A speech by Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attack s on Ba li , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If ! God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Edit: Great speech; I've always liked how John Howard says what's on his mind.

Not in a million years Mark. That sounds too American for any of our Pres candidates to utter!

What do you make out of the race? Looks like Jeremiah Wright is fast becoming Obama's worst enemy. It's incredible how the Democrat party is turning this into a "race issue". This is way too early say, but I can't see how either Hillary or Obama can pull this thing out.

"This is way too early say, but I can't see how either Hillary or Obama can pull this thing out."

You just watch, RM.

Brent

LOL Brent, I said it is too early to say But if Hillary would win the nomination there would be riots all over the place. And Dems can't win without nearly all the black vote. And Obama is losing steam fast! The pretty boy mask is peeling off of him.

Psytrancer, why did you delete your post? I appreciated your passion. As a point of interest, one of your H uncles was singing the praises of the Clintons to me in the past year....after the Sunday morning service I might add

That is definitely a speech that needs to be heard in this country, but will never happen. In a parlamentary system the PM doesn't need to worry about the popular vote so he can offend if he wishes to.

BTW, McCain is just kickin' back and smiling as the Dems self-destruct. He knows the country is not ready for an African-American or a woman, even if her last name is Clinton.

<<Psytrancer, why did you delete your post? I appreciated your passion. As a point of interest, one of your H uncles was singing the praises of the Clintons to me in the past year....after the Sunday morning service I might add>>

Oh goodness me. I have an idea this was the same uncle who tried to convince me some years ago that he read about a Japanese rocket going up into space but never coming down. He figured that since the Japanese going into space would be big news and that we never heard about it coming down that they had set up a laser gun on the moon and pointed it at the United States and when the time was right, an ultimatum would be issued.

That man is born to mischief as the sparks fly upward, God bless his dear soul he's quite a character. I have a feeling he doesn't believe half of what he says but likes the rise it gets out of people.

I dunno, sometimes I get a bit too passionate and I didn't want to derail the thread. I'm actually quite interestd in the US elections and like to hear how Americans feel.

I kind of agree with OS - even if I sometimes paint myself with a bleeding heart liberal brush I'm not too happy with the Dems self-destructing. I kind of like ole McCain and hope he does well.

Hey Psy, the right wingers of the Republicans paint McCain with the bleeding-heart liberal brush, so don't feel bad.

RM,

Obama may have enough influence to hold the riots off. Hillary says there will be an unified party when it's all said and done.

Maybe Obama will be her vice president. But I see a problem with that to. But Obama has to win some way in this if he don't get the nominee. That much is a must.

Brent

As a non-voting, sitting on the sidelines would-be republican holdie, I agree that is a great speech. But my question is, what ever happened to a proud, strong, courageous America, willing to stand for freedom and justice, willing to stare down communism and tyranny, and make them blink first? Where are the Ronald Reagans that make us proud to be Americans and are a shining beacon of hope to the world? Woe to America if either one of the democrats land in the White House. But McCain is hardly any better. A good republican could step in right now and still win the nomination.

Just my two bits-

I don't know, Gman, the Romneys and the Huckabees had their shot. I really question wether another Republican would have a chance because the powers that be in the Grand Old Party have jumped on the McCain bandwagon because they see him as being electable. And right now, the only concern is hanging on to the White House.

You know why Romney and Huckabee didn't win? Because half the people in this country don't even know what they are voting for. They make their decisions based on sound bites and the candidate's personality, for the most part.

McCain has a very small amount of the conservative republicans and it usually takes the majority of those for a republican to win.

Brent,
Obama may have enough influence to hold the riots off.

Al Sharpton has a lot more sway over the black vote than does Obama. Al said if this is stolen from Obama he (Al) will take it to the streets in Denver.

GM,
The reason McCain won the nomination is Dems crossed over and voted for him. That is what inspired Operation Chaos.

Monday, Howard Dean made an interesting observation on democracy.

He said it didn't matter what the popular vote was on Obama or Clinton. The superdelagates would choose who was most "electable"

Hmmm..... the popular vote doesn't matter......

 

Someone should have told John Kerry about this in 04

God Bless Democracy

>>He said it didn't matter what the popular vote was on Obama or Clinton. The superdelagates would choose who was most "electable"

Hmmm..... the popular vote doesn't matter......<<

That's why there is such a low voter turnout.

<<Someone should have told John Kerry about this in 04>>

...or Al Gore in 2000.

Howie (Dean who...?)also said that one of the candidates should step down to preserve unity in the party. Yeah, Right! The convention this summer will be Chicago 1964 all over again.

GM,

Your post about being a holdie would-be republican was very interesting to me.

There seems to be quite a bit of polarization in the two-party system in the US where many people on both sides buy into a complete agenda instead of more of a spectrum that can be found in multi-party ideas.

You feel that Democrat rule in the US will ruin the country. This isn't a loaded question and since I'm not involved in US politics I'm not asking so I can debate or criticize your answer, but are there particular points in the Democratic agenda that you are against, or is it the entire party philosophy? In either case, it would be interesting to hear more detail.

Your post about people voting on sound bites and personality is also bang on with my thoughts, but how do you think the US can get citizens actively involved in democracy again? Whether you love or hate the man, Al Gore actually has a very interesting book explaining how important the printed press was to democracy and how television and radio have disenfranchised people from being active participants in a thriving democracy. He holds hope that the internet may put citizens in touch again as they are able to respond instead of being fed one way information.

Unlike you, I am a voter, but I often wonder how to educate myself about the issues so I'm actually prepared to make a vote from the heart instead of the TV and radio snippets, much of them mudslinging.

Psy,
Those are some good questions and I will get back to you on them tomorrow.

Psy,
Yes, America is a very polarized nation. But people are looking for something, and they are not finding it in the current lineup of candidates. None of them have the qualities of a great president. I would use Ronald Reagan as a benchmark. He won in a landslide victory in 1980. Why? Because he put forth and agenda of hope, of restoring pride in our nation again after the failed Carter years. That's why you see many people clamoring to Obama's campaign. Obama realizes what Reagan's drawing was, as he(Obama) has stated awhile back. But as you can see, when the real Obama is brought into the light, they are again becoming disappointed. When you check his voting record, he is an ultra liberal. And I have a very low opinion of liberals They will run roughshod over anyone that stands in there way, and will use every means possible to achieve their end. That is especially the reason I would never trust Hillary.(see article in www.worldnetdaily.com)

The Democratic agenda is basically geared toward higher taxes and a bigger government and to have as many people as possible to be dependent on government so they can have the people under their thumb, and in their control. But I will say that as far as spending goes, I (and many others) are disappointed in the Bush administration's overspending. That is one thing about Bill Clinton, when he left office we were operating in the black. But the country can't tolerate any higher taxes and that is sure to happen if a democrat gets in office. Businesses in this country are already stretched to the limit with taxes and any more would put a lot of small businesses out of business. Contrary to the opinion of many, the top 50% of the top income earners pay 97% of the taxes. And the liberals want to tax the rich even more. Somewhere there has to be a stopping point. The democratic liberals have as their goal to spread out the wealth, take from the rich and give to the poor. That isn't all bad but then where is the incentive to work hard to get ahead when you know you have to give it away anyway? The wealthy are a big part of the backbone of this country, they are what make the wheels turn, to a large degree.

As for Al Gore, I would put very little stock into what he says . Much of what he says is half-truths and inuendo. Almost everything he does is geared towards his advantage. Environmentalism in particular. Technological advances in the medium of information has been a boon to give the people a better understanding of government and it's inter-relation with the people but in my opinion that would not be a reason for a disenfranchised people. The reason would be a loss of faith in a government that has persued their own agendas and have not been true representatives of the people.

<<That man is born to mischief as the sparks fly upward, God bless his dear soul he's quite a character. I have a feeling he doesn't believe half of what he says but likes the rise it gets out of people.>>

After a few minutes of discussion he told me that actually he's happy to debate from either side of the issue. Yeah, he's a great guy as is your dad and the rest of your uncles. Interesting guys!

GM and OS...great points. I just shake my head in amazement when I see John McCain as the Republican nominee. How in the world did that Rino (Republican in name only) ever get to where he is. All I can figure out is that the Republican party has sold it's soul to something other than conservatism. If McCain wins he will effectively destroy the Republican party for years. He spends more time attacking Republicans than Democrats. Why doesn't he join the other side?

Psy said "so I'm actually prepared to make a vote from the heart".

Psy, that's the problem with liberals, they vote from the heart (which is based on emotions). I'd encourage you to use your head and critical thinking skills and you'll end up thinking and voting like a conservative. Please allow me to extend the invitation

RM; shouldn't our leaders, elected by the people for the people, carry out policies and ideas that reflect the wishes of the people ? Maybe this is McCain's view of politics ?

GM - Thanks for posting your response. I'm at work now but later this evening I'll be able to spend more time reading it.

GM said about liberals, “They will run roughshod over anyone that stands in there way, and will use every means possible to achieve their end.” Would you deny that this sounds very much like Rove, Cheney, and the Bush neoconservatives?

I think the Clintons also have a large dose of this. But it is true for anyone who is politically ambitious to the point of believing in their own agenda so much that the hoped-for results justify the dishonest means.

Most liberals I know care more about values such as compassion, honesty, and integrity above their own personal gain. Isn’t that almost what defines a “bleeding heart” liberal, one who cares deeply about perceived injustice? Racial equality, the environment, human rights, education opportunities for the downtrodden, these are all familiar liberal agendas.

To contrast that, I see “Wall Street Republicans” such as those now running the country more concerned about tax cuts for the wealthy and winning an unjust war than they are about social and environmental programs.

Unfortunately, in today’s political climate, running roughshod seems like the only way to achieve political results. You have one faction running roughshod to push tax cuts while we charge an unjust 3 trillion dollar war to our grandchildren. If the other faction wants to stop this insanity, how else can they be effective without running roughshod?

Don't forget QUINNs FIRST LAW: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. This is so true!

Another thing...the monetary cost of this war is chump change when compared with all the feel good social programs this country wastes money on. Just wait until the environmental extremists get all their "carbon based" surcharges, taxes and penalties heaped on top of the bureaucratic nightmare we live with now. The burden is going to be unbearable.

So far as the intentions of liberals. I don't doubt that a lot of liberals have good intentions. The desire to help the poor is great, conservatives desire the same, we just go about helping them in a way that produces results. The same can be said for "Racial equality, the environment, human rights, education opportunities for the downtrodden..." that Stan quoted. It's just that liberals somehow think that the almighty government is supposed to supply these things for everyone. Conservatives expect people to make things work, not government.

Stan, your post was so rich <<To contrast that, I see “Wall Street Republicans” such as those now running the country more concerned about tax cuts for the wealthy and winning an unjust war than they are about social and environmental programs.>>

Tax cuts....how do you give a poor person who doesn't pay taxes a tax cut? All tax cuts are is allowing an individual to keep more of the money they earned.

The "winning an unjust war"...would you like to see us try to lose this war?

RM, is there no middle ground? I speak out against tax cuts for the rich, and you claim I am speaking about those who don’t pay taxes.

No one wants to lose a war, not even Democrats! But first let’s define what winning means. The war was started on the justification that we would save the world from WMD and create a “beacon of democracy” in the Middle East. We have since discovered the first was a moot point, and long ago lowered our expectations about the second. Now it seems that “winning” is defined by handing over the government of Iraq to unstable radical religious factions and preventing them from engaging in civil war. And defeating an Al Qaeda whose growth and presence in Iraq is a direct result of the initial invasion.

In the meantime we have squandered tons of valuable resources which could have been used to solve problems at home, and killed over 4000 of some of our best people (to say nothing about hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians). We now have a whole new generation of boys growing up over there whose lives are ruined and hate our guts.

What does winning mean to you? Do we kill everyone who could eventually harm us? Is it worth more lives and more trillions of dollars just so we can put a political spin on the outcome?

Say what you will about Saddam’s secular rule, but it was stable and women could drive and people felt much safer walking on the streets. Yes, he was brutal, but law and order were observed.

I don’t know what the best action is. Are we obligated to stay to protect the general population from the havoc we have created? Or are we just prolonging what will eventually happen when we turn our backs anyway? I just don’t see any sense in framing any action over there as “winning” or “loosing”. It is more about damage control obligations.

How do you “win” a war when the cause is already lost?

What an absolutely horrible speech. How can
Someone get away with talking like that.
Call me a softy Canadian, fag loving weirdo.

But having this kind of an attitude will never
Help make this world a better place to live.
It only drives people further apart.

Jeff,

How would you respond to a movement to introduce Islamic sharia law as an institution that applies to Muslims in Alberta? Well, that's kind of an oxymoron, but anyway......

When the concept of sharia law in the province of Ontario was making news here in Canada, I was outraged. Thank God Ontario had the good sense to slam the door closed on that one.

In that sense, I understand social conservatives.

Well im not sure about Shaia Law.
But if it works for them why not?
But I am very open all faiths and cultures.
And believe we should all be open to others.

jeff, I think you would need to check out sharia law before making that opinion.

It could be a very dangerous thing for this country.

Well maybe some of it is a bit out there ya.
But the parts of it that dont interfere
With our laws let them practice it.

We are always scared of what we don’t know
Or understand. But that don’t mean it’s wrong.
I dont have to like it but then they dont have
like me or how I live either.

Psy wrote,
Al Gore actually has a very interesting book explaining how important the printed press was to democracy and how television and radio have disenfranchised people from being active participants in a thriving democracy. He holds hope that the internet may put citizens in touch again as they are able to respond instead of being fed one way information.

You must be referring to his book, The Assault on Reason. What Al is really trying to do is deflect all the county's problems away from them and put all the blame on Bush and the republicans. If you want to talk about one way information the media takes the liberal slant on most everything. The liberals despise conservatives that go against them.

<<if it works for them, why not?>>

You may want to "wiki" sharia law and see what are considered crimes punishable by execution.

Ive never read the book but I will look for it
it sounds interesting.

And yes I would tend to be very Liberal

Psytrancer

Yes I am reading up on line right now about it
And yes some of it is quit out there I agree

But if you read the Bible and take it literally
Some of it is really out there to.

I have several Muslim friends who are very
Well balanced normal people.

You will always find the radical letter to the law
People out there. No mater what religion.

GM,

With respect, I don't really care who wrote the book or their deeper message, but whether it was a conservative or a liberal it was impressive to me that the printing press was one of the first times in history that people were able to have mass free exchanges of ideas.

I assume you don't participate in much television or radio, but I'm sure you've seen political speeches by a candidate and then the endless analysis in a one-way stream of information.

All my point is, regardless of who is making it, is that the internet is a new technology that has the potential to generate a free flow of ideas among citizens and can be used to get people engaged in democracy and government again.

To be honest, that's what stuck with me from the book; I can't even tell you what the rest was about. If George W. Bush would have written it I would have been just as impressed.

By the way, you had some very interesting thoughts in an earlier post about government versus people helping people. I've been pondering that all afternoon and am putting together a case study for you to read and give me your thoughts. I'm not sure when it will be ready, but I think it will generate lively debate on the forum. I'll open it as a separate topic.

<<RM, is there no middle ground? I speak out against tax cuts for the rich, and you claim I am speaking about those who don’t pay taxes.>>

Well...whenever I hear someone talk about "tax cuts for the wealthy" I immediately get the impression that they are in favor of redistribution of wealth. If tax cuts are not applied evenly across all income brackets how can it be anything other than redistribution?

On winning the war. Our mission was to remove Saddam since he didn't prove that he got rid of WMDs that we knew he had. We did a good job of that, now we just need to leave the area once Iraq is able to govern themselves. I think that is victory. If we leave without giving Iraq a decent chance at governing themselves and defending themselves from terrorist regimes then we have just given the victory to the terrorists. That just is not acceptable in this day and age.

It seems that you and I have different ideas about what has happened in Iraq since Saddam was run out. Maybe we get our news from different sources? I'm hearing about a growing economy, freedom for women, freedom for children to go to school etc. A lot of things that I thought liberals were supposed to care deeply about

Psy, I agree with you that the printing press opened up a whole new frontier for mass information and the flow of ideas.

I agree also that the internet can be a new way for the people to have a voice that previously wasn't there and that they can feel that they can still make a difference.

I loved that speech! Wish our politicians would take lessons from the Australians and learn to speak straight for a change. Reading that speech kind of made me wonder if NASCAR has gone into speech writing! Now if this fella would turn his sights on the liberals, atheists and homos that are constantly pushing their agenda on the rest of us.

Stan,
We now have a whole new generation of boys growing up over there whose lives are ruined and hate our guts.

Based on what information do you come to this conclusion?

Within the last 3 months my wife talked with a returned soldier who was just sick when he read what the USA news media was saying. He said, even today when soldiers walk down the streets past the houses, women and children come running out of their houses waving and cheering as they go past.

The main ones that hate us over there are the ones that were in power with Sadaam. You say it was stable under Sadaam...you didn't live with the fear of being put into a tree chipper. Head first if you were not too bad but if they were really angry they slowly lowered you feet first until it reached the head.

Read first hand accounts from the man who was one of Sadaam's military advisers. In his book he clearly says they moved all the WMD's to Syria. He aught to know he was there.

The title of the book "Sadaam's Secrets"

RM,
If you run for office I'll vote for you!

You are making more sense than any of the candidates.

I can see RM running for office......

.....with Jeremiah Wright as his running mate.

LOL Peter just because the last name is Wright does not mean he IS right...wing.

"Al Sharpton has a lot more sway over the black vote than does Obama. Al said if this is stolen from Obama he (Al) will take it to the streets in Denver."

Mark,

There's a lot of variables in this election. Why is Jeremiah Wright intent on destroying Obama? He surely knows his comments aren't helping Obama. And Obama don't bat an eye to denounce his old pastor's comments. If the blacks get vision into this it will shift the focus again. There's nothing unified going on.

And Obama's talking against Jeremiah is more of a white side than a black side thing. So this will quell some more of the spirits of riot. Obama is enough of a politician that he stays to politics before his own race.

Behind the scenes there's a lot of honor across party line and sticking to a common goal than the appearance and ideology of party lines that fools the people.

The bottom line is both Hillary and Obama are master politicians to speak nothing of Bill. I believe both of them will be loyal to politics before anything else. So I look to authority in the matter to get an idea of what's going on. But the thing is very confusing. I've went as far to think that the time may have come that the people who pull the strings in the world may not get the results they plan for which they have grown so accustomed too.

The old saying in politics is nothing happens that wasn't planned. But that time may be over!

Brent

In the past I spent a lot of time in the chatrooms on AOL. I would challenge liberals there to define socialism and liberalism and then enumerate the differences.
Another point; the great socialist experiment of the twentieth century self-immolated after less than 100 years of existence. What makes the social democrats in N. America think they can improve upon a failed system and make it work here?
In comparison; the USA was founded on the principle of personal freedom. Its open market, capitalist economic system made us the richest nation on earth. Why would anyone want to change this system?

OS,

My mother and I were chatting about this very thing this evening. The system you are describing works well when people embrace a sense of morality and personal accountability.

There is so much greed and corruption in North America that poor and middle men get poorer and those with wealth manipulate it so they get even wealthier. People no longer have any qualms about fraud, lying and doing whatever it takes to pull ahead. My mother told me my father saw the doctor for a three minute skin biopsy procedure today and was charged over $700 for it.

I face these pressures in my own life in a corporate world where I've just about decided that being a nice guy really doesn't get you anywhere if you want to climb the corporate ladder. If you make calculated, heartless business decisions that increase revenues and decrease expenses without regard to how it will impact people downline, you then receive recognition, promotion and have a chance at padding your pocket.

My grandpa Wedel thought about these things a lot, and he said he hoped there never was a time when Americans rioted for food but he believed it would happen. I am not against capitalism at all; I think it's a great system but I think the end result of unchecked capitalism leads to revolution when an underclass finally gets enough and revolts with socialist and communist ideologies.

>>Why would anyone want to change this system?<<

There you go,OS. For 200+ years we have had a system of government and a constitution that has been the envy of the world. I cannot conceive why anyone would want to tear it down and emulate the tyrannical communist governments of the past.

Psy, I don't necessarily believe it's the underclass, rather the elite and the Hollywood types that are so adamant about changing the system.

<<There is so much greed and corruption in North America that poor and middle men get poorer and those with wealth manipulate it so they get even wealthier.>>

Psy
Study the history of big business in this country. Remember the robber barons of railroad and steel? Greed and corruption have been with us from day one.
My father used to say that in the thirties it took a weeks pay to buy a pair of shoes. Well, things may be getting a little tight, but the poor and middle class dollar still goes further than that.
In fact, the middle and latter years of the twentieth century saw an increase in the wealth of the middle class in this country that was unprecedented in history. During the Reagan years, more people, (African-Americans included) rose above the poverty level and became home owners than ever before in our countries history. Why did this happen? Because he CUT TAXES and removed the government from regulating the free market system in many areas. Freight hauling as an example.
The reason this country,s balance sheet was in the black during the 1990s had little to do with the Clinton administration's policies. Rather, it was the Reagan legacy of lower taxes and less government intrusion. The only thing Clinton contributed was to emasculate the military.

I admit I don't know much about US history. It was the history of western civilization I took in university. From what I've read on this forum, I'd be interested in reading a bio or book about Reagan. Any you can recommend?

Greed is a great impeder of progress.

A person or corporation consumed with greed will ultimately fail. It is an eternal law...what you sow you will reap.

This is being shown very vividly to the world in the Democratic party. They were the party who blamed the Republicans for stealing an election not counting every vote...etc. Look at what is happening before our very eyes.

The laws of God are eternal...work with them and they will serve you...go against them and they will crush you.

>>I think the end result of unchecked capitalism leads to revolution when an underclass finally gets enough and revolts with socialist and communist ideologies.<<

I tend to think you are (at least partially) correct, Psy.

At any rate, I recall reading somewhere (and don't ask me where) that when a society's middle-class disappears, revolution is usually not too far away (I'm paraphrasing here). However, I think there are historical examples of this, and you know what they say about history repeating itself...

Here's Reagan in the 70's as governor of California.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ALHiadIsKo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Csj0Ob4_uY&feature=related

Iran Contra.

Ollie North.

I....ah....have no recollection.

GM,
That is hilarious!

Mark, regarding my comment about the kids growing up in Iraq hating our guts: I have heard a lot of stories since this war begin about civilians whose lives are ruined because of the war. By even conservative estimates, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed. I would say many of those were parents, leaving children behind who hold a grudge against a foreign invasion. Your friend speaks of women and children waving at solders, and I am sure that is the case in some places. I can understand why your friend might want to emphasis the positive aspects of the war, as that would be natural for someone who has invested so much in that venture, and probably has friends over there.

The question to ask is; are the people who are coming to maturity in the next 5 to 10 years more likely to respect us, or hate us? From everything I hear about our reputation in the world, it seems they like us much less than they used to.

I know Saddam was an evil tyrant who didn’t deserve to rule. Have you heard just how many people per year suffered the fate of the tree chipper (or similar)? Because our actions have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, most of them innocent bystanders. I wonder how many years Saddam would have taken to equal that at his former current rate? I don’t know, just bringing it up for thought. Sounds like an interesting book, “Saddam’s Secrets”.


RM, do you think the extremely wealthy should pay the same percentage as the poor? I always thought it fair to tax the rich a little higher. Maybe that is wealth redistribution on a very small scale, but I don’t see our poor benefiting much if wealth distribution is taking place.

This is maybe a subject for another thread, but it is interesting looking at the U.S. history of social politics, starting with the New Deal. Many argue strongly that is what made it possible to survive the depression. Social Security, Medicaid, what about all those programs? Are they part of a wealth distribution plan also? Is a country whose government provides a safety net better off than one that lets each individual defend for themselves?

But I don’t want to get too side tracked on who deserves the cuts the most. My point was that it doesn’t make sense to cut taxes during a time of war. If we were forced to pay for this war as we went, rather than charge it to the next generations, I’ll bet there would be a public outcry that would make Viet Nam look mild!

You said, “I'm hearing about a growing economy, freedom for women, freedom for children to go to school etc.” Maybe we are getting our information from different sources. Are you getting yours from WorldNetDaily, or some conservative place? If so, how do you know it is more dependable than the so-called liberal media? I know Bush likes to put a bright spin on what is going on, but Petraus didn’t sound very positive a few weeks ago. And I read about professional Iraqi women who before the war had the freedom to drive by themselves and dress as they wanted in public. Those freedoms have vanished now with the religious radicals taking over.

I haven't been keeping up here very well. Wow, Mark, OriginalSinnick and GM..you guys have some great posts above. Mark, you and the other guys can run for office. I won't...since if I ever did my liberal opposition would look up what I said on COG and find some polically incorrect statements I've made and hang me with them..ha

Stan, I get my news from people who love America. I think that is one of the primary differences from my news sources and the liberal mainstream media. My news sources do not blame America and capitalism for the problems of the world. They do not walk around guilt ridden with a "we are destroying the earth" mentality. My news sources understand for the most part that freedom and capitalism is what will make this world a better place, not layer upon layer of bureaucracy. I wouldn't be surprised that this could be a large part of why we have quite different views of our world.

I'm going to start another thread on taxation and redistribution of wealth.

Your defense sounds a little like you are saying we shouldn’t criticize America or capitalism no matter what. Does criticism of the Bush administration policies mean we don’t love our country? And what if our actions are causing environmental actions? Does admitting it mean we don’t love our country? I don’t understand this mentality!

<<Your defense sounds a little like you are saying we shouldn’t criticize America or capitalism no matter what. Does criticism of the Bush administration policies mean we don’t love our country? And what if our actions are causing environmental actions? Does admitting it mean we don’t love our country? I don’t understand this mentality!>>

I didn't mean to imply that America and capitalism shouldn't be criticized. I was merely trying to explain the differences between my news sources and the liberal mainstream media. And I could give you a long list of Bush criticisms Of course you can love your country and disagree with the administrations that run it. I do question though whether a person (not talking about you here) really loves their country when they are constantly attacking the principles that made this country the greatest country on planet earth in the first place, which the liberal media does a very good job of.

Peace

By Stan,
GM said about liberals, “They will run roughshod over anyone that stands in there way, and will use every means possible to achieve their end.” Would you deny that this sounds very much like Rove, Cheney, and the Bush neoconservatives?

Stan, I will try to give a balanced view to your statement. Karl Rove is a very shrewd, brilliant and ingenious man. But he also can be devious, mean and vindictive. Even President Bush has two entirely different nicknames for Rove: "Boy Genius" and "Turd Blossom," a Texas phrase describing a flower that grows in manure. But Rove said Bush rarely calls him Boy Genius. He(Bush)generally calls him the other name.

By Stan,
Most liberals I know care more about values such as compassion, honesty, and integrity above their own personal gain.

I would have to take issue with this one. Let's take for instance Charles Schumer. Schumer is one very scary and hateful person, and a bully. He is one who cannot pass a camera by without an attack on Bush and the war. He also is the most radical man in this failed congress. A congress that has half the poll ratings 14 percent while our president has 36 percent a few months ago but is still lower now. Why do you think this democratic controlled congress has such a low approval rating?
Add to that Carl Levin and Ted Kennedy. These guys are an enemy of everything that is good for America. They usually go against Christian priciples. I guess I just don't see much honesty and integrity there. But I know that's how it is in the political landscape.

Amen GM.

Another thing, if anyone wants to see how unmerciless Democrats are towards someone who doesn't line up with their liberal ideology just watch reruns of the Supreme Court justice nominee confirmation hearings. I watched some of Alito's and Robert's hearings. Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden are among some of the most sanctimonious pompous senators I've ever seen. The hell they put these noble men through was unreal.

RM and GM, RM and GM, RM and GM, you're seeing the appearance of good in your men!

I don't cut the Democrat senators any more slack.

They're all ministers of government.

Brent