Any other conservatives out there...

[Jugglin'5]

I agree with many others that GWB has had a very challenging time in which to be president. He has performed admirably in some ways, and has disappointed me in others. I like the man personally, and think he is a very decent human being. I don't think he has always chosen good advisers. I think the "compassionate conservative" thing has been a fiscal disaster, and I think we should have taken care of business in Afghanistan first. But that is Monday-morning quarterbacking. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on Iraq because I kept thinking he must have more information than I do, maybe things that must remain secret. I also think that we have to finish what we started, one of the few things I think I've ever agreed with Colin Powell about (the "Pottery Barn" effect - you break it, you bought it). I am more paleo-conservative/libertarian than neo-conservative, so all that talk about spreading democracy abroad bothers me. I want to get Osama, not try to remake the Mideast in our image, an impossible task. That said, I think historians will rank him higher than his current popularity polls. He has a backbone, and after belatedly changing tactics in Iraq, has turned things around by listening to different people, and picking a great general. Even if I am not excited about us being in Iraq forever, I am grateful that we may be able to avoid another post-Vietnam humiliation of our military. That is an accomplishment in itself. Even the military's (honest, not blinded by hate) detractors can't help but admit that they are the most competent, humane army in the world. That may be something we can be grateful for in the future.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Jugglin'5

[Spy Car]

How did George W Bush come to office in challenging times?

 

He came in at a time of record surplus in the National Treasury. With years of Clinton-era economic expansion, he came to office in a time of prosperity.

 

The Cold War was over, the Soviet Union was on the ash-heap of history. America was the world's only "Superpower". Never in our history had America's relative (or real) power been greater.

 

We had good relations with our allies, and were the trusted leaders of the free-world. And save small crisis areas, we were at peace.

 

He wasn't handed a "challenge". He was handed a nation enjoying peace and prosperity, and he turned around every positive advantage we had in 8 years of mis-rule.

 

I can't wait until this incompetent is out of office, and I'm praying we don't repeat the mistake by electing McCain.

 

Bill

[Joanne]

How did George W Bush come to office in challenging times?

 

Oh, come on, Bill. You can read. I'm not hopeful to mediate your mind about Bush (I'm not exactly a *fan* myself) but you can read comments in the context they were written.

 

Pres. Bush was handed an complicated economy replete with dubious credit decisions and inherited a complex terrorist situation that dated (technically since Bible times) decades old.

 

The environment, energy, the border were already issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed by a Pres or Congress of any party.

 

9/11 happened during Bush's time in office; an unprecedented event that continues to have complicated, predictable and unpredictable economic, security, cultural, emotional and foreign relations ramifications.

 

Cold War "over" does not equal no foreign concerns. As evidenced by recent events, North Korea, China....

 

Add to that the most egregious media machine (liberal and conservative alike), the internet, polls, statistics, and a dubious plethora of "information".

[tricia]

Yep, he did a job didn't he? But with Ron Paul I believe their is hope. At least this blog seems to think so.

http://www.standingontruths.blogspot.com

 

 

Tricia

http://www.mommyx12.blogspot.com

[sunshine]

How did George W Bush come to office in challenging times?

 

He came in at a time of record surplus in the National Treasury. With years of Clinton-era economic expansion, he came to office in a time of prosperity.

 

The Cold War was over, the Soviet Union was on the ash-heap of history. America was the world's only "Superpower". Never in our history had America's relative (or real) power been greater.

 

We had good relations with our allies, and were the trusted leaders of the free-world. And save small crisis areas, we were at peace.

 

He wasn't handed a "challenge". He was handed a nation enjoying peace and prosperity, and he turned around every positive advantage we had in 8 years of mis-rule.

 

I can't wait until this incompetent is out of office, and I'm praying we don't repeat the mistake by electing McCain.

 

Bill

 

I guess that if Gore had been elected Bin Laden would have sent flowers in stead of suicidal airplane pilots??

Remember there was a Republican Congress controlling the Clinton years. therefore the policies enacted. Not Clinton. One President doesn't rule the country like a Dictatorship. We are still a democracy.

[Haiku]

:iagree: I think history will judge GWB much more kindly than he is currently being judged.

 

I disagree. I think that history will harshly judge GWB for his missteps.

 

I am a mishmash of beliefs that don't neatly fall under the label of "liberal" or "conservative." I think Bush's presidency has been a disaster.

 

1) He has ruined our standing worldwide.

 

2) He has bankrupted us in a war that is only tangentially related to the Al-Quaida attacks, and his misguided focus has lost us opportuntities to capture bin Laden.

 

3) He has squandered our budget surplus.

 

4) He has held the door open and smilingly bid farewell to American jobs.

 

5) He has ushered in a complete failure in education policy.

 

6) He has done nothing to fix the healthcare nightmare.

 

7) He has enmeshed government and religion through his faith-based initiatives.

 

On the issues that are important to me, Bush has failed. I'm not saying a Democrat would have done better. Lots of Democrats have ideas I don't agree with, either. But my biggest complaint about George Bush is his absolute refusal to look at his actions and learn from them, to change his strategy when needed. He seems to "throw good money after bad," as it were, even while the situation deteriorates around him. He seems to have decided beforehand that he is going to cram the situation into his solution instead of fitting his solution to the situation. I think he has dug this country a very deep hole that it will take us a long time to climb out of.

 

Tara

[ma23peas]

Tara, Tara! My sister in name!! :)

 

I have to disagree with you on almost all your points, but I'm willing to let others speak for me on this, my points would be more about security and his commitment to our soldiers...the Democrats would have pulled out before the surge and we would have havoc in the middle East with Iraq being a free for all...our country was not on stable ground for decades after the Revolutionary War...we continued to have wars...but we made it...no one in the Middle East was standing up to Saddam's blatant ignoring of the UN resolutions that he agreed to..other countries like Iraq were hoping he'd topple himself and then there would be a free for all...but we signed on with the UN and they had specific actions...Saddam was convinced he could bully the UN and nothing would be done, is that how we want our civilization to react? Sure, it's cost us a lot but what would have been the alternative, let Saddam's country be tortured under his regime, hundreds of thousands more murdered...Ruwanda was easily Clinton's biggest regret.."why should we get involved"...well because MILLIONS were massacred...Saddam would have been there in time...

 

So, do I look at what is now and the reality is that the financial crisis has nothing to do with Bush, it was started in failure to impose oversight back in the 90's when Clinton was president...it takes more than a war to create this greedy mess...because it's all hitting at the same time we put the blame on one person..absolutely not.

 

I would MUCH rather be looking at the middle east we have today where there is oversight than one where Achmedinejad (totally phonetic spelling) was taking over Iraq and building a powerhouse to let the zealots on the Muslim fringe do their 'stuff' to Western thinking countries. Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan have 'let' the zealots have harbor in their countries for too long, it's about time that there is oversight...and that is what I have heard Bush say over and over, his decisions may not be 'popular' (heck we all want the happy, we can have anything we want, work hard and have something to show for it kind of lifestyle) but his commitment to the safety of this country superceded the 'comfort' we've grown accustomed to...I firmly support our President and I really take issue with the Democratic Congress that ties his hands...

 

(Sorry, I meant for this link to speak for me, but I get on a tangent of my own thinking and the words just keep going!) Interesting how your thread called for conservatives but there are quite a few liberals on here putting in their words of attack...guess they get on a tangent and ramble too! :)

 

http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/backgroundhistory/tp/bushdidright.htm

 

Tara

Edited October 6, 2008 by ma23peas

[Joanne]

TaraTheLiberator,

 

I disagree with you. But I very much respect your post and presentation.

 

I do understand not being able to claim a party wholeheartedly.

[Spy Car]

I guess that if Gore had been elected Bin Laden would have sent flowers in stead of suicidal airplane pilots??

Remember there was a Republican Congress controlling the Clinton years. therefore the policies enacted. Not Clinton. One President doesn't rule the country like a Dictatorship. We are still a democracy.

 

I'm not following your logic Sunshine.

 

The issue of who controlled Congress during the Clinton years is irrelevant to question of whether George Bush became the president during "very challenging times".

 

For sake of argument let's say Bill Clinton deserves no credit for getting us out of the massive debt he inherited when he came to office, and that the surplus Bush inherited when he came to power was all due to the Republican Congress, it doesn't change the fact that Bush inherited a surplus.

 

He then squandered that surplus and turned it into the most massive deficit the nation has ever faced.

 

Bush came to power in the least challenging times since the 1930's. At a time of economic prosperity, and (relatively speaking) a time of peace and US global power.

 

We did suffer a terrorist attack. My wife and I lost a friend in that attack, it was a terrible day for our nation. But no matter how shocking, this was not the greatest threat our nation has ever faced. And as you are no doubt aware Osama Bin Laden is still out there.

 

Last night on 60 Minutes the leader of the Delta Force (who had something like 50 men to go after Bin Laden) explained his frustration that the plans he made for capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora (where they knew his location) were twice over-ridden by the Administration, so instead of being able to go after bin Laden from behind (in a surprise attack) they had to mount a fully visible frontal assault, with 50 American commandos against a thousand al Qaeda fighters. And Bin Laden escaped.

 

This Administration has proved its gross incompetence in almost every function of governance and has left our nation far weaker than when it took office. And not because of extraordinary circumstances, but because of sheer ineptitude.

 

Bill

[Sara R]

Most of what has been going on in the economy is not his fault. If you had to blame individual people, it would be Greenspan/Paulson/Bernacke.

 

I do blame him for telling everyone it was their patriotic duty to go shopping to help the economy recover after 9/11. That encouraged excessive debt, which has been the main root cause of this financial crisis. There was a spirit of public good will immediately post 9/11, and people wanted to pull together to help, like people did during WWII. Instead of harnessing the desire to sacrifice, he encouraged us to consume more than we produced. Ugh.

[ThelmaLou]

Yes. Absolutely.

 

I don't think I would be willing to give the Democratic ticket a second glance if I were not so very unhappy with the mess of the last 8 years.

 

I have not felt that we had strong leadership since.....well.....since Reagan. I guess that is why I am considering giving my vote to the guy who says he has a new gameplan. I am thinking that what has been going on thus far has not been so impressive. Maybe the new kid can bring something to the table that the old timers had not thought of? Maybe?

 

But yes, the leadership of the last 8 years has pretty much cracked my conservative foundation.

 

Kelli, I have a question I'm hoping you can shed some light on. I'm only directing this toward you becuase you mentioned having a conservative foundation, but it sounds like you're considering a vote for Obama as the "new kid," as you put it, with hopes that something different will do the trick.

 

My husband and I have been discussing this quite a bit lately, and I hope this doesn't come across in any negative way, but here goes.

 

I honestly don't understand when people say they are "undecided" voters. I also don't quite get it when people switch from one party's candidate to another party's candidate from one election to another, unless of course you simply make a huge, permanent paradigm shift.

 

In their purest forms, the platforms of each of the two major parties seem to be a universe apart. I do recognize that within those parties, you have huge variation. Moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats, for example, would be closer together than far-right republicans and far-left democrats. That's a given. I'm not thrilled with Bush in many respects. He's not conservative enough for me. Ditto that with Mccain. He'd have never been my pick. But on the spectrum of conservative and liberal, he's at least closer to my end of the spectrum than Obama. On everything from economic issues, the size of government, the environment, social issues, immigration, health care, you name it, the basic party platforms are worlds apart.

 

I'm probably simplifying this way too much, but it seems to me that most everyone has (or maybe I think they should have) an underlying political worldview. There are such monumental differences between the party platforms (though not always between any 2 given candidates, I suppose) that I don't understand a wait and see approach when it comes to casting a vote. I'll freely admit that my mind was made up a long time ago. I would not consider voting for Obama or any democrat on the ticket for a host of reasons. Regardless of what I hear from him in a debate, I know for a fact that he aligns himself with the Democratic party, whose platform is not compatible with my worldview in the least. And I would understandably guess that most Democrats would see it the same way with Mccain. If Democrats adhere strongly to the party platform, why would they ever entertain a vote for Mccain?

 

OK, I feel like I'm rambling. I've taken way too long to say that this. But my main point is that I don't understand when people waffle between one candidate/party and another , unless they just haven't decided in general which underlying philosophy is guiding them. The undergirding philosophies of each party are so vastly different that it seems to me that "never the twain shall meet." How is someone torn between two candidates when the parties they represent are worlds apart?

 

Please take this as a sincere question and not an attack. Maybe I'm all wrapped up in my own far-right conservative mindset, but like I said, I would think the same would be true for a democrat. I just don't understand being in the middle, I guess. Can you share the process you went through that led you to consider voting for Obama after being a conservative? Are you disillusioned with what Conservatism stands for in general, or are you disillusioned because Bush did not implement that conservatism in many areas? I think I'd put myself in the latter camp. I respect Bush in some ways, but I'm disappointed in many areas...fiscal responsibility, immigration, and most recently this whole bailout issue. But my disappointment is less about the republican platform and more about the fact that George Bush did not embody that platform in so many areas. But if I had voted for Al Gore, I would have been straying even further from that platform than with Bush. On the spectrum, each of the candidates occupy a spot towards the left or right. I just can't imagine as a conservative choosing a candidate that's even a tad bit more to the left than the other because of my underlying political persuasion.

 

Help me understand! Thanks!

[ma23peas]

Most of what has been going on in the economy is not his fault. If you had to blame individual people, it would be Greenspan/Paulson/Bernacke.

 

I do blame him for telling everyone it was their patriotic duty to go shopping to help the economy recover after 9/11. That encouraged excessive debt, which has been the main root cause of this financial crisis. There was a spirit of public good will immediately post 9/11, and people wanted to pull together to help, like people did during WWII. Instead of harnessing the desire to sacrifice, he encouraged us to consume more than we produced. Ugh.

 

I agree with most of what you said, but the economy failing right now has more to do with the lack of banking oversight that should have been implemented in the 90's..not the encouragment to go out and spend...we have been overextended on our credit cards for more than 15 years, it's not a new phenomenon and not the root cause of what is happening now.

I love the quotes from some senators who back in 97/98 said that the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac was sound and did not need additional oversight, were bragging at how many Americans were now afforded the American dream of owning their own home...while the banking execs were building up their coffers or pork knowing they were extending high risk loans...

 

George Bush's cry for more spending was meant in the general sense to keep everything going, if everyone had stopped spending, we would have lost many more factories and more industries would be in crisis...he had a reason to ask for people to spend, the government should have to answer for reason allowing these bankers to be able to sell loans on risky borrowers...the American dream is about working to own your own home, not letting the government make it possible for you to have a bigger home...greed...on all sides.

 

Tara

[CLHCO]

Most of what has been going on in the economy is not his fault. If you had to blame individual people, it would be Greenspan/Paulson/Bernacke.

 

Can I add Frank Raines and Barney Frank to the list? Or is that off topic while we're pouncing republicans? I am disenchanted with the republican party, who are supposed to be fiscally conservative, maybe even hopping mad, but I really don't get why democrats are not disgusted with their party, instead simply turning a blind eye, choosing to focus only on the part the "other side" was involved in. Even more so, I don't get why republicans would be going to the democratic side, which has very many of the policies that brought about that mess and more. I get why democrats would choose to stay if the party reflects their ultimate beliefs, though I wish they'd be calling out their own party, but I don't get why republicans would suddenly think they offer something remotely better. If we go "business as usual" on either side, we're history. :banghead:

 

Really, what is the logic? I can respect jumping ship on all of it, which I'm likely to do, but not the idea that the policies of one party did it all or even most of the mess because I absolutely do not believe that is the case.

[Kelli in TN]

 

I honestly don't understand when people say they are "undecided" voters. I also don't quite get it when people switch from one party's candidate to another party's candidate from one election to another, unless of course you simply make a huge, permanent paradigm shift.

 

!

 

I think I understand what you are asking me.

 

I have always voted the pro-life ticket. When I say pro-life I am talking in terms of protecting the unborn. I have done this my entire adult life. The only Democrat I ever voted for was Lowe Finney, because he is a homeboy and a better human being in every regard than his Republican opponent. Other than that one vote, I have been 100% Republican because I have always understood that the Republicans are the party that conservative Christians are to support and that is the final word.

 

But now I look around and I see that unborn children are still not safe. I see a war being fought at incredible costs both financially and in terms of lost lives and suddenly pro-life is starting to mean something more to me than it used to.

 

And that is how I ended up in the undecided column! Do I want the guy who claims he will protect the unborn? Or do I want the guy who claims he will end the war?

[lovemyboys]

I'll third this! and I'm all for the line item veto!

 

Unfortunately the trouble with the line-item veto is that it can be used to punish your opponents. Only veto the things that are on the bill from the other side of the aisle. Often times those extra items are added to the main bill so that enough members will get behind the main bill and vote for it. What's the old saying about laws and sausage -- we wouldn't want to see how either is made?

 

Even though it's not perfect, we'd better hope that one party won't control the presidency and both houses of Congress. Sure things might get passed, but you can bet it'll be pretty dismal without the natural checks and balances that our forefathers in their wonderful wisdom created.

 

Most folks aren't thrilled with the recent bailout bill, but thank heaven the Congressional democrats didn't just pass it immediately (though they could've just with Barney Frank's committee members) and the republicans stood in the way until they made revisions and put in some protections.

 

With a filibuster, and one-party control, we would be seeing incompetence of a whole 'nother magnitude, I'm afraid.

[Spy Car]

On everything from economic issues, the size of government, the environment, social issues, immigration, health care, you name it, the basic party platforms are worlds apart.

 

The undergirding philosophies of each party are so vastly different that it seems to me that "never the twain shall meet." How is someone torn between two candidates when the parties they represent are worlds apart?

 

 

I would contest your premise.

 

Every Republican President from Eisenhower onward has expanded the size of the Federal government. There was a huge expansion under Ronald Reagan, and George W Bush.

 

And Bush has not just expanded the size of government, he has taken unprecedented "powers" for the Federal Government which include domestic spying, torture, and claims of "executive privilege" (and in Cheney's case "legislative privilege" as well) to upset the traditional notions of limited Executive power as defined in the Constitution.

 

It would be beyond credulity to claim G W Bush believes in small and limited government.

 

The two parties records on the economy are visually indistinguishable by "ideology". The most "socialist" move ever made by a president was Nixon's "Wage and Price Control" measure during the early 70s. This week's bailout had Democrats carrying the ball for a Republican President for a huge intervention in "the market". The notion that there is a huge economic difference between the parties is fantasy.

 

Republicans (although they are not fully trustworthy on the issue) mainly claim to be "environmentalists" these days. John McCain holds the position climate change is man-made and has a "cap and trade" solution almost indistinguishable from Barack Obama's.

 

John McCain has been consistently pro-immigration, and the Republican Party (while at times trying to capitalize on nativism) has given a wink and a nod to illegal immigration because it supplies cheap labor to their biggest constituents.

 

On social issues the Republicans since the 1960's have been quite backwards on race, but even they are now trying to undue this ugly legacy.

 

Beyond this there are a couple "hot-button" issues involving reproductive freedom and discrimination against homosexuals where the parties do differ to some degree.

 

But I hardly see an insurmountable "never-the-twain-shall-meet" division between the parties. For all the hot-air we just don't live in a nation that is that ideological.

 

Bill

Edited October 6, 2008 by Spy Car

[Sara R]

I agree with most of what you said, but the economy failing right now has more to do with the lack of banking oversight that should have been implemented in the 90's..not the encouragment to go out and spend...we have been overextended on our credit cards for more than 15 years, it's not a new phenomenon and not the root cause of what is happening now.

I love the quotes from some senators who back in 97/98 said that the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac was sound and did not need additional oversight, were bragging at how many Americans were now afforded the American dream of owning their own home...while the banking execs were building up their coffers or pork knowing they were extending high risk loans...

 

George Bush's cry for more spending was meant in the general sense to keep everything going, if everyone had stopped spending, we would have lost many more factories and more industries would be in crisis...he had a reason to ask for people to spend, the government should have to answer for reason allowing these bankers to be able to sell loans on risky borrowers...the American dream is about working to own your own home, not letting the government make it possible for you to have a bigger home...greed...on all sides.

 

Tara

 

This mess is so big and so deep and so tall,

We cannot pick it up! There is no way at all.

 

Really, there's so much going on with this mess it's hard to wrap your head around it. But I think a lot of it had to do with derivatives and credit default swaps, right? Is that the unregulated part of the banking industry (the shadow banking industry, some people call it) that brought everything down? Because banks never stopped being regulated, right? But people who like to make simple things complicated invented derivatives, which is basically a casino that bets on different financial outcomes, and credit default swaps, which is unregulated insurance--and they fought against regulation of these new crazy markets? 60 minutes had a piece on the shadow market last night. Maybe there was other deregulation too. I don't know. I guess 9 months of a hobby of studying the financial system isn't long enough to understand all of this mess. Ugh.

[lovemyboys]

This week's bailout had Democrats carrying the ball for a Republican President for a huge intervention in "the market". The notion that there is a huge economic difference between the parties is fantasy.

 

Republicans (although they are not fully trustworthy on the issue) mainly claim to be "environmentalists" these days. John McCain holds the position climate change is man-made and has a "cap and trade" solution almost indistinguishable form Barack Obama.

 

But I hardly see an insurmountable "never-the-twain-shall-meet" division between the parties. For all the hot-air we just don't live in a nation that is that ideological.

 

Have to say that I agree with your general premise, the parties aren't that different, especially on a national level, because they have to come center to win a general election.

 

You characterize the democrats as carrying the ball for pres., I would say that they should have since they dropped it at a couple key points when they could've done something about it back in the late 90s and again around '04. And they have been very vocal in their complete lack of any accountability or responsibility with anything whatsoever having to do with the current economic situation, at all, not even the tiniest little bit. :001_huh:

 

I have great hope about the energy situation and alternative fuels and development. But given the track record of some of the key players, namely Nancy Pelosi, I'm in doubt whether anything will actually get done. I've read lately that she's backed off the offshore ban, hoping that Obama will win and then she'll get the bans back in place, thereby effectively killing any offshore development.

 

If we truly want to solve the energy dependence for this country, we can't expect one region or one source to be the answer.

[Holly IN]

I am one of the conservatives that is very disappointed with Bush's last 4 years. He did good the 1st 4 years but really sold us out with his last 4. I thought he was a Reagan conservative but there is no proof of it in regards to his last 4 years.

 

Very very diappointed!! What burns me is that Obama/Biden keeps saying this is a Bush's 3rd term. Not so! This is what is aggravating to me. However I do believe McCain is just as liberal as Bush is but do think he will get more done with Palin on the ticket.

 

The whole financial crises that we are in....I blame this on the Democrates. Alot of them are making money off of this. They are in the pocket books of these financial failing companies.

 

Oh I forgot...One great thing that Bush did was the apppointment of the Supreme Court justice. I can't remember his name for the life of me though. He is the most conservative judge on the bench.

 

 

Holly

Edited October 6, 2008 by Holly IN

[Spy Car]

You characterize the democrats as carrying the ball for pres., I would say that they should have since they dropped it at a couple key points when they could've done something about it back in the late 90s and again around '04. And they have been very vocal in their complete lack of any accountability or responsibility with anything whatsoever having to do with the current economic situation, at all, not even the tiniest little bit. :001_huh:

 

 

How about we find common ground and agree that neither party really distinguished themselves in protecting the public from massive greed on Wall St?

 

I'd go so far as to revise my statement to read the President carried the ball for House Democrats on the bailout bill (if that would help). Either way, doesn't undermine the point that the Democratic and Republican parties aren't that far apart on economic policy.

 

I have great hope about the energy situation and alternative fuels and development. But given the track record of some of the key players, namely Nancy Pelosi, I'm in doubt whether anything will actually get done. I've read lately that she's backed off the offshore ban, hoping that Obama will win and then she'll get the bans back in place, thereby effectively killing any offshore development.

 

If we truly want to solve the energy dependence for this country, we can't expect one region or one source to be the answer.

 

John McCain and Barack Obama were both against offshore drilling a couple months ago. But now claim to favor it (although I grant McCain is slightly more believable on the subject). Left to the states I'd be shocked if California decides to drill off-shore anytime soon.

 

While the differences are played up, any solution to our energy needs is likely going to look roughly similar under Obama or McCain. I think Obama is more likely to fund alternative fuel projects and McCain is more likely to push oil drilling, but these are differences at the margins of what will by necessity be a multi-pronged effort to expand energy sources and conserving waste.

 

As you say it will take more than one answer.

 

Bill

[LisaKinVA]

My anger goes back further than Bush... It goes back to the Contract with America days. I feel like the Republicans who were swept into office in the 90's did so ona platform that never really materialized.

 

Now, some would say that there weren't enough of them to "really" accomplish everything on their list, but I know a number of congressmen from that time period who would say that their efforts were often .blocked by leadership.

 

I held my nose and voted for Bush once, 3rd party once. I haven't liked the Bush family since the mid-80's during my entrance to Republican politics in Florida. Talk about elitist!

 

Spending has been out of control for the past 8 years.

 

I will pull the lever for McCain/Palin this time. I'm doing it more for the hope of self-preseveration, if anything.

 

DH and I are suddenly in a financial position to buy a home, save some money for retirement and the kiddos. We're just about to hit 40. But, Obama/Biden say it's "not fair" that we make what we do. They want nearly half of what we make (including SS/Medicare), to hell with where we've been -- until this past year.

 

Sorry, but I take that one pretty darn personally. We've had to work exceedingly hard to overcome the past 7 years of "famine." And now that we might be able to make up for some lost time, Obama/Biden say we don't "need" it. BAH! They weren't the ones living in a 900 sq. ft. partially-finished basement with exposed wires, no kitchen, concrete floors, trying to make things work and eek out a subsistence living in stressful conditions. We received all kinds of "offers" for exotic mortgages which would have allowed us to purchase a WAY overpriced home 4 years ago, but we said "no thank you." And, MAN today, I'm really grateful we did.

 

We behaved responsibly. We paid rent. We sucked it up -- 7 years ago, we were just clearing $30k a year. We had lost *everything*. It was hard, but we tightened our belts, worked hard, and finally a couple of jobs broke our way. I resent anyone telling me that we "don't" deserve to make, what, in our area is simply an upper-middle class income for two professionals.

 

I've just started reading about the Fair Tax plan, and have to say, I'm heading down that road with much agreement.

[Jackie in AR]

I've just started reading about the Fair Tax plan, and have to say, I'm heading down that road with much agreement.

 

I caught Boortz on Huckabee's show last night and have reserved one of his books at my library this morning. I want to read a lot more about this concept. He was talking about how Americans have approximately $13 trillion in offshore accounts right now, and how, with the Fair Tax plan, that money would likely come back here and be invested. What a boost to our economy that would be!

[fractalgal]

I.

 

It would be beyond credulity to claim G W Bush believes in small and limited government.

 

But I hardly see an insurmountable "never-the-twain-shall-meet" division between the parties. For all the hot-air we just don't live in a nation that is that ideological.

 

Bill

 

Exactly. Despite that the platforms of both parties may be worlds apart, the behavior of both parties seems to be to grow the government with little care or discernment on what the effects of this may be.

[lovemyboys]

How about we find common ground and agree that neither party really distinguished themselves in protecting the public from massive greed on Wall St?

 

John McCain and Barack Obama were both against offshore drilling a couple months ago. But now claim to favor it (although I grant McCain is slightly more believable on the subject). Left to the states I'd be shocked if California decides to drill off-shore anytime soon.

 

While the differences are played up, any solution to our energy needs is likely going to look roughly similar under Obama or McCain. I think Obama is more likely to fund alternative fuel projects and McCain is more likely to push oil drilling, but these are differences at the margins of what will by necessity be a multi-pronged effort to expand energy sources and conserving waste.

 

As you say it will take more than one answer.

 

Bill

 

That sounds good. I'm not sure if my sarcasm carries through cyberspace. The total absolution of all guilt or responsibility by many of the current leaders is what was particularly irksome.

 

It's such a multi-faceted issue. Certainly greed on Wall St. and way too much pressure on some of those institutions to be doing loans they knew weren't right and many customers who didn't qualify but wanted it anyway and corruption within FMae/FMac and paying off key legislators to look the other way.

 

I was referring to offshore wind turbines actually, but offshore drilling is in the mix as well. So frustrating when supposed proponents are in fact deep-sixing it behind the scenes and then throwing up hands in mock frustration. Argh.

[laylamcb]

I would contest your premise.

 

Every Republican President from Eisenhower onward has expanded the size of the Federal government. There was a huge expansion under Ronald Reagan, and George W Bush.

 

And Bush has not just expanded the size of government, he has taken unprecedented "powers" for the Federal Government which include domestic spying, torture, and claims of "executive privilege" (and in Cheney's case "legislative privilege" as well) to upset the traditional notions of limited Executive power as defined in the Constitution.

 

It would be beyond credulity to claim G W Bush believes in small and limited government.

 

The two parties records on the economy are visually indistinguishable by "ideology". The most "socialist" move ever made by a president was Nixon's "Wage and Price Control" measure during the early 70s. This week's bailout had Democrats carrying the ball for a Republican President for a huge intervention in "the market". The notion that there is a huge economic difference between the parties is fantasy.

 

Republicans (although they are not fully trustworthy on the issue) mainly claim to be "environmentalists" these days. John McCain holds the position climate change is man-made and has a "cap and trade" solution almost indistinguishable from Barack Obama's.

 

John McCain has been consistently pro-immigration, and the Republican Party (while at times trying to capitalize on nativism) has given a wink and a nod to illegal immigration because it supplies cheap labor to their biggest constituents.

 

On social issues the Republicans since the 1960's have been quite backwards on race, but even they are now trying to undue this ugly legacy.

 

Beyond this there are a couple "hot-button" issues involving reproductive freedom and discrimination against homosexuals where the parties do differ to some degree.

 

But I hardly see an insurmountable "never-the-twain-shall-meet" division between the parties. For all the hot-air we just don't live in a nation that is that ideological.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:, which ought to tell you something because I gather that Bill and I probably wouldn't agree on much when it comes to politics. ;)

 

Here's the view from an independent's chair:

 

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." (from Animal Farm)

 

The conservative notion of limited government appears to be lost on even its most ardent supporters once said supporters actually become the government. Hmmm....

 

So to my mind, a platform really doesn't mean much to me anymore. To paraphrase another great writer, in this case the apostle James, a platform without works is dead. You show me your platform without works, and I by my works will show you my "platform."

 

(At this point in the post I'm going to disappoint all of you who were hoping that SOMEHOW I'd work lipstick in with all those talking pigs. :D)

[Spy Car]

:iagree:, which ought to tell you something because I gather that Bill and I probably wouldn't agree on much when it comes to politics. ;)

 

Here's the view from an independent's chair:

 

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." (from Animal Farm)

 

The conservative notion of limited government appears to be lost on even its most ardent supporters once said supporters actually become the government. Hmmm....

 

So to my mind, a platform really doesn't mean much to me anymore. To paraphrase another great writer, in this case the apostle James, a platform without works is dead. You show me your platform without works, and I by my works will show you my "platform."

 

(At this point in the post I'm going to disappoint all of you who were hoping that SOMEHOW I'd work lipstick in with all those talking pigs. :D)

 

As always, I'm completely charmed by your post :001_smile:

 

Bill (who misses being able to rep)

[laylamcb]

As always, I'm completely charmed by your post :001_smile:

 

Bill (who misses being able to rep)

 

Aw, shucks, Bill... :001_smile:

 

I'm currently kickin' back a Sam Adams Octoberfest--and I'd offer you one right now in the spirit of bipartisanship if I could. So here's your virtual toast instead: :cheers2:

[Spy Car]

Chin-chin :cheers2:

[sunshine]

I'm not following your logic Sunshine.

 

First of all, I resent you saying I need logic, everyone who knows and loves me says that I have no logic!:D

 

The issue of who controlled Congress during the Clinton years is irrelevant to question of whether George Bush became the president during "very challenging times".

 

Now just to be safe, I am not a politician nor a historian. I think who controlled Congress is very relevant to how well the economy does.

and it is a fact that George Bush's first year was trying because of the cloud that Al Gore tried to put on him, with all the recounts, then Bin Laden, the Stock market crashing and then the threat of terrorism starting to terrify the nation. We were calling for blood after 9/11. I would like to see, and know I can't how Gore would have handled it. But we cannot ever know that and no one can say because suppositions and reality usually don't match up.

 

For sake of argument let's say Bill Clinton deserves no credit for getting us out of the massive debt he inherited when he came to office, and that the surplus Bush inherited when he came to power was all due to the Republican Congress, it doesn't change the fact that Bush inherited a surplus.

Yes he did. Point taken and accepted.

He then squandered that surplus and turned it into the most massive deficit the nation has ever faced.

Bush did not squander it and it is silly to suppose that one man can squander a dime of our nations money. It is Congress, who is not controlled by one man, who controlls spending. I am sick of hearing that ridiculous statement. He did not transfer the surplus into his personal account and spend it. Congress who was both Democrats and Republicans, representing the nation spent it, like every other Congress. At their discretion, for favors to other members, for pet projects, for ridiculous things that did not get any oversight, and for legitimate purposes.

 

Bush came to power in the least challenging times since the 1930's. At a time of economic prosperity, and (relatively speaking) a time of peace and US global power.

With in 9 months we were attacked on our own shores due to the military cutbacks of the Clinton administration. We were considered a laughing stock of the world because of our sex happy president. He was a disgrace who used his position for personal gain. He was proved a liar on national and international tv. His admistration is remembered more for sex scandals than anything. We were despised by most of the world. We were and are considered a country of excesses and moral decrepitude.

 

We did suffer a terrorist attack. My wife and I lost a friend in that attack, it was a terrible day for our nation. But no matter how shocking, this was not the greatest threat our nation has ever faced. And as you are no doubt aware Osama Bin Laden is still out there.

 

If the military were given carte blanc to do their job instead of being forced to "keep the peace" and "train the locals" then he would have been caught years ago. Let them go in and dig, blow up, use force and find him. and don't forget, key leaders of his force are now dead or in prison. so even with one hand tied behind their back our military kicks butt.

 

Last night on 60 Minutes the leader of the Delta Force (who had something like 50 men to go after Bin Laden) explained his frustration that the plans he made for capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora (where they knew his location) were twice over-ridden by the Administration, so instead of being able to go after bin Laden from behind (in a surprise attack) they had to mount a fully visible frontal assault, with 50 American commandos against a thousand al Qaeda fighters. And Bin Laden escaped.

 

The Administration was not Bush. He would love to do a sneak attack and blow the whole *&^% country up. I say make a parking lot.

 

This Administration has proved its gross incompetence in almost every function of governance and has left our nation far weaker than when it took office. And not because of extraordinary circumstances, but because of sheer ineptitude.

 

 

you cannot be adept when you have more people interested in fighting you and everything you do than working together. His Presidency has been marred by sour graped since day one and it has been 8 years of trying to make him look bad and blocking almost every thing he has tried to accomplish. He will be remembered as a President who was attacked from the inside.

[sunshine]

Why can't I do those great multi quote things? I keep trying but I am inept.

Like Bush I guess:lol:

[Kate in Arabia]

We were considered a laughing stock of the world because of our sex happy president.

 

Actually, I thought most (well, most of Europe, anyway) thought we were backward prudes for even caring. I don't recall anyone outside the US being overly concerned with his, umm, escapades.

 

The Administration was not Bush. He would love to do a sneak attack and blow the whole *&^% country up.

 

If this is true I find that *truly truly* frightening. Well, I already found him somewhat disturbing (to me), but this would be beyond...

 

I say make a parking lot.

 

Nice. Tough luck for those living there who have no voice or no say in what went on, like women and children..

[nmoira]

If this is true I find that *truly truly* frightening. Well, I already found him somewhat disturbing (to me), but this would be beyond...

 

Nice. Tough luck for those living there who have no voice or no say in what went on, like women and children..

Thank you. Such callous disregard for human life is deplorable.

[Haiku]

We were considered a laughing stock of the world because of our sex happy president.

 

No, we weren't. I lived overseas during this time. Really, outside the US, no one cared about our president's sexual extracurriculars and most thought we needed to get over it and continue with the business of running the country.

 

And, we were not "despised" during Clinton's administration. Many across the world found him to be quite diplomatic, friendly, and trustworthy.

 

I know that lots of historical points are open to debate, but really, to say that we were a laughingstock and despised because of Clinton is just beyond the truth.

 

Tara

[Elm in NJ]

No, we weren't. I lived overseas during this time. Really, outside the US, no one cared about our president's sexual extracurriculars and most thought we needed to get over it and continue with the business of running the country.

 

And, we were not "despised" during Clinton's administration. Many across the world found him to be quite diplomatic, friendly, and trustworthy.

 

I know that lots of historical points are open to debate, but really, to say that we were a laughingstock and despised because of Clinton is just beyond the truth.

 

Tara

 

That is true. Clinton was a much loved President even after his scandal. We were definitely not a laughing stock. Well, we were because of the fuss we were making about it. I know even now, people in Africa(well, Sierra Leone at least) still talk fondly about him. I remember my dad saying that he was a really great President. And I know definitely that in England, he was also very well-liked.

[Holly IN]

That is true. Clinton was a much loved President even after his scandal. We were definitely not a laughing stock. Well, we were because of the fuss we were making about it. I know even now, people in Africa(well, Sierra Leone at least) still talk fondly about him. I remember my dad saying that he was a really great President. And I know definitely that in England, he was also very well-liked.

 

Why does other countries opinion matter about a president? They do not live here. That is the part I just do not get. :001_huh:

 

Holly

[Elm in NJ]

I'm not following your logic Sunshine.

 

We were despised by most of the world. We were and are considered a country of excesses and moral decrepitude.

 

Most of the rest of the developed world thinks America is a prude. They might think it is a country of excesses(big cars, big houses) but definitely do not think of it as a country lacking morality

[Elm in NJ]

Why does other countries opinion matter about a president? They do not live here. That is the part I just do not get. :001_huh:

 

Holly

 

I was only responding to sunshine's post. I don't care about others opinion.

[kokotg]

Bush did not squander it and it is silly to suppose that one man can squander a dime of our nations money. It is Congress, who is not controlled by one man, who controlls spending.

 

The president writes the budget and submits it to congress.

 

And the 9/11 commission takes a different view of the attacks than you do. You can read their report online, but the Bush administration doesn't come off as blameless (nor does Clinton).

[ma23peas]

It would be very interesting to know how many posting are actually conservatives...hmmm.

 

 

I, for one, am a conservative. I have traveled to Europe over two decades..I have seen Europe change...and not for the better...would I care what their opinion was of us? Actually, no...I think it is more telling that the Islamist extremists are pushing for Obama...

http://amerisrael.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/09/esam-omeish-why-does-this-man-want-obama-to-be-president.html

 

I am more concerned that those who seek to destroy us support Obama and do NOT want McCain in there...So when you start spouting how respected Clinton was by countries who are now being threatened by the influx of Muslim (Germany, Holland you name it, they now are losing their country's identity...you ask ANYONE from those countries if it's changed in the past 15 years and they will say YES but there's nothing we can do about it..some legislators in Holland were standing up not to disallow traditional events (like certain national holidays and wearing traditional dress/clogs to events in school) from continuing because the Muslim growth and their call to change Europe is destroying their national identity...but read this article

 

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1796

 

So, do I CARE what Europe thinks of my President? NO...I don't want what is happening to Europe to start over here..that's where we're headed folks..get educated or you'll be facing the situation Europe is in right now.

 

Tara

[Holly IN]

It would be very interesting to know how many posting are actually conservatives...hmmm.

 

 

I, for one, am a conservative. I have traveled to Europe over two decades..I have seen Europe change...and not for the better...would I care what their opinion was of us? Actually, no...I think it is more telling that the Islamist extremists are pushing for Obama...

http://amerisrael.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/09/esam-omeish-why-does-this-man-want-obama-to-be-president.html

 

I am more concerned that those who seek to destroy us support Obama and do NOT want McCain in there...

So, do I CARE what Europe thinks of my President? NO...I don't want what is happening to Europe to start over here..that's where we're headed folks..get educated or you'll be facing the situation Europe is in right now.

 

Tara

 

I agree Tara!!

 

Holly

[Kate in Arabia]

So, do I CARE what Europe thinks of my President? NO...I don't want what is happening to Europe to start over here..that's where we're headed folks..get educated or you'll be facing the situation Europe is in right now.

 

So me and my American Muslim family are a "threat to America"? Should there be a quota of Muslims allowed to be US citizens?

[Haiku]

Why does other countries opinion matter about a president? They do not live here. That is the part I just do not get. :001_huh:

 

What other people in other countries think about our president matters a great deal. It matters because, if they don't like and trust the president, if they don't think that he/she is doing a good job of running the country and making good decisions on foreign policy, they are less inclined to work with us on matters that we consider important to our national security and economic interests. It matters because, if the rest of the world doesn't respect our president, they are less likely to look at us as a trustworthy example or model. It matters because we do not live in isolation in this world, and what other countries think of our country affects how they relate to us.

 

Tara

[Kate in Arabia]

I am more concerned that those who seek to destroy us support Obama and do NOT want McCain in there

 

Why? This is something I don't understand. I couldn't care less who these criminals "favor" in our presidential elections. Why should we put any kind of value in their opinions on this matter?

[nmoira]

I am more concerned that those who seek to destroy us support Obama and do NOT want McCain in there.

Who specifically are you speaking of? I asked this of a different poster in another thead and she couldn't produce anything other than an online poll.

 

Does is concern you that Canadians overwhelmingly support Obama? Britons? Europeans? Americans (at this point)?

 

So when you start spouting how respected Clinton was by countries who are now being threatened by the influx of Muslim (Germany, Holland you name it, they now are losing their country's identity...you ask ANYONE from those countries if it's changed in the past 15 years and they will say YES but there's nothing we can do about it..some legislators in Holland were standing up not to disallow traditional events (like certain national holidays and wearing traditional dress/clogs to events in school) from continuing because the Muslim growth and their call to change Europe is destroying their national identity...but read this article

 

I fail to see how the perception of Clinton has anything to do with Muslim growth and "call to change Europe."

 

Are there immigration pressures and problems in some European countries right now? Yes. Are they all to do with Muslims? No. Does racism exist outside the US? Yes. Boiling complex emotional and cultural situations down to a few slogans, expecially with a "them" on the other side is not conducive to problem solving or tolerance.

[ereks mom]

Ok, I know that as usual, I am opening myself up for some pretty opinionated replies. But please, no opinions, because we all have them, right or wrong, and I just want facts.

 

What exactly has the Bush Administration done that was so abhorrent? Within 9 months of gaining office he faced something that no President had faced since World War II. Then amid years of speculation and fear and disgust, we finally acted against one of the worst dictators in history, and no one can agree whether there were WOMD. There have been repeated finds of places where there was evidence there had been in the past, but it took us so long to act that you could have moved a whole Mideast country in the time it took us to attack. He was given 2 years to plot and move things.

 

I have seen nothing really get accomplished because of the unbelievable polictical shenniganians and posturing of the Democrats who seemed to pant with desire for the Bush Administration to fail, instead of shoring up weakness or trying to unite the country. Since day one of Bush's Presidency, I have heard the Clintons and Hollywood go on a witch hunt. Nothing was passed in Congress due to fillibustering and then when the elections tipped the balance, nothing was accomplished because of the pork and entitlements attached to things.

 

 

 

:iagree: IMO, Bush has been handicapped by Congress and those who want his administration to fail even if it means sacrificing the country in order to make that happen.

[ma23peas]

Who specifically are you speaking of? I asked this of a different poster in another thead and she couldn't produce anything other than an online poll.

 

Top Hamas and other terrorist leaders who have made it clear that their agenda would be less harmed by Obama than McCain..I gave a link with videos..google for yourself....it's out there.

 

Does is concern you that Canadians overwhelmingly support Obama? Britons? Europeans? Americans (at this point)?

 

Uh, Americans don't overwhelmingly support Obama.

 

 

I fail to see how the perception of Clinton has anything to do with Muslim growth and "call to change Europe."

 

Because the posters were claiming that we need to take into account what the Europeans think...they were inferring that because Europeans loved Clinton that some value to that must be attached, I was pointing out that how can you value someone's opinion when they can't even prevent their country's identity from being changed and hold true to their own traditions and beliefs.

 

Are there immigration pressures and problems in some European countries right now? Yes. Are they all to do with Muslims? No. Does racism exist outside the US? Yes. Boiling complex emotional and cultural situations down to a few slogans, expecially with a "them" on the other side is not conducive to problem solving or tolerance.

 

Yes, this is my point, tolerance is the issue. In these European countries, the immigrants who for the MAJORITY are Muslim are not TOLERANT of the country they are now inhabiting. They want their Muslim beliefs and laws to be accepted. England is now allowing sharia law in some of its districts or allowing it to be practiced...

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

 

If I were an American and I decided to move to a traditionally Muslim country, I would live by THEIR traditionally held laws and rules, I would not try and enforce MY laws and beliefs on them...that is the struggle the Europeans are facing...I just don't want to go there.

 

 

Tara

[Haiku]

Because the posters were claiming that we need to take into account what the Europeans think...they were inferring that because Europeans loved Clinton that some value to that must be attached

That's not really the point I was trying to make. I was simply responding to the idea that we were a despised laughingstock over Clinton. That's simply not true, but the topic was whether Bush inherited a positive situation or a negative one. In terms of foreign sentiment, Clinton was well-liked and had built up a nice store of goodwill toward America. Bush destroyed that. People overseas liked our president and America in the 90s. That's not so much true today.

 

I do think that it matters what the world community thinks of our leader because, as I mentioned, the world community will be less willing to cooperate with us if they don't respect our leader or feel he/she makes foreign policy gaffes and blunders. That's why I carefully consider foreign policy positions of prospective leaders.

 

Are you saying, Tara dear, that because some European countries are struggling with internal problems of their own, their opinions about our president have no effect on America and our attempts to further our aims in the world?

 

Tara

[Kate in Arabia]

England is now allowing sharia law in some of its districts or allowing it to be practiced...

 

We have Jewish courts in the United States. How is that different?

 

If I were an American and I decided to move to a traditionally Muslim country, I would live by THEIR traditionally held laws and rules, I would not try and enforce MY laws and beliefs on them...that is the struggle the Europeans are facing

 

Very few people actually live by this when push comes to shove. I'm not saying you would, but quite a number of the Western expats living here fully expect to be able to live their lives here just as if they were in Europe -- including going topless at the beach, getting publicly drunk, etc. It is actually a major issue of debate these days, the gradual loss of the local culture.

 

So I don't see it as "those insidious Muslims" or any group in particular; rather it seems to be a part of the human condition -- you will always have those who want to assimilate and those who want to keep their own lifestyle, among any group.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Kate in Arabia

[nmoira]

Top Hamas and other terrorist leaders who have made it clear that their agenda would be less harmed by Obama than McCain..I gave a link with videos..google for yourself....it's out there.

Which other terrorist leaders, and do you always take "terrorist leaders" at face value?

 

Does is concern you that Canadians overwhelmingly support Obama? Britons? Europeans? Americans (at this point)?

 

Uh, Americans don't overwhelmingly support Obama.

Well, support. :) But you never answered the rest of the question.

 

I fail to see how the perception of Clinton has anything to do with Muslim growth and "call to change Europe."

 

Because the posters were claiming that we need to take into account what the Europeans think...they were inferring that because Europeans loved Clinton that some value to that must be attached, I was pointing out that how can you value someone's opinion when they can't even prevent their country's identity from being changed and hold true to their own traditions and beliefs.

Well, this was in response to a poster who said that the US was a laughingstock because of Clinton. This is clearly not the case. And what you say doesn't follow (at least to me), and is, frankly, a little frightening. You seem to be saying that nothing should change, ever. That "they" should stay there and "we" (whoever "we" are) should stay here. I'd remind you that many of the "them" weren't treated altogether well or with respect when the "we's" were occupying their countries in the not do distant past.

 

Are there immigration pressures and problems in some European countries right now? Yes. Are they all to do with Muslims? No. Does racism exist outside the US? Yes. Boiling complex emotional and cultural situations down to a few slogans, expecially with a "them" on the other side is not conducive to problem solving or tolerance.

 

Yes, this is my point, tolerance is the issue. In these European countries, the immigrants who for the MAJORITY are Muslim are not TOLERANT of the country they are now inhabiting. They want their Muslim beliefs and laws to be accepted. England is now allowing sharia law in some of its districts or allowing it to be practiced...

Tolerance goes both ways. You acknowledge we're talking about 5% of less of the population in most European countries? Here's a country by country breakdown. I couldn't find more up-to-date statistics. There are a number of complicating factors that have nothing to do with religion. For example, you will note that a good percentage of Muslims are not citizen of the countries listed. Many were brought in essentially to provide cheap labour in service industries. It is not surprising that their treatment has not always been fair or just.

 

It is true about sharia in Britain, and it is controversial. IMHO, it will be worked out over time.

[ma23peas]

I do think that it matters what the world community thinks of our leader because, as I mentioned, the world community will be less willing to cooperate with us if they don't respect our leader or feel he/she makes foreign policy gaffes and blunders. That's why I carefully consider foreign policy positions of prospective leaders.

 

Are you saying, Tara dear, that because some European countries are struggling with internal problems of their own, their opinions about our president have no effect on America and our attempts to further our aims in the world?

Tara

[/color]

 

Tara (you know you're my ying to my yang! HA!! Kindred spirit you!!)

 

I'll take a throw back to the perceptions of Germany in the 1930's..factions in England decided it was best for 'diplomacy' to ignore some of the rumblings about Germany's leadership...they all wanted to keep 'peace' and keep their economies strong...as did France...France was taken..England was almost taken...only when we were attacked did we really commit to helping England and France out...there comes a point when you have to stand for something and follow through, I don't compromise my values in order of diplomacy...However, many of these countries are compromising their traditional values even their justice systems for diplomacy and tolerance...but let me ask you, do the Muslim countries 'tolerate' Christian laws coming into act in their country? Some won't even tolerate you practicing Christianity in your own home...we have that freedom for Muslims to practice their faith....why the double standard? It all boils down to religion..

 

First, you have to qualify what our 'aims' are with other countries. I am arguing that the France of ten years ago that we dealt with will not be the same France in 20-30 years...the rules and aims will change...read the articles it is a real and imminent threat...if the Muslim community will not step up and seek an end to extremists in their country, then how can it be stopped in others?

 

Kate, I completely respect your choice and practice in your faith, but my position on the conflicts brought about by the increasing numbers of Muslims into traditionally non-Muslim societies can not be disputed..if there was an influx of Christians going into Iran and it was contributing to a social conflict, I would not think you were disparaging my faith as a Christian...please read this article and you may see where I am coming from with a little more objectivity.

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2007/02/how_moderate_muslims_should_no.html

 

Tara