Quit picking on Obama……

[gopher]

You need to re-read your history. Reagan caused higher unemployment and with this came homelessness and Reaganvilles.

Any good accomplished by Reagan was destroyed by his actions in Central America where the genocide against Native Americans matched that of North Americans against their counterparts in the 19th century. And while the right wing media credits Reagan with ending the Soviet state, Europeans credit Gorbachev for doing so. Besides, as we all know, it was Republican Wall Street that created the Soviet state:


Amazon.com: Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution (9780899683249): Antony C. Sutton: Books

 

[gopher]

''We believe him as well ! ''


LOL! Yeah, we Yanks believe you Canadians know American politics more than we do.

 

[pgs]

Huge deficit, yes.

Unemployment fell dramatically throughout the last years of Reagan's term from its high point in 1983 . You are dead wrong on this.

A few millions to Saddam.....very few.....if you want to cry about the arming of Saddam.....you have to cry about China, Russia, Germany, and France.....all of whom were many, many times more involved than the USA.

Actions in Central America were atrocious....in keeping with historical US foreign policy in the region. Not nice.

All of the negatives fade to insignificance though, when compared to the defeat of the Soviet Union, for which Reagan was largely responsible.

But of course the failure of the soviet machine is not seen as a victory to many democrat supporters.
And one must pander to their suppporters musn't they .

 

[Colpy]

You need to re-read your history. Reagan caused higher unemployment and with this came homelessness and Reaganvilles.

Any good accomplished by Reagan was destroyed by his actions in Central America where the genocide against Native Americans matched that of North Americans against their counterparts in the 19th century. And while the right wing media credits Reagan with ending the Soviet state, Europeans credit Gorbachev for doing so. Besides, as we all know, it was Republican Wall Street that created the Soviet state:


Amazon.com: Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution (9780899683249): Antony C. Sutton: Books

In 1981, the year Reagan came to power, the US unemployment rate was over 8%.....it peaked in 1983 at 10.3%.....in 1989, the year Reagan left office, it was 5.3%, the lowest since 1970.

Try again.

And (need I say it?) the idea that Wall Street created the USSR is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[gopher]

''the idea that Wall Street created the USSR is ludicrous in the extreme''


Read Trotsky's and Lenin's memoirs and you'll see that it never has been a secret.

Unemployment figures go down when unemployment insurance runs out for claimants.

 

[Cannuck]

How does it feel to be a Republican in the face of that party's infinite failings?

I'm Canadian. We don't have a Republican Party. One would think think that, if you wanted to post on a forum called "Canadian Content", you would have a bit of an understanding of Canada (especially after four years)

 

[JLM]

I'm Canadian. We don't have a Republican Party. One would think think that, if you wanted to post on a forum called "Canadian Content", you would have a bit of an understanding of Canada (especially after four years)

Do you have an understanding of Canada?

 

[Cannuck]

Do you have an understanding of Canada?

Yes. Are you trying to break VI's record?

 

[JLM]

Yes. Are you trying to break VI's record?

Just giving you a friendly "good morning greeting" (Had a hunch I'd get a response) :lol::lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If only life was so simple.

It is that simple when it comes to republicans, pgs. They claim to be the party of God; the Bible Belt buys the rhetoric wholesale, and votes for Republicans in overwhelming numbers.

Indeed, in many Bible Belt states (Texas, South Carolina etc.) Democrats are an endangered species. Many Bible Belt states are the American version of Alberta (where people simply shut their eyes and vote for the same party decade after decade).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Nor me as I don't belong to either party but vote for the best candidate.

SJP says that also.
We believe him as well !

I have never said that, pgs. Show me the post where I said that. Now, I left the school system a long time ago, but I really have to wonder about the education standards these days, when people cannot read a simple post, they read into it what they want to read. At least in this forum I have come across appalling lack of reading comprehension.

Show me a single post where I said that I vote for the best candidate. I have never said anything of the sort.

We have a Parliamentary system, here parties are all important. I vote for the best party, the party that best represents my opinion, my principles, my ideals. My ideals are sound economic management, multiculturalism, tolerance, respect for the Charter (I oppose use of Notwithstanding Clause as a political weapon), respect of minority rights etc. That party can be Liberals or NDP (but never conservative).

But since NDP does not have a chance of forming the government, a vote for NDP is a wasted vote, so I usually end up voting liberal. However, if in my riding the Liberal is running a distant third, I can well see myself voting for NDP, but never a conservative (unless they elect a sensible, moderate center right leader, not the right wing loony like Harper).

In USA, I probably would do what Gopher does, I would vote for the best candidate. Party discipline is very loose there, and politicians vote their opinion, rather than voting for the party. So in USA it makes sense to vote for the best candidate, in Canada (or in a Parliamentary democracy) it makes sense to vote for the best party.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You need to re-read your history. Reagan caused higher unemployment and with this came homelessness and Reaganvilles.

But of course, Goober. Many Republicans are now rejoicing, celebrating because USA has double digit unemployment, because they think that will help them win the next election.

What they conveniently forget is that the last time they had a double digit unemployment was when their icon, their idol, Reagan was the President. But they probably claimed at that time that it was the fault of the Democrats (perhaps Clinton) that there was 10% unemployment.

And the double digit unemployment occurred well into Reagan presidency; in 1983 (Reagan was elected in 1980). So it was very much the responsibility of Reagan.

Obama has been in the office less that one year, this is still Bush’s recession, Bush’s meltdown.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But of course the failure of the soviet machine is not seen as a victory to many democrat supporters.
And one must pander to their suppporters musn't they .

The lion's share for that goes to Gorbachev pgs, not to Reagan. Gorbachev got the Noble peace Prize for that, Reagan didn’t.

 

[JLM]

I have never said that, pgs. Show me the post where I said that. Now, I left the school system a long time ago, but I really have to wonder the education standards these days, when people cannot read a simple post, they read into it what they want to read. At least in this forum I have come across appalling lack of reading comprehension.

Show me a single post where I said that I vote for the best candidate. I have never said anything of the sort.

We have a Parliamentary system, here parties are all important. I vote for the best party, the party that best represents my opinion, my principles, my ideals. My ideals are sound economic management, multiculturalism, tolerance, respect for the Charter (I oppose use of Notwithstanding Clause as a political weapon), respect of minority rights etc. That party can be Liberals or NDP (but never conservative).

But since NDP does not have a chance of forming the government, a vote for NDP is a wasted vote, so I usually end up voting liberal. However, if in my riding the Liberal is running a distant third, I can well see myself voting for NDP, but never a conservative (unless they elect a sensible, moderate center right leader, not the right wing loony like Harper).

In USA, I probably would do what Gopher does, I would vote for the best candidate. Party discipline is very loose there, and politicians vote their opinion, rather than voting for the party. So in USA it makes sense to vote for the best candidate, in Canada (or in a Parliamentary democracy) it makes sense to vote for the best party.

I mostly agree with that, but Harper a "right wing loony"? A bit extreme methinks.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

''We believe him as well ! ''


LOL! Yeah, we Yanks believe you Canadians know American politics more than we do.

Gopher, your system and our system are fundamentally different; you vote for the best candidate, we vote for the best party.

Thus, I am pro choice, but I may vote for a Liberal candidate who is pro life, over a conservative candidate who is pro choice. Why? Because if I vote for the conservative candidate, if as a result of that Conservatives get a majority, they may try to ban abortion.

But if I vote for the pro life Liberal and as a result of that Liberals get a majority, they will never try to restrict abortion, so the pro life views of the Liberal candidate don’t matter.

In your country it is exactly the opposite, I would never vote for a pro life candidate. Senator or House representative of any party can bring a bill before the Congress, and a pro life candidate will vote pro life, no matter what his party’s platform.

As I said, in USA one votes for the best candidate, in Canada (or Britain, Australia etc.) one votes for the best party.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I mostly agree with that, but Harper a "right wing loony"? A bit extreme methinks.

We have been through this before, JLM. Currently Harper is governing as a center right politician, but that may be because he doesn’t have a majority. We don’t know how extreme he will be if he gets a majority.

But this is the same politician who talked of erecting a firewall around Alberta to keep gay marriage out, enthusiastically supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq etc.

So right now I don’t have any complaints about Harper, he is governing like a center right politician. The problem is, we don’t know if his teeth and claws will come out if he gets a majority.

 

[JLM]

"So right now I don’t have any complaints about Harper, he is governing like a center right politician. The problem is, we don’t know if his teeth and claws will come out if he gets a majority."- Maybe we shouldn't be judgmental until he gets that chance.

 

[AnnaG]

"So right now I don’t have any complaints about Harper, he is governing like a center right politician. The problem is, we don’t know if his teeth and claws will come out if he gets a majority."- Maybe we shouldn't be judgmental until he gets that chance.

Speaking of teeth and considering that this is a bash the Big O thread, boy, has he got teeth. He reminds me of that golfing guy with the all the big teeth. :laughing6:

Still better looking than ol Dumbya, though.

 

[EagleSmack]

Too funny

 

[EagleSmack]

Anna...you do understand that critisizing both Obama AND George Dubya sends folks into sensory overload.

You are a far right wing religious nut as well as a left wing moonbat Obama lover.