Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

bush_cheney2004

Members
  • Content Count

    56,664
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    199

Everything posted by bush_cheney2004

  1. OK...tragic comedies are quite popular. And as long as some Canadians feel it is caused by others, they shall remain trapped in the tragi-comedy. No wonder the next American election is seen as a cure for domestic impotence and victimhood, which only perpetuates the cycle.
  2. But Senator Obama has been part of the same show. His message is narrowly focused on the votes he needs from like minded Democrats and Independents to secure his party's nomination. Such puffery will not sustain a general election run when he faces incoming mortars.
  3. This is laughable....Canada "got into" Afghanistan because of NATO membership commitments and (the funny part), as an explicit way to avoid entanglement in the invasion of Iraq. Canada's obligation is of its own making, and you didn't even get to vote on it (via Parliament). What kind of "dictatorship" are you guys running up there?
  4. Probably not, but it is disingenuous to suddenly wake up and wonder how Canada ended up in Afghanistan with a combat mission, not the fairytale of "peacekeeping". Canada did not go to Iraq, and Chretien boasted proudly of his "correct" decision (although he would have gone with UNSC approval....curiously not needed to bomb Serbs). Afghanistan was held up as a shining example of following Canadian values and policy protocol with NATO. Now even that is causing a bit of squirming and second guessing. You can't blame Bush for everything.
  5. Then why would you reference the very man who prevented any such thing from happening? I can point to democratically elected representatives making the decisions for war and continued funding....you can't...not even for $10. Well...yea...they're still trying to wash out the taste of Chretien.
  6. What's wrong with this picture? Is this the same Chretien who wouldn't let Parliament talk about or vote before going to war (i.e. Kosovo or Afghanistan)? At least the American government actually voted on such policies! From Feb 2007: It is now five years since Canadian troops were first deployed to Afghanistan, entering from the outset into a combat position. Canada moved into a war in Afghanistan without any Parliamentary sanction or debate. The Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien engineered both an endorsement and accommodation to the American 'war on terror' by moving into Afghanistan without directly supporting the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. The policy was a classic case of Canada trying to have it both ways. The Canadian mission in Afghanistan was thus begun with neither wide discussion and even minimal accountability nor strategic thought. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4880
  7. Perhaps, but only a short glimpse. There are still many twists and turns to come as the full dynamic of a US presidential election cycle unfolds. Cue James Brown's "Living In America" from Rocky V. There is no equivalent anywhere in the world.
  8. This is true...they are also smart enough to ignore what their "neighbors" want too, when it conflicts with self interest.
  9. OK by me for the most part...the US has experience in such things going back to WW2. The losers end up being winners.
  10. What you have in your sack is irrelevant. Do you really expect the United States to substantially alter domestic and foreign policy to the point of abdicating the hegemon role because of a single federal election? Do you have a firm grasp of American policies before 2001?
  11. It's just another American election, not some opportunity for a sea change and warm approval by the world's peanut gallery. The USA is the same as it ever was, never flying in any such way. I for one will be glad to see a change in the US administration if only to determine who will be the next recipient of sanctimonious disdain from Canada or elsewhere, as if it even mattered. Fast forward to a possible President Obama or Clinton...do you think the Americans are just going to fold up the hegemon tents and go home?
  12. That's what they said in 2004 too. President Bush still got a second term. Back then, the "guy" was wrong.
  13. No, it's my own as far as I know. I'm sure someone else has noted the same thing elsewhere. What I admire is the continuation of American hegemony, and the many forms it takes, not the cult of individual personality.
  14. You could, but you won't, because it would be meaningless. The Olympics would go on as planned sans Canada and the price of oil exports, including those going to Canada, is set by market forces. There seems to be no telling foreign investors to "stuff" their capital when Canada wanted it.
  15. No, it is normal screening that happens to involve a dead baby. People die all the time, under a multitude of circumstances. Hell, Canada tazes perfectly healthy people to death at the airport! Mom could have aborted this baby and you would have thought nothing of it. But this dead baby offers the opportunity for political mileage.
  16. The Republicans are suppose to lose this election....that we are even having this discussion reveals just how easily the Democrats can screw it up (again).
  17. That would just add more fuel to the fire. Senator Obama leads now in all metrics. The DNC has a huge problem if it steps on Obama's throngs.
  18. No, there is no comparison, not even including talk radio. Republicans have no place else to go except to stay home if they won't support Senator McCain. Huckabee will not bring a large block of delegates to broker in St. Paul.
  19. CNN has just demonstrated that neither Obama or Clinton can win their party nomination outright given proportional delegate wins, and it will go to super-delegates to put one over the top. This sets the stage for the so called "trainwreck" in Denver, with bitter resentment for supporters of the loser (even if their candidate is nominated as Veep). The Democrats would not want to extinguish the enthusiasm (i.e. voter turnout) demonstrated for Obama so far in the general, as the objective is to win the election. Republicans can sit back and watch the cat fight.
  20. Yes, that would work, but depending on the file system (e.g FAT vs. NTFS or MAC HFS...maybe Linux) and any purposeful encryption, the files could have been readily recovered with a sector scan utility. Just sieze the hard drive and let the nerds do their thing. I just recovered my teenage kid's "gaming" PC 15 minutes ago by fixing the master boot record....he has been downloading all kinds of legal and illegal crap and finally got burned. Broadband speeds only accelerate the appetite for forbidden fruit. Technically, ISPs have a record of activity for law enforcement to access, but they need a warrant to make it legal like.
  21. The present "monkey" didn't lie in a federal court. It is over...President Clinton was impeached for his "indiscretion". Not sure why you even care about what the Americans do about such matters, or why you think you can tell the rest how to feel.
  22. Interesting case, but we would need more details. In general, evidence discovered during a lawful search or with the permission of the owner is admissable. Certainly a hidden file would not be considered to be in plain sight or necessary to see for BG's to protect their safety. If there was probable cause to suspect possession of child porn, then all bets are off. True story: Back in the late 90's, we had an employee request a larger hard drive for his desktop PC, as his present HD was nearly "full". "Full of what" wondered the Help Desk tech, who logged into the PC to see what the problem was. 20 Gigs of child porn later, he was out of a job and under arrest, claiming that his privacy rights had been violated.
  23. We can certainly do that, but what you have presented has little to do with "race relations" and more to do with "white" myopia. If we have to play this game, isn't Iceland far "whiter" than any of your examples? And far more "peaceful". If that be the measure of "success" then please start there. No BNP required! Canada's past and present, like the USA, are not insulated from BNP sentiments or behaviors. It's just not called the "BNP".
  24. What do I think? I think your xenophobic analysis is very short on so called "visible minority" history and long on "white", despite the fact that many of the "white people" were also immigrants. Amazing!
  25. How bad do you want to visit another country? If you don't like scans, strip searches, xrays, swipe sniffers, air puffers, drug dogs, video cameras, face recognition software, profiling, fingerprinting, credit checks, and police record checks, why are you worried about innocuous laptop considerations? Stay home......especially if you have something to hide.
×
×
  • Create New...