For those who think Bush is the problem...read.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

27th April 2010, 21:05
airshifter

Once again we have the people with the mentality that Bush is a war criminal based on Wiki articles and other such sources.

People may not like the facts, but any person that actually reads the UN reports knows without doubt there were clear violations of the cease fire treaties. A thousand Wiki, newspaper, and online articles with other opinions don't change the written facts of those paid to provide an unbiased reporting on that situation.

I don't see why Cheney threatened Blix. After all the man would put one thing in writing and report it to the Security Council, yet give an opposing view to the world press. What credibility was there to harm?
27th April 2010, 21:22
Tomi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

The Balts are certainly thankful and consequently contribute more than most (per capita) to American/NATO war efforts.

Kristjan this argumenting is difficult to understand, like if you help occuping a country because of a feeling you owe something, especially if you look at your own countrys recent history, if anyone your country men should know what means to be occupied.
27th April 2010, 21:32
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomi

Kristjan this argumenting is difficult to understand, like if you help occuping a country because of a feeling you owe something, especially if you look at your own countrys recent history, if anyone your country men should know what means to be occupied.

You know how the Mafia works, they do you a favor and later demand that you do a favor for them in return.
27th April 2010, 21:50
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by veeten

No, the real reason was a lack of evidence, from the WMD searches to the supposed Al-Qaida connections, but not for a lack of trying from W and the gang to make some kind of excuse, no matter just how flawed it may be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

In some ways, it reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Bay of Tonkin fiasco as a way of escallating US presence in Vietnam, and President Clinton for Somalia & former Yugoslavia.

Let's slow down here, and take this one step at a time.

My point was that many people, perhaps a majority, think that the Iraq was was in response to 9/11. This is FALSE. Do you dispute that? If so, you'll have to show me the speech where Bush said we were going to Iraq because they perpetrated 9/11.

The search for WMD, or more precicely Saddam's refusal to allow the UN to inspect sites, is a CLEAR violation of the cease fire agreement. THAT is justification enough for a resumption of hostilities steming from the First Gulf War.

No one denies the fact that there were Al-Qaida camps in Iraq at some point. And although they many not have been condoned by Saddam himself, they were still there.

But there were no "excuses" used, only legitimate reasons for going to war. The outcome may not have been what any of us wanted, but it is what it is now. And since we "broke it" we "bought it", and things are starting to stabilize there a bit
27th April 2010, 21:57
Tomi

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Let's slow down here, and take this one step at a time.
My point was that many people, perhaps a majority, think that the Iraq was was in response to 9/11. This is FALSE.

Thats true, I was in New York a few years after the occupation, and in the Metro magazine was an article about a poll done about this, and still years after i think it was over 40% did belive that Iraq was behind the terror attack in ny. :)
Now can some of you Americans explaine, how come is it possible?
27th April 2010, 22:26
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

It is never that simple. I thank you for seeing where I am driving at. IN the last year of Obama, I still here people ripping Bush, and Obama, unless you are an American Republican can do no wrong. Well, the world is made up of shades of gray. Some darker and lighter than others. My link to the article at the start of the thread was interviews with people from oppressive regimes who were adament part of the reason they were alive was from Bush's pressure on their regimes and they didn't see the same sort of support from Obama

I've never really understood Mark why you always seem to fall for PR claptrap. You've dug up a report from what is clearly a political meeting with a parade of people who have supposedly been saved by Bush and don't agree with Obama's policy. An ardent Obama supporter could easily find a similar PR stunt which lo-and-behold shows Obama to be the saviour and the Republicans to be a threat to world peace. Isn't it clear that you're just falling for cheap PR gimmickery? You've done it before too with those healthcare 'articles' of yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Obama is trapped by his ideology and his party's radical left fringe, who he has spent more time listening to than Bill Clinton ever did. A "softer" America is pressupposing of course that Bush was too hard. Well, in many ways, he wasn't. When you are dealing with people who want to use nuclear weapons to finish the job Hitler started, being nice isn't really going to get you too far. When you are dealing with regimes who treat human rights as something they pay lip service to in the press while they confiscate property and throw people in jail for their political beliefs, why should "manners" or being "nice" come into it?

Firstly in this revisionist sentence you've forgotten one of the most important points, G W Bush was elected on a strongly isolationist platform, as was Clinton before him and Obama after him. Bush did not set out to be a beacon of democracy or whatever label your article wants to stick on him, his initial foreign policy was strongly based on not being involved in international commitments wherever possible, just like Clinton before him and just as Obama promised after him. However just as Clinton had to learn to cope with the outside world after Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Al-Qaeda's earlier attacks, GW Bush was forced into engaging with the outside world after 9/11. Obama doesn't have that luxury of course with Iraq and Afghanistan on his plate from day one of his presidency but to suggest that Bush inherently is more pro-democracy than Obama seems a little far-fetched.

Secondly and as has already been mentioned Bush did not show much backbone against, say, China which I still believe has MFN trading status and has never really faced serious American trading sanctions based on human rights issues (dumping allegations and other trading spats yes, human rights no) under successive presidencies whether blue or red. Neither did Bush's policy towards North Korea differ much from Clinton before him, ie working with China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to engage with them and get a deal giving them effectively free electricity in return for not developing nukes. Obama won't be able to change things much, there isn't much the US can do.

As for Iran Bush never really achieved much there either beyond throwing away one of the best opportunities for detent in his silly axis of evil speech which utterly ignored Iran's central role in helping the US get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its a pity he did so since once Iran turned from potential friend to enemy again American troops paid for it with their lives thanks to the plentiful Iranian munitions sent over the border to 'assist' their Shia colleagues in Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

In the end, you take Iraq out of the mix, and Bush's foreign policy...

Never a good idea to take defining bits of policy out of the picture is it? After all in the end once you take the Holocaust and WW2 out of the mix Hitler wasn't that bad was he? I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler but your argument method is extremely flawed don't you think?
27th April 2010, 22:35
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomi

Thats true, I was in New York a few years after the occupation, and in the Metro magazine was an article about a poll done about this, and still years after i think it was over 40% did belive that Iraq was behind the terror attack in ny. :)
Now can some of you Americans explaine, how come is it possible?

It's possible because the Left in this country has had a bigger bull horn for years to shout their stuff. And many people in the US have other things on their minds than deciding if what they hear is true or not. So they just believe that what is shouted at them the most and the loudest (in this case that Bush is evil, and sooooo stupid that he invaded Iraq in response to 9/11) must be true.

Again, I think that is probably Bush's biggest failing. Not strongly clearing up this FALSE notion.
27th April 2010, 22:39
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Again, I think that is probably Bush's biggest failing. Not strongly clearing up this FALSE notion.

Don't you think it may have been a deliberate policy not to clarify this false notion, after all it was rather convenient in rallying US public support for the invasion of Iraq wasn't it.
27th April 2010, 22:55
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Don't you think it may have been a deliberate policy not to clarify this false notion, after all it was rather convenient in rallying US public support for the invasion of Iraq wasn't it.

I think you're right that they may have thought it was a convenient way to rally support. So they let the idea of an Iraq-9/11 connection float out there on it's own. But they knew it wasn't right, and that is NEVER good policy in the long run. They should have strongly let it be known there were other reasons for dealing with Saddam.
27th April 2010, 23:00
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I think you're right that they may have thought it was a convenient way to rally support. So they let the idea of an Iraq-9/11 connection float out there on it's own. But they knew it wasn't right, and that is NEVER good policy in the long run. They should have strongly let it be known there were other reasons for dealing with Saddam.

Well, you've got to leave over some material for a good memoir...
28th April 2010, 00:23
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

An ardent Obama supporter could easily find a similar PR stunt which lo-and-behold shows Obama to be the saviour and the Republicans to be a threat to world peace.

No you can not because there is nothing to even remotely show that Obama has accomplished anything.
The Dem. pundits always defend Obama, not by listing Obama's accomplishment but by throwing out some obtuse vacuous lie about Bush or Conservatives.
28th April 2010, 05:37
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I've never really understood Mark why you always seem to fall for PR claptrap. You've dug up a report from what is clearly a political meeting with a parade of people who have supposedly been saved by Bush and don't agree with Obama's policy. An ardent Obama supporter could easily find a similar PR stunt which lo-and-behold shows Obama to be the saviour and the Republicans to be a threat to world peace. Isn't it clear that you're just falling for cheap PR gimmickery? You've done it before too with those healthcare 'articles' of yours.

Hey...you saying those in the articles are not legitmate dissidents who felt that way? Shooting the messenger is convenient, but the point is there are people in this world who don't see Dubya as an idiot in how he dealt with with some of the less desirable regimes. Obama's people could dig up someone I am sure...might even be true. I just posted the article because it made the point that I always felt that there is something to be morally clear on regimes you don't support and why. I do get that Bush was selective...only an idiot would argue otherwise...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Firstly in this revisionist sentence you've forgotten one of the most important points, G W Bush was elected on a strongly isolationist platform, as was Clinton before him and Obama after him. Bush did not set out to be a beacon of democracy or whatever label your article wants to stick on him, his initial foreign policy was strongly based on not being involved in international commitments wherever possible, just like Clinton before him and just as Obama promised after him. However just as Clinton had to learn to cope with the outside world after Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Al-Qaeda's earlier attacks, GW Bush was forced into engaging with the outside world after 9/11. Obama doesn't have that luxury of course with Iraq and Afghanistan on his plate from day one of his presidency but to suggest that Bush inherently is more pro-democracy than Obama seems a little far-fetched.

Dubya was an isolationist until 9/11. I never felt Clinton ever was, even if he paid lip service to it. Clinton used the NATO pulpit to finally put a stop to the Bosnian war and to deal with Serbia and Kosovo. He intervened in Somalia, and he sent cruise missles into Afghanistan to deal with Bin Laden antispetically...or was that to distract the American media a la "Wag the Dog"? Clinton was always trying to get Israel and the Palestinians to the table, and America was always dealing with Iraq, so for any claim of Clinton to be an isolationist is silly too. He was in more countries than Dubya, just not to the scale. The only difference is, he didn't stick around in some of them (Somalia the most glaring) to do anything but waste everyone's time, and as it turns out, encourage Al Quaida. Now...Bush? Clumsy...blunt...not always subtle...confronted a lot of nations such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, North Korea and so on and basically said he wasn't in the mood for their diplo speak lies and distortions. Did it work? Yes...and no...and maybe. Like all efforts, it is mixed. Obama sends a mixed message....and I am awaiting where the USA will come out ahead. Iran still develops their nuclear program, and while many in Europe are concerned, no one has an answer. I don't want a war there, Iraq proved how much effort that is for so little gain and so much turmoil. It isn't worth it......and yet, If Iran strikes with nuclear weapons against Israel, or Iraq or some other neighbour.....well I guess we will have a discussion then wont we? I don't think it is time to put Obama down as a failure or a success on foreign policy BUT I don't like the mixed message he sends. I do appreciate he gets along with foreign leaders in allied nations as a whole, but I remain unimpressed how all his soaring rhetoric translates into anything useful. Blair and Bush were blunt and too quick to simplify the world's problems....but one never had to guess where they stood. Only an idiot (Hussein) would try to bluff them....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Secondly and as has already been mentioned Bush did not show much backbone against, say, China which I still believe has MFN trading status and has never really faced serious American trading sanctions based on human rights issues (dumping allegations and other trading spats yes, human rights no) under successive presidencies whether blue or red. Neither did Bush's policy towards North Korea differ much from Clinton before him, ie working with China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to engage with them and get a deal giving them effectively free electricity in return for not developing nukes. Obama won't be able to change things much, there isn't much the US can do.

I agree 100%; I have never liked how any western nation has really dealt with China. We all are all high and mighty about human rights and principles, but when it comes to trade and jobs, we put those away. Canada's PM Harper was harsh towards the Chinese of Tibet and their human rights in General about a year before the Olympics in Beiijing. The opposition freaked here...saying he was jeopardizing trade and Canadian jobs. Bombardier was in the process of bidding on contracts to build subway systems here among other companies..and they had lots of connections with the opposition. Nothing came of it...but the west really doesn't DO anything about China, and that bothers me. One of the most searing moments in history was Tiamenen square when the tanks rolled in. I never forgot that....Clinton and a lot of other leaders in the 90's did..and Bush didn't pay much attention to it either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

As for Iran Bush never really achieved much there either beyond throwing away one of the best opportunities for detent in his silly axis of evil speech which utterly ignored Iran's central role in helping the US get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its a pity he did so since once Iran turned from potential friend to enemy again American troops paid for it with their lives thanks to the plentiful Iranian munitions sent over the border to 'assist' their Shia colleagues in Iraq.

The axis of evil speech was stupid. That tag line was a throwaway and unnecssary...but if you really examine the three nations he mentioned, Iran, Iraq and North Korea, not one of the three was/is a sterling beacon of human rights or having time for democratic values. Iran did what they did in Afghanistan for their own reasons, not any love of America I think. That said, Iran has a large youthful middle class who doesn't hate America, and putting out stupid lines like that doesn't help America's image. Again...the article I pointed to was more in line with how Bush was unequivocal when he could afford to be in dealing with regimes like Syria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Never a good idea to take defining bits of policy out of the picture is it? After all in the end once you take the Holocaust and WW2 out of the mix Hitler wasn't that bad was he? I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler but your argument method is extremely flawed don't you think?

You got me on the last one Dylan. IN that context you are correct. Still will also point out tho that Dubya's real goal in Iraq wasn't to take over and wipe out 6 million members of an ethnic group either.
28th April 2010, 05:57
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

No you can not because there is nothing to even remotely show that Obama has accomplished anything.

Didn't he accomplish some sort of health care thingy?
28th April 2010, 06:36
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Didn't he accomplish some sort of health care thingy?

First off, it really wont happen until AFTER the next Presidential cycle. Secondly, it will damn near bankrupt the Yanks to get it all going, and that is before everyone realizes the financial pitfalls of it. Gov't never gets cost estimates right. EVER. All he accomplished was having his party have a majority in both US houses pass a bill that costs a lot of money, promises everything, and delivers nothing for 2 years....

I would watch this one Eki...I am making popcorn because the next two election cycles down there will be FUN...
28th April 2010, 06:37
EuroTroll

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomi

Kristjan this argumenting is difficult to understand, like if you help occuping a country because of a feeling you owe something, especially if you look at your own countrys recent history, if anyone your country men should know what means to be occupied.

Tomi, to be blunt about this and as you know, the overwhelming aim of Baltic foreign policy is to make us safe from Russia. That's why the Balts try to be the poster NATO ally, to stand out from the average lackluster attitude a la Germany.

Many people are opposed to our boys being in Afghanistan (and previously in Iraq) for exactly the reason you state. Personally, however, I think the course our government has taken is correct, under the circumstances. It's also worth noting that the Balts were never part of the original invasion force. Just the stabilization force. And obviously the aim is not to occupy, but to get out (together with others) as soon as possible.
28th April 2010, 06:39
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

Tomi, to be blunt about this and as you know, the overwhelming aim of Baltic foreign policy is to make us safe from Russia. That's why the Balts try to be the poster NATO ally, to stand out from the average lackluster attitude a la Germany.

Many people are opposed to our boys being in Afghanistan (and previously in Iraq) for exactly the reason you state. Personally, however, I think the course our government has taken is correct, under the circumstances. It's also worth noting that the Balts were never part of the original invasion force. Just the stabilization force. And obviously the aim is not to occupy, but to get out (together with others) as soon as possible.

As a Canadian who has 3000 soldiers there, I appreciate your nation being there and you state things quite right. No one is there to occupy Afghanistan, it is now a case of stablizing the joint and getting the heck out of there. However, like Iraq, this self governing thing seems to be a tough nut for the people there to crack without 50 gallons of corruption and terror groups trying to disrupt things....

Guerilla warfare is a nuisance...
28th April 2010, 06:50
Tomi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

It's also worth noting that the Balts were never part of the original invasion force. Just the stabilization force. And obviously the aim is not to occupy, but to get out (together with others) as soon as possible.

Let's not make it a playing with words thing, in style ("french frice" "freedom frice") the facts are that you are in war in Iraq, and at the same occupying the country. :)
28th April 2010, 06:56
EuroTroll

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomi

Let's not make it a playing with words thing, in style ("french frice" "freedom frice") the facts are that you are in war in Iraq, and at the same occupying the country. :)

Actually not in Iraq anymore as the Iraqi government didn't extend our agreement to be there. ;)

Iraq was, of course, more of a moral dilemma. Afghanistan is simpler. Article V was evoked after 9/11, so all NATO allies have to be there. And isn't Finland there as well? ;)
28th April 2010, 07:01
EuroTroll

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

You know how the Mafia works, they do you a favor and later demand that you do a favor for them in return.

That's one way of putting it. Another is that we contribute to Western security in the hope that the favour will be returned, if ever necessary.
28th April 2010, 07:05
Tomi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

And isn't Finland there as well? ;)

Yes, there is some troops in peace keeping operations and rebuilding but are not allowed to take part in battles. Here has also been a debate are they in war or not, wich is quite amusing, those whos work is to define, professors of law etc. claims they are, but those who sent the troops claims they are not, in this case the professors are offcourse right.
28th April 2010, 14:02
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

That's one way of putting it. Another is that we contribute to Western security in the hope that the favour will be returned, if ever necessary.

Only Eki would treat being in NATO as being involved with the Mob.
28th April 2010, 15:25
EuroTroll

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Only Eki would treat being in NATO as being involved with the Mob.

I think the analogy is not entirely incorrect, though. Russian conventional forces are not as strong as you might think. (Finland and Poland could probably put up a very good fight.) But currently way stronger than those in the Baltics. Yes, we need a "roof". If we didn't have a Western one, we'd be in danger of getting an Eastern one... Just look at Georgia.

But NATO is obviously not like the Mob. It's the voluntary defence alliance of the democratic, Western world. An august institution. It's a privilege to be a part of it.

And coming back to the topic of this thread: the moral clarity that the Bush administration had about the Baltics certainly contributed very positively to peace and stability in our region. No, he wasn't all bad.
28th April 2010, 16:25
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Only Eki would treat being in NATO as being involved with the Mob.

If the Warsaw Pact were still alive and kicking, how would you describe it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact
28th April 2010, 17:59
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Didn't he accomplish some sort of health care thingy?

It has had no benefits and if it is not repealed citizens will be paying for for YEARS BEFORE any part takes effect.
NO, it is not an accomplishment, especially as the majority of voters are against it.
28th April 2010, 18:35
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

It has had no benefits and if it is not repealed citizens will be paying for for YEARS BEFORE any part takes effect.
NO, it is not an accomplishment, especially as the majority of voters are against it.

The majority of voters may be stupid or otherwise wrong.
28th April 2010, 18:55
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

The majority of voters may be stupid or otherwise wrong.

Why, the governent has NO money, they take it from the voters by force if necessary (Those without health care face fines, or jail, for not having health care) but then
you seem to believe those in government, who have benefits and powers the working citizens do not or ever will have, are some sort of all-knowing, all-seeing gods!

Stalins, Hitlers, Obamas etc. of the world love/d people like you.
28th April 2010, 20:00
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Why, the governent has NO money,

That's much because Bush and his gang wasted billions on unnecessary warfare. And Obama had to pick up where they left. On the plus side, people save because they don't need expensive insurances and private health care, so they have more money to pay taxes. Well, of course there will be some rich and stupid people like here in Finland who pay for their health care twice by insisting to use private health care after they have already paid for public healthcare and don't use it.
28th April 2010, 20:47
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

That's much because Bush and his gang wasted billions on unnecessary warfare. And Obama had to pick up where they left. On the plus side, people save because they don't need expensive insurances and private health care, so they have more money to pay taxes. Well, of course there will be some rich and stupid people like here in Finland who pay for their health care twice by insisting to use private health care after they have already paid for public healthcare and don't use it.

So Bush spent Billions he didn't have, and that was bad. Obama spends Trillions he doesn't have, and that's good? What kind of stupid logic is that? I'll be the first to line up with you and call Bush out for spending too much. But then to defend Obama with the defense of "Bush did it too" ... man you just can't stand Bush at all can you?

People won't save with this. The insurance companies are now required to take on people no matter what, people that they normally reject because they are going to loose money on them. So now they have to make up that lost money somewhere. Where do you think that will be? That's right from those of us who are suckers and actually pay their bills.
28th April 2010, 21:39
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

So Bush spent Billions he didn't have, and that was bad. Obama spends Trillions he doesn't have, and that's good? What kind of stupid logic is that? I'll be the first to line up with you and call Bush out for spending too much. But then to defend Obama with the defense of "Bush did it too" ... man you just can't stand Bush at all can you?

People won't save with this. The insurance companies are now required to take on people no matter what, people that they normally reject because they are going to loose money on them. So now they have to make up that lost money somewhere. Where do you think that will be? That's right from those of us who are suckers and actually pay their bills.

The insurance companies could try to find real jobs instead of feeding from peoples' misfortunes.

Today, I was at a private dentist. The dentist bills the city on her own rate and the city bills me on their own cheaper rate. The tax payers (me included) pay the gap. No need for insurance companies to skim money from the middle. The city acts as an insurance company, but they don't expect any profit.
28th April 2010, 21:55
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

That's much because Bush and his gang wasted billions on unnecessary warfare. And Obama had to pick up where they left. On the plus side, people save because they don't need expensive insurances and private health care, so they have more money to pay taxes. Well, of course there will be some rich and stupid people like here in Finland who pay for their health care twice by insisting to use private health care after they have already paid for public healthcare and don't use it.

The insurance companies are the ones the gov. says you MUST have a policy with or you go to jail; as Chuck said, to cover those without money, the Ins. will raise rates on those who can.

One good, kinda-sorta, thing is, the fines are less than a ins. policy, SO, one can simply not pay for one, THEN- when one does get sick, quickly get a policy for as long as necessary to cover what ever disease one got by living like a fool, then simply do not pay and the tax payers will pay it for you.

You seem to have no idea of what has transpired here.
28th April 2010, 22:07
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

The insurance companies could try to find real jobs instead of feeding from peoples' misfortunes.

Today, I was at a private dentist. The dentist bills the city on her own rate and the city bills me on their own cheaper rate. The tax payers (me included) pay the gap. No need for insurance companies to skim money from the middle. The city acts as an insurance company, but they don't expect any profit.

We had a better system; unless you were on welfare or an illegal alien, no government was needed period, but costs went up and NO ONE, especially the Fed. Government gives a damn about the exceedingly high costs (to challenge that one would have to create tort reform and lawyers are one of the major contributors to the Dem. candidates) so the Dem. float paper boat telling lies about insurance companies and the huddled masses, as usual, are obtuse to the extreme and suck it up, UNTIL it comes back to bite them in the ass, but then Pandora's box is open.

The fact the huddled masses have awakened is one of the major reasons the Dem. are fighting to keep the gate open so the illegal alien debris can continue to flood in, they DO vote for Dem., legal or not, as they live off of others tax money.
28th April 2010, 22:14
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

We had a better system; unless you were on welfare or an illegal alien,

Do you believe that people on welfare or illegal aliens never need medical care? Do you prefer insurance companies to make profit instead of people on welfare and illegal aliens getting medical care?
28th April 2010, 22:19
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The fact the huddled masses have awakened is one of the major reasons the Dem. are fighting to keep the gate open so the illegal alien debris can continue to flood in, they DO vote for Dem.

How can illegal aliens vote in the US? Here only citizens of Finland can vote.
28th April 2010, 22:19
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Do you believe that people on welfare or illegal aliens never need medical care?

They already had it.

As expenses went up only two classes could easly afford going to the hopsital, those with enough money to pay out of pocket, and the ones you mentioned.

Even into the nineties when I went to the doctor it was ALWAYS paid cash, that that, is now not easily done WAS NOT ADDRESSED by anyone in the "health care" scam.
28th April 2010, 22:23
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

How can illegal aliens vote in the US? Here only citizens of Finland can vote.

Some areas, not all, proof of residence is required, the Dem. are fighting hard to make that illegal, saying that discriminates. (That was one reason Dem. fought hard to get illegal aliens drivers licenses, they could have used those as an ID at a voting booth.)

Now think about that for a bit.

A Harley rider is passing the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents. The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain, the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter says, "Sir, this was the most brave and gallant thing I saw a man do in my whole life." The biker replies, "Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right." The reporter says, "Well, I'm a journalist from The New York Times, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page ... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?"

The biker replies, "I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican."

The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH!
28th April 2010, 22:29
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

They already had it.

As expenses went up only two classes could easly afford going to the hopsital, those with enough money to pay out of pocket, and the ones you mentioned.

Even into the nineties when I went to the doctor it was ALWAYS paid cash, that that, is now not easily done WAS NOT ADDRESSED by anyone in the "health care" scam.

You people are really complicated. Here, if I need hospital, the city just sends me a bill.
28th April 2010, 23:25
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

I think the analogy is not entirely incorrect, though. Russian conventional forces are not as strong as you might think. (Finland and Poland could probably put up a very good fight.) But currently way stronger than those in the Baltics. Yes, we need a "roof". If we didn't have a Western one, we'd be in danger of getting an Eastern one... Just look at Georgia.

But NATO is obviously not like the Mob. It's the voluntary defence alliance of the democratic, Western world. An august institution. It's a privilege to be a part of it.

And coming back to the topic of this thread: the moral clarity that the Bush administration had about the Baltics certainly contributed very positively to peace and stability in our region. No, he wasn't all bad.

It has been said only those who understand how precious and fragile peace and freedom are can really understand it. You growing up there, understand this since the Baltics were NOT free until the fall of the Soviet Union. I was old enough to understand what the Soviet Union was like from afar....so I not only understand why the Baltics joined NATO, but I can sense why you value it. Many, Eki for example just fail to really appreciate that while they constantly argue about the merits of this and that.
28th April 2010, 23:26
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

If the Warsaw Pact were still alive and kicking, how would you describe it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact

THAT would be the Mob...no one voluntarily joined the Warsaw Pact and was given the option of leaving while the Soviet Union was around. NATO on the other hand is a club where you can join or not join...or rather leave. Hardly the mob...
28th April 2010, 23:28
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Do you believe that people on welfare or illegal aliens never need medical care? Do you prefer insurance companies to make profit instead of people on welfare and illegal aliens getting medical care?

They can need medical care...and they get it..and Bob pays for it as a taxpayer. He would probably prefer the insurance company makes a profit, he can at least buy stock in that, and he knows that the insurance company has to compete for his business. When government does it all for you, there is no incentive other than good will for them to do a good job, and they don't care how much money they spend. They know they can just raise more taxes....
28th April 2010, 23:29
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

You people are really complicated. Here, if I need hospital, the city just sends me a bill.

Yes...and in Bob's world, he gets hurt, the hospital sends him the bill...or his insurance looks after it. Take your pick. The only difference is Eki is Americans like having that choice..and they have seen how the Medicare program is all screwed up and they were reluctant to let Gov't do that now....

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page