Canadian Politics

First off, it was more of an expression than anything. Yes, France did help alot in gaining our independence. But 13 loosly knit colonies taking on one of teh world's superpowers tends to have that feeling of "us against the world." Figure of speech. But I guess we should have held on and then merely asked for our independence, right?

Let us look at what I wrote. "I feel it's disrespectful when people ridicule leader of the very nation they live in." Your response:

Before the "freedom loving Americans" through off the "shackles of the oppressive British" they did a lot of ridiculing the British government. Perhaps I'm not reading the intent of your words, so correct me if I am wrong, but that to me is in direct contradiction with itself. Please elaborate so I understand why it was ok to ridicule the government, and even revolt against it, 300 years ago, but it is no longer ok to ridicule the government in the country that was born out of the aforementioned revolution.

Hm. Tell me, what is the difference between ridiculing the leader of a government personally and the government entity it's self?? Also, The Colonists spelled out the "whys" of their grief. I was speaking about how people attack President Bush personally. Apples and oranges, perhaps?

Actually from what I understand that is merely the icing on the cake. People hate him because he looks out for his own interests, and the interests of the wealthy. His social policy is horrible, he doesn't listen to the needs of his people, and he seems to make mistakes all the time, not just every so often. He isn't fit to represent, let alone lead, the people.

Hm. Nope. People ridicule him simply because of the situation in Iraq. If that were not the case, and there were more, he would have lost the last elections to Senator Kerry. And as for helping out the wealthy, I am what you'd call middle class. I make enough to support my wife and kids. Kind of stuck in the middle. And I benefitted greatly from his income tax cuts. Last year alone I managed to get back more than I paid simply because he raised the chile tax credit. I aslo benefitted from a credit because my wife stays home with my kids. The impression that people get when a president cuts taxes and the rich benefit more is not because it was intended that way. It's more complex. Most wealthy people don't count just their personal wealth. They may use their business as a tax write-off. The Tax Code is a boox that's almost 4 inches thick. And these whiny leftists never bother to open it up and see why some get bigger write-offs or refunds. But that will never happen. So when you say "from what I understand", it sounds like "from what I've heard." And hearsay is not reliable.

Yes, you are right. For the first part of the war the U.S stayed out. Isolationism prevailed in that day. But the U.S was also not healthy by financial means. I suggest reading The Grapes of Wrath. The Depression changed the American mindset. People were going broke because of Wall Street's crash. War wasn't a good idea at the time. Yes, Pearl Harbor changed that. But only because a foreign government had the gall to launch an unprevoked attack the same week that their ambassators were in Washington telling U.S government officials that nothing was going to happen. And when the U.S declared war on japan, Germany declared war on the U.S. We could have waited for Germany to come knock on our doorstep. But we didn't.

I'm running out of time. It's a little after 7 and I need to continue getting ready for work. I'll continue when I get home tonight...
 
Just to point out a few things...

So when you say "from what I understand", it sounds like "from what I've heard." And hearsay is not reliable.

Granted. I don't live in the United States, so I can't really say anything from personal experience. I do take great care to sift through what I hear, be it from news networks like CNN or various informational outlets such as newspapers, TV shows, and online sources. So although I do try to be well informed on the situation, you are right when you say it is hearsay.

Tell me, what is the difference between ridiculing the leader of a government personally and the government entity it's self?? Also, The Colonists spelled out the "whys" of their grief. I was speaking about how people attack President Bush personally. Apples and oranges, perhaps?

I figured if you elaborated I would understand better. I see your point. Unless people know Prez Bush personally, then they shouldn't personally criticise or vindicate his character. But even so, I'm sure the colonists directed most of their hatred towards the leader of the British government (my British history is a little rusty, I'm not even sure if their Monarch was technically in charge at this time, lol), as it is much easier to direct anger towards one person than a governmental entity, especially when that leader is the embodiment of that entity.

But I guess we should have held on and then merely asked for our independence, right?

Hey, it worked for us. :lol

Nope. People ridicule him simply because of the situation in Iraq.

Unless you can back that up with some sort of statistic, I'm going to have to simply disagree with you. We're both going on hearsay here, so it doens't really matter, but I do believe that people generally disliked Bush's administration before the Iraq war.

If that were not the case, and there were more, he would have lost the last elections to Senator Kerry.

Well the war itself was occuring during the election, so it stand to reason that if anything the American people at large supported the war. I would like to quote Jon Stewart to put this in perspective by saying "The two most important issues of this election were gay marriage and terrorism, but the state of New York, the state most affect by gay marriage and terrorism, voted democrat!" I, like Jon Stewart, don't know how in the world Bush pulled off a win.

War wasn't a good idea at the time.

Argueably the war was what pulled America out of the depression. But that's another arguement altogether. I'm just saying that if American intervention in the war was done so because of American benevolence, it would have happened before they were provoked to go to war.

And when the U.S declared war on japan, Germany declared war on the U.S. We could have waited for Germany to come knock on our doorstep. But we didn't.

That's because Churchill had been harping at America for years to join the war effort. Finally the American government consented when they realized they would be dragged into the war either way. As well, Hitler was deemed the greater threat, so invading europe first was a tactical decision as well. America could also have gone to war before they were attacked, keep that in mind as well.

Yes, Pearl Harbor changed that. But only because a foreign government had the gall to launch an unprevoked attack the same week that their ambassators were in Washington telling U.S government officials that nothing was going to happen.

Actually I've learned that the ambassadors in America didn't know about Pearl Harbor, the Japanese goverment didn't want them to spill the beans so they didn't tell them. They were as dumbfounded as the Americans when it happened. If you want to talk WWII I'd like nothing better, as I've read and watched everything about that subject that I have been able to get my hands on, but we should probably start another topic on that. :lol

I'll continue when I get home tonight...

You've already answered most of my questions, I see where you're coming from a bit better now (though I still don't agree with you, lol), but still I look forward to your continuation.
 
Actually I've learned that the ambassadors in America didn't know about Pearl Harbor, the Japanese goverment didn't want them to spill the beans so they didn't tell them. They were as dumbfounded as the Americans when it happened. If you want to talk WWII I'd like nothing better, as I've read and watched everything about that subject that I have been able to get my hands on, but we should probably start another topic on that. 

A definate befefit of the doubt would have to be handed to you on this one. I didn't know either way whether or not the Japanese Ambassadors knew about it. It's believable either way.

As for the whole subject on WWII, I have inlaws that served in the Army and Army Air Corps (later the USAF). One was at the first wave of D-Day. Him telling me how he and the boat driver were the only survivors of his platoon because of German pillbox gunfire is awesome to hear. Watching documentries and movies based on events pale in comparison to one who lived it. The other flew missions over Japan. He doesn't speak much about it. Mainly saying that what he did "had to be done." Although I claim ignorance over much of the details, I still love to read the accounts and look at photographs. Pictures to me seem to say much more.

And yes, that's a completely new topic...

You've already answered most of my questions, I see where you're coming from a bit better now (though I still don't agree with you, lol), but still I look forward to your continuation.

I'm glad. Even though we come to disagree. I did see this topic at first and was a bit unnerved that someone outside the U.S would kind of poke at this country. And being that it's been a common occurrance, I took the defensive. But even though I said some stuff that could be considered mean spirited, it wasn't in my motivations. Honestly, I can't figure out the though process of Canadians. The ones that visit Arizona should stop taking driving lessons from the people who live in Minnesota. Downright scary!!
 
stealth_toilet's just mad because games cost more in Canada than US. And btw, the French didn't join the war until after the Battle of Saratoga, which we won all by ourselves Then Britain basically said "aw, those Colonies aren't that important anyways"
 
Well...I didn't have the 4 hours to read through all this..but...

President Bush represents the people of the United States. Not just the people that voted for him. The players of a High School football team represent the people in their schools. Not the people that like them in their schools.
 
Strubes said:
Well...I didn't have the 4 hours to read through all this..but...

President Bush represents the people of the United States. Not just the people that voted for him. The players of a High School football team represent the people in their schools. Not the people that like them in their schools.

Bad analogy. Football players dont get voted in by their peers, sure they "represent" the school but not the students, do you get what Im saying? Bush is, or any other president for that matter, represents the people who voted for him. Remember he could have lost this past election, it was pretty close. The country was almost split in half as far as votes were concerned. It's not like he won by landslides.
 
creepindeth04 said:
Bad analogy. Football players dont get voted in by their peers, sure they "represent" the school but not the students, do you get what Im saying? Bush is, or any other president for that matter, represents the people who voted for him. Remember he could have lost this past election, it was pretty close. The country was almost split in half as far as votes were concerned. It's not like he won by landslides.

So, because it wasn't a landslide, and he only represents those who voted for him, that means he isn't truly the president and that it's okay to drag his character through the mud?? Sorry. But that sounds completely stupid to me. Yes, he was voted in my a little over half the nation's voters. But he is the representative and leader of all of the United States. Including those who didn't vote for him.
 
Dart said:
So, because it wasn't a landslide, and he only represents those who voted for him, that means he isn't truly the president and that it's okay to drag his character through the mud?? Sorry. But that sounds completely stupid to me. Yes, he was voted in my a little over half the nation's voters. But he is the representative and leader of all of the United States. Including those who didn't vote for him.

I agree :)
 
Dart said:
So, because it wasn't a landslide, and he only represents those who voted for him, that means he isn't truly the president and that it's okay to drag his character through the mud?? Sorry. But that sounds completely stupid to me. Yes, he was voted in my a little over half the nation's voters. But he is the representative and leader of all of the United States. Including those who didn't vote for him.

What sounds stupid is that Im not allowed to question him. True he represents the United States but not always his citizens. So what you're saying is Im not allowed to question his politics and his decisions? Im supposed to let this person run the country in a way I feel is wrong? Sorry but that sounds stupid to me. Im not going to allow him to continue to make rash decisions just because he's the president. And again Im not just saying this because it happens to be Bush. If it were any other president doing what he is doing I would be saying the same thing.
 
77bigmac77 said:
question all you want they won't change anything

Yes it can. If enough people want that change then it can happen. It's always possible especially in a democracy such as the one our country has. People can get recalled, impeached. If enough people want it then it can happen.
 
creepindeth04 said:
What sounds stupid is that Im not allowed to question him. True he represents the United States but not always his citizens. So what you're saying is Im not allowed to question his politics and his decisions? Im supposed to let this person run the country in a way I feel is wrong? Sorry but that sounds stupid to me. Im not going to allow him to continue to make rash decisions just because he's the president. And again Im not just saying this because it happens to be Bush. If it were any other president doing what he is doing I would be saying the same thing.

I never brought up the thought of the ability or inability to question the government. What I meant was that it doesn't matter who did or didn't vote for him. He was elected to be the leader of this country regardless of how big the victory was. And by saying that he only represents the people he voted for can make one assume that his presidency is discounted, and doesn't mean as much.

You don't like him?? That's fine. You can vote for someone else. That is your right as a citizen of the United States. But to insult him personally is wrong. And that is my complaint. I am sick of the "Bush sucks" or "Bush is an idiot" rhetoric. The more responsible approach would be "I don't agree with his policies" or "I don't like him beause...".

And another thing. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he warn Saddam about the possibility of a military conflict if he didn't give in to UN requests?? I guess his "rash" decision making goes out the window if this were true...
 
Dart said:
I never brought up the thought of the ability or inability to question the government. What I meant was that it doesn't matter who did or didn't vote for him. He was elected to be the leader of this country regardless of how big the victory was. And by saying that he only represents the people he voted for can make one assume that his presidency is discounted, and doesn't mean as much.

Yeah I know what you meant and said, but Im just saying that Im not one of those people that just dont like Bush because it's the "cool" thing to do. Im willing to here both sides of this issue which is why Im always debating in these topics. No his presidency is not discounted in any way, he is the president of the US. There is no greater position in this world. But the fact of the matter is that the president represents those who voted for him and agree with his politics. That's how he becomes president. Im sure there were even democrats who voted for him or republicans who voted against him. So even though he represents the country he doesnt necessarily represent the individual citizens. No leader does. Let's take a look at Saddam Hussein. He was evil, yet does that mean that Iraqi's are evil? No. There are always people who will not agree with a leader's ideology or politics and those are the people he doesnt represent.

You don't like him?? That's fine. You can vote for someone else. That is your right as a citizen of the United States. But to insult him personally is wrong. And that is my complaint. I am sick of the "Bush sucks" or "Bush is an idiot" rhetoric. The more responsible approach would be "I don't agree with his policies" or "I don't like him beause...".

Exactly and I hope you dont get that Im one of those people who just bash him for no other reason other than it's what everybody else is doing.

And another thing. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he warn Saddam about the possibility of a military conflict if he didn't give in to UN requests?? I guess his "rash" decision making goes out the window if this were true...

Not sure about the warnings, but wasn't the UN against this war? Didnt he go against the UN wishes? Im pretty sure that even US citizens were against this before he declared this war on Iraq. Like I said, it seems to me that he has other agendas that may or may not be good for our country. Which is my questioning him.
 
creepindeth04 said:
Yes it can. If enough people want that change then it can happen. It's always possible especially in a democracy such as the one our country has. People can get recalled, impeached. If enough people want it then it can happen.

Out of curiousity, what could Bush be impeached for? Also, can a president be recalled?

Just curious.
 
Yeah. The UN was against the war. Why?? Because Iraq was lining the pockets of several top UN officials. So naturally they didn't want the U.S to rock Saddam's world. They would not only be exposed as thieves, but their days of ripping off the Oil-For-Food program would be over. France and Germany were also selling Iraq weapons. Nearly all of the planes in Iraq's air force were made in France. Big time no-no. Why?? Part of the agreement when Iraq lost the Persian Gulf war was that no country could sell them military supplies. Dang. This just gets even better!!

So, was UN's request for non-military action fueled by their warm fuzzy do-good intentions?? Nope.

And what about this oil Utopia that people say that President Bush is after?? Because I have not seen any benefit. And to say that we are "not yet in control" is a bad argument. Mainly because the U.S military is busy trying to stablize an area that is really messed up. I believe that if we were there simply to pilfer their oil supply, then they'd be securing the oil fields and saying screw the citizens.

And besides, even if the start of the war was a bad idea, it still doesn't free us from not making an attempt in fixing it. And even though all the nay-saying countries disagreed with the war, I believe they still should get off their butts and help in the reconstruction effort instead of playing political mind games and throwing blame around. Even the UN should stop being their normally useless selves and grow a pair and help out the mess.

Stealth, would you like your government to show us up?? Tell them to step up to the plate. The rest of teh world for that matter. Show the U.S government that we acted rashly by supporting the cleanup. That is the only way out of Iraq...

@ Spartan, a president can be impeached for breaking a law. But there is due process. What crime did he commit?? And after he is impeached, I believe the Senate must vote to remove the President, which has yet to happen. A President cannot be recalled just because people don't like him.
 
Well, I did some quick research.

because in the United States today, recall elections are prohibited in the Federal system, and prohibited in 32 out of the 50 states.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election
 
SpartanEvolved said:
Out of curiousity, what could Bush be impeached for? Also, can a president be recalled?

Just curious.

I dont remember what the term is. Ive heard it before. Ill look it up. I believe only leaders in states can be recalled, for example a mayor or a governor.

EDIT: You beat me to it.
 
@ Spartan, a president can be impeached for breaking a law. But there is due process. What crime did he commit?? And after he is impeached, I believe the Senate must vote to remove the President, which has yet to happen. A President cannot be recalled just because people don't like him.
 
Dart said:
@ Spartan, a president can be impeached for breaking a law. But there is due process. What crime did he commit?? And after he is impeached, I believe the Senate must vote to remove the President, which has yet to happen. A President cannot be recalled just because people don't like him.

@Dart, I fixed your comment becaue I was unable to quote you. Yes you are correct Dart, but that's not what I meant when I said president or elected officials can be impeached or recalled. BUT it has happened in California with former governor Gray Davis. The state's citizens did not like how he was running California so they recalled him. Unfortunately they chose another someone worse but that's a whole other topic also. The president is a lot harder to take out of office. But possible.
 
Back
Top