So the good part about Bush winning...

[Morko]

Excellent post Lanny McDonald! You said everything I tried to say in my bad English and more!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by fotze@Nov 3 2004, 03:35 PM
I've never heard my wife (who is American) be so anti American today. She will usually defend Americans (at parties and whatnot) from people who say "Americans are so stupid". But today, just sad.

Sounds familiar. My wife (same situation) said the same thing, and she's so pro-America its not even funny.

[nfotiu]

Lanny, I agree with most of what you said. One thing that strikes me as a bit hypocritical is your attacks on Bush for allowing jobs to be outsourced to India.

You get down on the US for only caring about themselves, while at the same time criticizing the government for not doing enough to protect their own jobs. If he somehow put an end to outsourcing to India, wouldn't that hurt the people of India quite a bit? Isn't it a good thing for the world, that a country like India can now have some good jobs? If people in India are willing to work for less, obviously they need the jobs more. Isn't this a positive thing for the world? Isn't this a way for America to share their wealth somewhat? Although the Muslim terrorist activities are mostly a response to the Americans military actions and support of Israel, it would seem that a lot of Anti-americanism could fade if America didn't continue to hoard all the money and all the good jobs. You accuse the Americans of thinking only of themselves, but don't have any regard for the positive effect this is having on other countries.

[FlamesAddiction]

The good news from a hockey point of view is that the dollar has already gone up a whole cent since last night from 81.4 to 82.4.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show. It should be a good one.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 3 2004, 03:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 3 2004, 03:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fotze@Nov 3 2004, 03:35 PM
I've never heard my wife (who is American) be so anti American today. She will usually defend Americans (at parties and whatnot) from people who say "Americans are so stupid". But today, just sad.

Sounds familiar. My wife (same situation) said the same thing, and she's so pro-America its not even funny. [/b][/quote]
As a third member of this club, I'll add that my American wife is feeling pretty similar sentiments. Although my neighbours were all honking their horns and high-fiving each other this morning.

[The Goon]

I'm happy it was a decisive victory. Hopefully the USA can recover and not be as polarized as they had been leading up to the election.

I guess a lot of that depends on Bush's performance in his second term, though.

So good luck, USA! All the best from your northern neighbour.

[Bingo]

Lanny ...

The problem with speeches like that is the underlying assumption.

Anyone who disagrees with you ... let the world down
Anyone who disagrees with you ... are ignorant
Anyone who disagrees with you ... votes on style and not substance
Anyone who disagrees with you ... is self absorbed

That's without taking any license with your comments, they were black and white.

I've said it 1000 times, I'm not a big fan of Bush, but I did want him to win this election. I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks, it's an American election, not a world election. The American people gave Bush a 3+% point margin in this election ... the real test of politics, above opinion polls and voter polls.

You're a well spoken guy, and you make a good point from time to time, but you really need to work on the underlying intolerance in your message. People that disagree with you simply disagree with you. That doesn't make them wrong, or any less bright, compassionate or worldly.

58.5 million Americans are not simply beneath you because they see things a different way.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Nov 3 2004, 03:49 PM
Lanny, I agree with most of what you said. One thing that strikes me as a bit hypocritical is your attacks on Bush for allowing jobs to be outsourced to India.

You get down on the US for only caring about themselves, while at the same time criticizing the government for not doing enough to protect their own jobs. If he somehow put an end to outsourcing to India, wouldn't that hurt the people of India quite a bit? Isn't it a good thing for the world, that a country like India can now have some good jobs? If people in India are willing to work for less, obviously they need the jobs more. Isn't this a positive thing for the world? Isn't this a way for America to share their wealth somewhat? Although the Muslim terrorist activities are mostly a response to the Americans military actions and support of Israel, it would seem that a lot of Anti-americanism could fade if America didn't continue to hoard all the money and all the good jobs. You accuse the Americans of thinking only of themselves, but don't have any regard for the positive effect this is having on other countries.

Hey, if Bush feels so great about the job he is doing in regards to job creation for India then maybe he would like to run for President of India! I know 48 million people that would vote for him getting the job there!

George W. Bush is the President of the United States. He is supposed to look after the well being of the people in the UNITED STATES. That means he is to foster an environment where people can make a living and continue in their search for the AMERICAN dream. Offshoring of jobs, and creation of an under-employment issue (a huge problem in the IT industry down here BTW), does not help lead to people making a living and all it leads people to is pursuit of the American nightmare.

Frankly it is NOT the role of the US President to give a damn about job creation in other countries. This is where foreign policy comes into play, something the US really needs to re-think. America should take a less active role in other countries. If America wants something, but it. If other countries can be competitive, then so be it. If not, then so be it. Foreign aid is one thing, but propping up another country's job creation efforts at the expense of your own citizens is assinine. Countries have to make it on their own, not with the help of the US President. His first responsibility is with the general well being of the US people. Off shoring jobs does NOT help the general well being of the people in the US.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 3 2004, 04:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 3 2004, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nfotiu@Nov 3 2004, 03:49 PM
Lanny, I agree with most of what you said. One thing that strikes me as a bit hypocritical is your attacks on Bush for allowing jobs to be outsourced to India.

You get down on the US for only caring about themselves, while at the same time criticizing the government for not doing enough to protect their own jobs. If he somehow put an end to outsourcing to India, wouldn't that hurt the people of India quite a bit? Isn't it a good thing for the world, that a country like India can now have some good jobs? If people in India are willing to work for less, obviously they need the jobs more. Isn't this a positive thing for the world? Isn't this a way for America to share their wealth somewhat? Although the Muslim terrorist activities are mostly a response to the Americans military actions and support of Israel, it would seem that a lot of Anti-americanism could fade if America didn't continue to hoard all the money and all the good jobs. You accuse the Americans of thinking only of themselves, but don't have any regard for the positive effect this is having on other countries.

Hey, if Bush feels so great about the job he is doing in regards to job creation for India then maybe he would like to run for President of India! I know 48 million people that would vote for him getting the job there!

George W. Bush is the President of the United States. He is supposed to look after the well being of the people in the UNITED STATES. That means he is to foster an environment where people can make a living and continue in their search for the AMERICAN dream. Offshoring of jobs, and creation of an under-employment issue (a huge problem in the IT industry down here BTW), does not help lead to people making a living and all it leads people to is pursuit of the American nightmare.

Frankly it is NOT the role of the US President to give a damn about job creation in other countries. This is where foreign policy comes into play, something the US really needs to re-think. America should take a less active role in other countries. If America wants something, but it. If other countries can be competitive, then so be it. If not, then so be it. Foreign aid is one thing, but propping up another country's job creation efforts at the expense of your own citizens is assinine. Countries have to make it on their own, not with the help of the US President. His first responsibility is with the general well being of the US people. Off shoring jobs does NOT help the general well being of the people in the US. [/b][/quote]
Wait a minute, I was not under the impression that Bush was actively promoting outsourcing jobs to India. Just thought you were saying that it was happening under his watch and he wasn't doing anything to stop it. Can you explain what Bush is doing to directly encourage offshoring of jobs?

Hey, I am a Canadian taking away an IT job in the US, who am I to say that Indians should not get to compete for my job.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 04:11 PM
Lanny ...

The problem with speeches like that is the underlying assumption.

Anyone who disagrees with you ... let the world down
Anyone who disagrees with you ... are ignorant
Anyone who disagrees with you ... votes on style and not substance
Anyone who disagrees with you ... is self absorbed

That's without taking any license with your comments, they were black and white.

I've said it 1000 times, I'm not a big fan of Bush, but I did want him to win this election. I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks, it's an American election, not a world election. The American people gave Bush a 3+% point margin in this election ... the real test of politics, above opinion polls and voter polls.

You're a well spoken guy, and you make a good point from time to time, but you really need to work on the underlying intolerance in your message. People that disagree with you simply disagree with you. That doesn't make them wrong, or any less bright, compassionate or worldly.

58.5 million Americans are not simply beneath you because they see things a different way.

How can you even begin to consider arguing that ignorance was not part of the problem? Of Bush supporters 61% still believe that Hussein was linked to 9/11 and that Iraq had WMDs. Is this not complete justification of using the word "ignorance"? Seems to me that either they are ignorant or they have been hiding under a rock (or watching FoxNews or listening to RW radio) for the past year. How can you argue otherwise?

You know what's funny? I have yet to hear one Bush supporter articulate a tangible reason for why Bush should be re-elected. They keep saying that it was the great leadership that he showed post-911. Leadership? They are confusing tossing an arm around a fireman at a photo-op and saying a great sound bite with actual leadership. Leadership is making the tough decisions and doing the right thing. Bush did none of that. The minute they fabricated evidence to invade Iraq (started on September 12th) "great" leadership went out the window. Voting for "great leadership" just doesn't float when you look at his presidency as a whole. To me, that is a vote for more style than a vote for substance.

Okay Bingo, I'll let you answer as a Bush supporter. WHY should Bush have been voted back in? You're in the spotlight now. WHY? Be convincing.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Nov 3 2004, 04:37 PM
Wait a minute, I was not under the impression that Bush was actively promoting outsourcing jobs to India. Just thought you were saying that it was happening under his watch and he wasn't doing anything to stop it. Can you explain what Bush is doing to directly encourage offshoring of jobs?

Hey, I am a Canadian taking away an IT job in the US, who am I to say that Indians should not get to compete for my job.

Tax cuts to big corporations and not instituting punative measures against those that off-shore jobs is his way of supporting it. What executive sees a problem developing and does nothing to stop it?

And the difference between you and Indian taking a job away from an American? YOU are paying taxes into the system and are supporting the system through your purchasing power. The Indian is doing nothing but taking a high paying job out of the economy. The only good it does it bolsters the corporation's bottom line, artificially boosts the value of the stock in the market, and allows the rich to get richer. How does it help the economy in the US for the average Joe and those that actually have to survive in it?

[Bertuzzied]

Wow I can't believe Bush won. If he was running in Canada would barely get NDP numbers, gets over 58 million votes in the most powerful country in the world.

Congrats Bush. Now keep up your work and drive the Cdn$ dollar over 95 cents.

[Bingo]

I'm in the spot light?

Being a little dramatic aren't you?

I've said my piece for the last six months. I was for going into Iraq when they went in, they didn't find the weapons, but the man was still a threat to the region and a logical long term threat to the western world. You don't have to agree with that, in fact I suspect you won't ... but to me when you have money and complete hatred of a nation it doesn't take a whole lot of logic to see a potential issue down the road. He had to go.

I think Kerry is a better face on America, and would have been better at solving some wounds, but I really feared that once in power he would move back to the left and take the US away from some problems prematurely. I don't want Iraqi citizens killed and I'd be all for a peaceful and quick solution in Iraq, but I firmly believe that issues like Terrorism can't be left unchecked with the hopes that it will sort itself out. Hell bent hatred like that doesn't go away, it just regroups, I just wish American allies would see this as clearly as I guess I do.

Issues for me with Bush in power for four more years?

The defecit. Get it together man. I'm all for tax cuts (they were graduated and thus fair against the tax bills paid, and not the "cut for the rich" bumper sticker that the Dems were claiming), but that has to come with spending cuts, and Bush went the other way. That is silly in my mind. I hope he sorts that out.

So ... am I ignorant? Self absorbed? Would I have voted on only style?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Dramatic Bingo? Nope. Just wanted you to know that you really had nothing to vote for Bush for other than his willingness to invade a country illegally and that you would have to put that out there in the glare of the spot light.

[arsenal]

It wasn't an illegal invasion. An invasion was and is justified by the UN Resolutions passed against Iraq back in 1991.

We all knew Saddam was surcumventing the sanctions. Countries violated the sanctions 6 months to a year after they where passed. No one invaded, becuase they where getting rich of Saddam.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 3 2004, 05:19 PM
Dramatic Bingo? Nope. Just wanted you to know that you really had nothing to vote for Bush for other than his willingness to invade a country illegally and that you would have to put that out there in the glare of the spot light.

Weren't you whole heartedly supporting that neo-con agenda with both feet three years ago in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? Do you want to put that in the spotlight?

As an aside, a debate on the issue of outsourcing and whether its hurtful or beneficial.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...34/b3846027.htm

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by arsenal@Nov 3 2004, 05:24 PM
It wasn't an illegal invasion. An invasion was and is justified by the UN Resolutions passed against Iraq back in 1991.

We all knew Saddam was surcumventing the sanctions. Countries violated the sanctions 6 months to a year after they where passed. No one invaded, becuase they where getting rich of Saddam.

And the U.S. invaded because they weren't getting rich off of Saddam. Don't kid yourself, UN resolutions had nothing to do with it.

Rumsfled knows the economic potential of Iraq, after all, the previous administrations he worked for did benefit from Saddam.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Actually arsenal, according to the UN it was an illegal invasion and is still described as such by the UN. The UN contended that sanctions were working (which they were) and did not see a need for a military action. The Security Counsil would not vote on the matter so the US took their case to the General Assembly and got voted down there as well. Face it, its an illegal occupation and the majority of the world sees it as such. And working the old UN Oil-for-Food scandal angle again? Sorry, been beaten to death and its been exposed that American companies were actually the ones who got the majority of the oil vouchers, making them as guilty as the next country. There's no longer a good angle there as the US implicates themselves in the "scandal", hence it being dropped from the media spotlight.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 3 2004, 11:19 AM
Dramatic Bingo? Nope. Just wanted you to know that you really had nothing to vote for Bush for other than his willingness to invade a country illegally and that you would have to put that out there in the glare of the spot light.

In your opinion ...

You just completely disregarded what I said ... and told me that I was wrong again. Like I said, you'd get a lot further with reasonable people if you'd stop entering every discussion with the underlying assumption that you are either right, or somehow superior to your counterpart.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 3 2004, 11:31 AM
Actually arsenal, according to the UN it was an illegal invasion and is still described as such by the UN. The UN contended that sanctions were working (which they were) and did not see a need for a military action. The Security Counsil would not vote on the matter so the US took their case to the General Assembly and got voted down there as well. Face it, its an illegal occupation and the majority of the world sees it as such. And working the old UN Oil-for-Food scandal angle again? Sorry, been beaten to death and its been exposed that American companies were actually the ones who got the majority of the oil vouchers, making them as guilty as the next country. There's no longer a good angle there as the US implicates themselves in the "scandal", hence it being dropped from the media spotlight.

Sure ...

but by UN standards Clinton's fore in Milosevic's backyard was illegal, and I think we can all agree that that was a pretty good idea.

The UN has proved itself to be useless in it's current state, crossing that body isn't a litmus test for what's right and wrong when it comes to actions.