So the good part about Bush winning...

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 3 2004, 12:51 PM
Can you name these magical places and products you speak of that the price has gone down? Name some. Clothing, cars, electronics perhaps? Yeah real rock bottom prices we're all seeing all over the place, cause you know, corporations like to sacrifice profit with labour savings and pass it on to consumers

Lets see...

1) Computers: You can get a computer for about $500. That has come down in price quite a bit. Yes, you can still pay around $2000-$5000 for a computer, but you paying for the newest technology.
2) TV's: Plasmas used to be around $50,000 for a 42 inch screen. Now I think 42" inch screen plasmas are around 7-8 k
3) Cellphones: These are pretty cheap now as well. Verison for instance, 2 phones, plus the "In" plan for what? 29.99 each? That is pretty damn cheap. Find a better plan in Canada compared to the US. You wont.
4) PDA's: These used to be the same price as a computer, now you can buy them for around $400-$1200. Wait a second, they are about the same price as a computer.
5) Vehicles: Haven't gone down in price, but they are not overly expensive either.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 07:03 PM
That's beside the point.

The UN has shown again and again that it can't be trusted to actually do it's job as a global force for peace and humanity. Clinton ran up against it and so too did Bush.

I can't say how much of the oil for food scandal is true, and how much is spin, but where there's that much smoke there is certainly a lick or two of flame. Getting onside with the UN is a complete waste of time.

It's not really beside the point. One of the purposes of the UN is protect nations from spiraling conflicts that threaten another country's sovereignty unjustly. The did that with Yugoslavia.

It was up to the leaders of NATO to convince the UN that their cause was just, which they eventually did. The UN worked exactly how it should have. Provide evidence, and they judge the merits. Bush's evidence wasn't very convincing to anyone.

[octothorp]

For better or worse, one of the risidual effects of Bush's victory will be on the political balance of other western nations--his general unpopularity outside of the US makes him a valuable tool for international liberals to rally around--in our last national election, Bush was a powerful tool that the Liberals effectively used to create a sense of fear. They'll likely be effective with the same tactic in three or four years time when they're up for election again. I really can't see Canada electing a Conservative PM as long as there's a perceived conservative extremist in power in the US.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by arsenal+Nov 3 2004, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Nov 3 2004, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Nov 3 2004, 12:51 PM
Can you name these magical places and products you speak of that the price has gone down? Name some. Clothing, cars, electronics perhaps? Yeah real rock bottom prices we're all seeing all over the place, cause you know, corporations like to sacrifice profit with labour savings and pass it on to consumers

Lets see...

1) Computers: You can get a computer for about $500. That has come down in price quite a bit. Yes, you can still pay around $2000-$5000 for a computer, but you paying for the newest technology.
2) TV's: Plasmas used to be around $50,000 for a 42 inch screen. Now I think 42" inch screen plasmas are around 7-8 k
3) Cellphones: These are pretty cheap now as well. Verison for instance, 2 phones, plus the "In" plan for what? 29.99 each? That is pretty damn cheap. Find a better plan in Canada compared to the US. You wont.
4) PDA's: These used to be the same price as a computer, now you can buy them for around $400-$1200. Wait a second, they are about the same price as a computer.
5) Vehicles: Haven't gone down in price, but they are not overly expensive either. [/b][/quote]
You mean Brand new products that were recently introduced to the markets for consumers?

I can use the same example with the ball point pen arsenal (orginally 20+ dollars), the point is new products will continue to decline in price because they are getting more popular throughout the market and more people have them - they are no longer purely luxury items like the ball point pen was.

They level off at a set price eventually and stay there. Flame ons assesment is correct for exsisting products.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo+Nov 3 2004, 06:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Nov 3 2004, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 3 2004, 11:54 AM
What ever turns you on Cow. Toss it out there if it makes you feel better. The comments in question were made three years ago, long before we had a pinch of the information we have now. Based on the information that was available I made those comments. Based on the information that has come available I have changed my stance accordingly. I would hope you have done the same as well.

So what you're saying is ...

You are using information from today to make a better decision yesterday? Man I bet, Bush, Clinton, and the rest all wish they had that ability. What a great tool to have ... hindsight. [/b][/quote]
I would agree with what you are saying if I flip flopped over night, but that is not the case. My stance on the e-mail in question changed over a three year span. In fact, I changed my stance on Iraq shortly after that e-mail was sent. As more information came available and more exposure to the evidence was possible my views changed. It was a slow process, not like Cow tries to make it look. Its not like YOU were missing for four years and didn't have access to the information we have had on Bush and make your blind case for voting for him. If you had said three years ago that you would vote for Bush, no problem. But being a supposed thinking man and still saying he was worthy of voting for against the evidence piled against him, well that just doesn't make sense.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 3 2004, 01:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 3 2004, 01:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

So what you're saying is ...

You are using information from today to make a better decision yesterday? Man I bet, Bush, Clinton, and the rest all wish they had that ability. What a great tool to have ... hindsight.

I would agree with what you are saying if I flip flopped over night, but that is not the case. My stance on the e-mail in question changed over a three year span. In fact, I changed my stance on Iraq shortly after that e-mail was sent. As more information came available and more exposure to the evidence was possible my views changed. It was a slow process, not like Cow tries to make it look. Its not like YOU were missing for four years and didn't have access to the information we have had on Bush and make your blind case for voting for him. If you had said three years ago that you would vote for Bush, no problem. But being a supposed thinking man and still saying he was worthy of voting for against the evidence piled against him, well that just doesn't make sense. [/b][/quote]
Sure ... but that's my point.

18 months later with no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I'm sure Bush would love to change his mind on Iraq. He can't do that. You did.

That's the difference.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 06:47 PM
Here's a link talking about how Clinton with Nato went into Serbia without the UN's approval.

CNN

Thank you for the link. I did not know it was a NATO action. I thought it was under the guise of the UN.

BTW... Is it okay if I change my view of this action and believe it was wrong to do this without the UN blessing? I won't do this if you and Cow don't say its okay. Without your blessing I will have to keep going on believing that the UN did give its blessing.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Another positive is that The Late Show will continue to run segments like:

"George W. Bush: Linguistics Master" or "George W. Bush Pretends to Give A Damn"...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 3 2004, 07:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 3 2004, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 06:47 PM
Here's a link talking about how Clinton with Nato went into Serbia without the UN's approval.

CNN

Thank you for the link. I did not know it was a NATO action. I thought it was under the guise of the UN.

BTW... Is it okay if I change my view of this action and believe it was wrong to do this without the UN blessing? I won't do this if you and Cow don't say its okay. Without your blessing I will have to keep going on believing that the UN did give its blessing. [/b][/quote]
The UN also had people on the ground before the conflict was over.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 3 2004, 01:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 3 2004, 01:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 06:47 PM
Here's a link talking about how Clinton with Nato went into Serbia without the UN's approval.

CNN

Thank you for the link. I did not know it was a NATO action. I thought it was under the guise of the UN.

BTW... Is it okay if I change my view of this action and believe it was wrong to do this without the UN blessing? I won't do this if you and Cow don't say its okay. Without your blessing I will have to keep going on believing that the UN did give its blessing. [/b][/quote]
Now your plan is to be cheeky?

You can change your mind until the Cows comes home (pardon the boving expression), if you don't spend the other 357 days of the year chest beating, crowing, and talking above people that you disagree with.

You're track record makes it much harder for you to change your mind so radically ...

Edited to remove picture of toilet bowl ... I should practice what I preach.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 07:29 PM
18 months later with no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I'm sure Bush would love to change his mind on Iraq. He can't do that. You did.

That's the difference.

Actually Bingo, I was never for going into Iraq until Afghanistan was done and al Qeada was smoked out and finished. If at that time there was a link to Iraq, then go for it, as long as the UN agreed. I've been dead set against Iraq from the begining because the UN was not on board. WMDs, terrorists or what ever has not been the point for me, the UN saying no was the sticker. There's a big difference.

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't think this is a "good part" but it seems today is the day that Hungary has publicly said they will be removing their troops from Iraq after the January elections. They were asked to stick around, but nope.

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 09:11 AM
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

So you're buying into those underlying assumptions and assuming that they are bad things. Americans are proud that they are "ignorant", "self absorbed" and focussed on "style". They could care less about the rest of the world as they are only looking after their "own interests". These are not bad things to Americans. It's the way they have built their society. Don't feel bad for them, as they will be the first to tell you they are the "greatest country in the world".

[IggyPimp]

It pains me to think what will happen in the next four years.....even being Canadian, I was a nervous wreck yesterday hoping that Bush would not get back in. Watching the election until the early morning, I was in a state of shock as I watched the results unfold. After just getting back from the states travelling, I still cannot get over the fear that many people live with down there. Every time I talked about the election with anyone, the talk always revolved around terrorists and how they are "out to get us". I'm sorry, but as long as the country is involved in conflicts that it should NOT be involved with (IRAQ is only a mere example of this over the past 50 years) then nobody is going to make you more safe. In fact, I think Bush makes America LESS safe. I feel very sorry for the voters who did there best to change this regime that is in place. I don't blame them for wanting to get rid of a president who has taken a surplus and turned it into ridiculous amount of debt. I don't blame them for wanting to get rid of a president who won't admit that he made a mistake buy invading Iraq with just cause, (or if you believe he still does have just cause, without adequate armed forces and funds.)

This debt is just gonna get larger and larger. Don't think for a minute that this Iraq war will be finished in a year or even 2! THink 5 - 10 years my friends....and when the debt crushes the economy down there, guess who won't be feeling the pinch? Mr. Cheney? George Bush Sr? His puppet son? Nope....it will be all those voters who waited out in the rain last night to put this idiot back in power along with the poor individuals who actually knew what they were doing.

Don't kid yourselves to those who say it is an American problem......America is the global leader in an increasingly global generation and when that leader makes drastic decisions like this one does, it affects everyone.

A sad day.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Pileon@Nov 3 2004, 02:23 PM
So you're buying into those underlying assumptions and assuming that they are bad things. Americans are proud that they are "ignorant", "self absorbed" and focussed on "style". They could care less about the rest of the world as they are only looking after their "own interests". These are not bad things to Americans. It's the way they have built their society. Don't feel bad for them, as they will be the first to tell you they are the "greatest country in the world".

I wonder if our American readers will be surprised to hear they are ...

are proud that they are "ignorant", "self absorbed" and focussed on "style".

That is just plain silly. 51% of a huge nation voted strongly for a party that some on this site don't like. That doesn't make this massive group of people any less intelligent than the other 48% that voted Kerry.

To think so makes one as ignorant as one reports Americans to be.

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 01:50 PM
I wonder if our American readers will be surprised to hear they are ...

are proud that they are "ignorant", "self absorbed" and focussed on "style".

That is just plain silly. 51% of a huge nation voted strongly for a party that some on this site don't like. That doesn't make this massive group of people any less intelligent than the other 48% that voted Kerry.

To think so makes one as ignorant as one reports Americans to be.

My comment has nothing to do with their election. Again your focussing on the negative connotations that "you" attach to them. Americans care about themselves. Period. They are offended when others say anything about them. They believe that they are always right and what others say has no bearing on them. That's the way they live and it works for them. The only time it runs into conflict is when they take this attitude out into the larger world.

Ignorant means that they only know and care about themselves. Same wth self absorbed. Maybe the focussed on style comment isn't totally fair, but they do appear to be wrapped up in appearing to be right (whatever that is) as opposed to actually being right.

None of this is a surprise to me given the country's slant to rugged individualism. Why should they care about anyone else. They are who they are. They ahve learned to live with it. So should we.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Pileon+Nov 3 2004, 03:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pileon @ Nov 3 2004, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 01:50 PM
I wonder if our American readers will be surprised to hear they are ...

are proud that they are "ignorant", "self absorbed" and focussed on "style".

That is just plain silly. 51% of a huge nation voted strongly for a party that some on this site don't like. That doesn't make this massive group of people any less intelligent than the other 48% that voted Kerry.

To think so makes one as ignorant as one reports Americans to be.

My comment has nothing to do with their election. Again your focussing on the negative connotations that "you" attach to them. Americans care about themselves. Period. They are offended when others say anything about them. They believe that they are always right and what others say has no bearing on them. That's the way they live and it works for them. The only time it runs into conflict is when they take this attitude out into the larger world.

Ignorant means that they only know and care about themselves. Same wth self absorbed. Maybe the focussed on style comment isn't totally fair, but they do appear to be wrapped up in appearing to be right (whatever that is) as opposed to actually being right.

None of this is a surprise to me given the country's slant to rugged individualism. Why should they care about anyone else. They are who they are. They ahve learned to live with it. So should we. [/b][/quote]
Line up 100 Americans, call them ignorant and then quickly count how many are quickly coming to the conclusion that you mean no negative connotation by that comment.

When you pull yourself off the floor with a bloody lip you might realize that the word "ignorant" and "compliment" rarely appear in the same phrase.

[sbailey924]

Bush had already taken a pretty far right position on a lot of social issues, despite his narrow win last time. Now that he won the popular vote and the electoral vote, I'm scared to think what he may come up with.

Dumbfounded. 100% dumbfounded.

[dangler22]

Well they voted him in again so they deserve these next four years of Bush and I do not feel a tad sorry for them. Enjoy America.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Bingo+Nov 3 2004, 08:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Nov 3 2004, 08:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Pileon@Nov 3 2004, 02:23 PM
So you're buying into those underlying assumptions and assuming that they are bad things. Americans are proud that they are "ignorant", "self absorbed" and focussed on "style". They could care less about the rest of the world as they are only looking after their "own interests". These are not bad things to Americans. It's the way they have built their society. Don't feel bad for them, as they will be the first to tell you they are the "greatest country in the world".

I wonder if our American readers will be surprised to hear they are ...

are proud that they are "ignorant", "self absorbed" and focussed on "style".

That is just plain silly. 51% of a huge nation voted strongly for a party that some on this site don't like. That doesn't make this massive group of people any less intelligent than the other 48% that voted Kerry.

To think so makes one as ignorant as one reports Americans to be. [/b][/quote]
I heard a lot of American's saying pretty much that about the majority of their country today in my office (mostly transplanted from northern states). It is not just Canadians who think this way!

I also woke up to my (native virginian) neighbours honking horns and high fiving each other. But these are people with first names (no joke) Ann Tyler, Billie Joe, Cary Rose, and Mary Joe who couldn't be more happy that the good christian got re-elected.