. But I have to avoid this thread less it have the same effect as Chili Bills chili (haven't tried it yet, but I'll take his word). I will say one thing however, as I can't stop myself. Pelosi (our esteemed Botox queen) now has use of military planes for her family as well as her delegates and nary a peep out of the main-stream press. At least she is getting rid of the culture of corruption. Sorry if I'm just repeating anything from earlier. It's taking me forever to catch up on these threads, but its a pleasure.
    Bo