...Bush is not even the main problem here,
Ronald Reagan is the man who first began to dismantle America. All this unbridled
free enterprise is every bit as destabilizing as unbridled socialism.
The United States of America is a has been country waiting to sink beneath the weight of
its own corruption. This is truly sad...
Understanding the grand sweep of history is useful in framing the decline and fall of the American empire.
You portray Reagan the same way history views the Roman Emperor Elagabulus, viz., profligate and unproductive. This is very mistaken. Reagan should be compared to the Emperors Aurelian and his successors like the Emperors Diocletian, Constantine and Julian who temporarily restored the Empire in the years following 275 AD after its near collapse.
The real era of American greatness can be measured from 1865 to 1972. The Reagan/GHWB years were like the afterglow of a brilliant fire. The Clinton years were an era of false strength like those of the Emperor Justinian.
The GWB years were like those of the Emperor Heraclitus spent struggling like Don Quixote. Bush threw away an empire, but did not attempt to set the character of the American people on a new trajectory. Domestically, Bush was passive in many ways.
Obama's objective is to remake the American people. In doing so he must perforce sacrifice the principle of individual liberty in order to achieve the ideal of equality of result. Over this, a figurative civil war now rages. The outcome of the figurative civil war may be of intellectual interest to non-Americans, but it is not the business of non-Americans. I assume all Canadians will agree that American sovereignty precludes Canadians from any role whatsoever in the struggle raging south of their border.
...I agree we have to make a profit, I also understand that these companies have a responsibility
to the communities they serve. Maybe we should be pointing out which companies are in fact
patriotic and which ones are selling out our national interests for their profit margins and at the
same time destroying the environment internationally to circumvent the laws and regulations
at home.
Unbridled Conservatism is as bad or worse than unbridled socialism and at present, America is
recovering from a serious dose of unbridled conservatism. Obama has to problems, one to
clean up the mess and at the same time bring America into the 19Th and 20Th Century in terms
of social progress.
Anyone who claims the excess of the political right and it insane deregulation policy is misleading
themselves. If you are going to defend Bush, just thing ENRON, the problem is he created an
economic house of cards and the present administration has to deal with that.
Face it the Tea Party has become an undisciplined, bunch of yahoo's that even the mainstream
Republicans are ashamed of. One look at the video, watching grown people behave like that
and in any measure trying to support them is totally out of touch with humanity, let alone the
political realm. Are Democrats perfect? No, they fiddle faddle around, instead of just getting it done.
They have to clean up the mess created by socially backward people, greedy consumers, gutless
politicians, and deceitful business executives and a whole generation who spends their time
playing electronic games or watching Entertainment Tonight, while the world goes to hell in a hand basket.
I guess this rant is over.
I am reminded of a great running back juking and faking from position to position as he moves the ball downfield. In the process he sequentially occupies all positions.
Canadians can sometimes be both arrogant and compassionate at the same time. Has it occurred to anyone that arrogance precludes the attainment of a higher state of consciousness?
What is the difference between Bush and Obama on Afghanistan? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on the Patriot Act? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on Gitmo? There are only marginal differences between them on foreign policy and national security issues. The only substantive difference is domestic and lies in the fact that Obama is oriented toward social justice and the use of the federal govt. to achieve that objective. But to maintain his power Obama is extremely corrupt. Look at the rewards given to Obama's supporters like General Electric, Duke Energy, the United Auto Workers, Acorn, public sector workers and a host of others. Corruption is corruption even if you like the recipients of corrupt practices. Domestic American affairs are not the business of any foreigner except as a matter of intellectual curiousity.
Ownership of General Motors was transferred to Obama's supporters in the United Autoworkers Union. That's called corruption.
Chrysler bondholders lost their secured position while an American company was sold to a foreign corporation. That is not economic patriotism.
It's called a strawman.
What damngrumpy said was that folks chant against Obama for what W. did, which was and still is true. He never said Obama is blameless. A subtle difference, but it makes all the difference between what dg was saying, and the strawman you set up, or framed if you like. It does not imply anything close to what you think it implies. Let's look at the two statements:
They chant against Obama, for the Mess W made.
It implies that Obama is blameless for the calamities that have befallen America.
It's a non-sequitur. Does not follow. Unless you can point out where DG said that the calamities that have befallen America are all due to W. Have fun with that.
Surely you know by now that I do not let my adversary choose the ground on which I debate. Bear that in mind. 
