George Bush to visit Montreal

[JFrosty]

MTLskyline bleeds politic talks.

[GoMontreal]

Two things i take issue with.

 

1. Rush Limbaugh's desire for Obama to fail

2. Throwing around the word "socialism" and the idea that "socialism" goes against freedom and liberty.

 

Firstly, it's true that Limbaugh didn't explicitly say he wants Obama to fail. He said he wants to fail in his push for socialism. Now what if, just what if, and warning : this requires an open mind... what if Obama's "socialist" agenda turns out to be a smashing success. What if it puts people to work, saves health care and fixes the country, unicorns and rainbows included. In such an outcome, wanting Obama's socialism to fail would be directly linked to wanting policies that were successful in improving the lives of people to fail as well. There's no rewording of Limbaugh's statements that can possibly make it alright. The fact is, he is unpatriotic in the extreme. His vision of patriotism is extremely narrow and diluted.

 

Ok but Limbaugh's opinion is that socialism is bad and therefore, he wants socialist policies to fail along with whoever is pushing them. Socialism has never succeeded anywhere for a very long period because its counter to human nature and unsustainable. Human nature also dictates that those with power always want more which is why the general public always gets deceived by both left and right no matter what change they promise or what they promise to not do. Socialism, in my opinion, can never succeed because government is not effective in creating wealth, jobs, or taking care of health care system, etc. So how can you ask a guy like me (who is absolutely convinced that socialism will make the country fail) to hope that Obama succeeds in pushing his socialist policies? It doesn't make sense. I hope that Obama succeeds in fixing health care, the economy, the world, etc, but I disagree with the way he's going about it and think that his fixes will be temporary and make it worse in the long run, therefore, I prefer that his attempts fail right now so that we can move on to fixing things the right way.

 

 

Everyone should want the president to succeed, since the president's goals are to improve the country. You can disagree with his policies, but if the policies turn out to be successful, you should be man enough to admit it. A lot of people trash Bush for many things, but i think he succeeded in keeping the country safe since 9/11 and i thank him and admire him for that.

 

I agree, I want the US to succeed and to continue to be the example they have been in the past to the rest of the world. I also thank Bush for keeping the country and others safe, but that's about all he did right. And what he did wrong, Obama is doing the same or ten times worse. That's not change, that's more of the same.

 

That being said, overall, I strongly disliked Bush during his presidency, but something my friends could never understand was why i still wanted him to succeed despite everything. I would tell them : "of course i want him to succeed. I don't like the guy, but that doesn't mean i think the country should suffer. If Bush's policies turn out good, then fantastic! I may even change my opinion of him."

 

Wanting someone to fail is the most close-minded thing possible. What if socialism turned out to be amazing? Would you still want it to fail out of principle? I'm a liberal, but if a conservative president were to do an outstanding job and push for conservative legislation that really made a difference, hell, i might change my political stance on some issues! That, to me, is patriotism.

 

I don't mean to accuse you of not knowing your stance on your issues but it's hard for me to understand how you can say "If Bush's policies turn out good, then fantastic!" It tells me that you don't believe in your liberal ideology if you think that he can succeed when doing the opposite of what you think he should do. And don't get me wrong, it's perfectly ok to not have a stance on everything yet, I surely don't. However, when it comes to capitalism vs socialism, government stimulus vs no stimulus, I sure as hell know what I stand for and I'm convinced of it. I'm open-minded on subjects in which I haven't yet decided where I stand but on things that I know where I stand, I'm closed-minded if you will. I don't think it makes me unpatriotic to stand for what I believe in is right.

 

Now... about socialism. First, let's be real. The word is used so freely but nothing Obama proposes is true socialism. Ask any actual real-world socialist. He'll tell you that Obama's agenda isn't far-left at all, in fact it's pretty centrist compared to Canada, Europe and most of the world.

 

I disagree, just look at the background of all his czars to see what kind of people he chooses to advise him. Look at judge Sotomayor who he just appointed. There is plenty of evidence that Obama is a socialist. His ideology is far left, and his voting record as a senator, according to statistics, made him the most left wing senator of all of them.

 

The fact is, in America the "right" is the "right-right" as it would be in most other countries. And the "left" in America isn't really that left at all, it's more centre or centre-left than anything else. The whole American political spectrum is slanted to the right.

 

It's true that the general population is way more to the right then most countries, however, it's false to say that Obama and most democrats are not as far left as many other countries. You need to differentiate between the people and the politicians, they are two different species.

 

So to call Obama a socialist is truly absurd. If you think Obama is socialist, you don't know what true socialism is. Secondly, i've been following Obama closely since the beginning and nothing he's proposed is truly socialist. Take health care... socialism takes away freedom, but Obama's plan gives you the full freedom to choose your doctor, choose your plan, choose pretty much everything. You have an enormous amount of liberty under the current health care plan and under Obama's reforms as well.

 

All this use of "socialism" is just hogwash.

 

I don't think so. Just having the government offer health care is a socialist idea so I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Obama is a socialist and I know what true socialism is. He is pushing socialism but that doesn't mean that it's all implemented or that he's succeeding at it yet either.

 

As for Obama's health care plan giving full freedom, that's ridiculous. They are going to crush the competition by making it uninteresting for people to go with none other than the government's plan and soon enough, there will be no private sector left. There's plenty of evidence in their bill and I can prove it.

[Cataclaw]

Ok but Limbaugh's opinion is that socialism is bad and therefore, he wants socialist policies to fail along with whoever is pushing them. Socialism has never succeeded anywhere for a very long period because its counter to human nature and unsustainable. Human nature also dictates that those with power always want more which is why the general public always gets deceived by both left and right no matter what change they promise or what they promise to not do. Socialism, in my opinion, can never succeed because government is not effective in creating wealth, jobs, or taking care of health care system, etc. So how can you ask a guy like me (who is absolutely convinced that socialism will make the country fail) to hope that Obama succeeds in pushing his socialist policies? It doesn't make sense. I hope that Obama succeeds in fixing health care, the economy, the world, etc, but I disagree with the way he's going about it and think that his fixes will be temporary and make it worse in the long run, therefore, I prefer that his attempts fail right now so that we can move on to fixing things the right way.

 

You can be absolutely convinced that socialism is bad, but you ought to still hope the president succeeds in pushing for a socialist agenda if that agenda yields results. The rationale? Simple : "I hope i'm proven wrong."

 

Example : If i strongly believe conservative policy X is bad, very very bad, and if President Y was trying to push for it, i would disagree with the policy, but still hope it worked. I would hope that President Y succeeded in making that policy achieve its objectives. Then i could happily say i was proven wrong.

 

It's called having an open mind and changing your views when new information challenges your previously held opinions critically.

 

 

 

I agree, I want the US to succeed and to continue to be the example they have been in the past to the rest of the world. I also thank Bush for keeping the country and others safe, but that's about all he did right. And what he did wrong, Obama is doing the same or ten times worse. That's not change, that's more of the same.

 

I simply disagree. Obama has implemented a tremendous amount of reform in his short term in office. Some sources point to figures suggesting he's actually done more in the last 9 months than Bush in his entire second term. I personally believe a lot of that is genuine change. Increased gay rights. Increased separation between church and state. Closing of Gitmo. Pulling out of Iraq and stepping up the game in Afghanistan. Going after ambitious health care reform. Etc.

 

I think it is change, not more of the same. In fact i think there is a factually undeniable amount of genuine change going on. Whether or not that change will all turn out to be good change... remains to be seen. I think it will, for the most part. That's just where you and I don't see eye to eye.

 

 

 

I don't mean to accuse you of not knowing your stance on your issues but it's hard for me to understand how you can say "If Bush's policies turn out good, then fantastic!" It tells me that you don't believe in your liberal ideology if you think that he can succeed when doing the opposite of what you think he should do. And don't get me wrong, it's perfectly ok to not have a stance on everything yet, I surely don't. However, when it comes to capitalism vs socialism, government stimulus vs no stimulus, I sure as hell know what I stand for and I'm convinced of it. I'm open-minded on subjects in which I haven't yet decided where I stand but on things that I know where I stand, I'm closed-minded if you will. I don't think it makes me unpatriotic to stand for what I believe in is right.

 

You know, psychologists say the most rational people are the ones that are able to change their minds whenever new information is presented. I'm not saying i'm the most rational person in the world, but i will say this. I know my stance on issues. I'm also extremely open minded.

 

"If Bush's policies turn out to be good, then fantastic". Yes, indeed. Why on earth wouldn't i find it fantastic? I'd love to be wrong if it meant the betterment of society. If policies i thought were incorrect turn out to be correct, then good for the people! It would challenges my ideas, force me to think, analyze... but what's wrong with that? I would ultimately grow as a rational individual.

 

See, here's the thing about ideals and convictions... a strong conviction isn't about believing what you want to believe no matter what, always standing by your ideas. No. A strong conviction and strong ideals is about believing something and being able to rationalize and justify very thoroughly why you believe what you do. If you're able to do that, and new information is presented that challenges your convictions, then those convictions should logically change, lest you ignore the hard facts and go on thinking what you thought was correct.

 

This is a fundamental principle of liberalism : rationalization, logical critical thinking, open mindedness and the capacity to change and evolve your ideas, concepts, convictions and beliefs according to the ever changing world around us.

 

 

I disagree, just look at the background of all his czars to see what kind of people he chooses to advise him. Look at judge Sotomayor who he just appointed. There is plenty of evidence that Obama is a socialist. His ideology is far left, and his voting record as a senator, according to statistics, made him the most left wing senator of all of them.

 

I see no factual evidence that suggests Obama or his staff is far-left and socialist. Bring me proof to the contrary and i'll be happy to reconsider my position.

 

It's true that the general population is way more to the right then most countries, however, it's false to say that Obama and most democrats are not as far left as many other countries. You need to differentiate between the people and the politicians, they are two different species.

 

Again, i see nothing that suggests that at all. Got any examples or factual evidence that might support your arguments?

 

I don't think so. Just having the government offer health care is a socialist idea so I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Obama is a socialist and I know what true socialism is. He is pushing socialism but that doesn't mean that it's all implemented or that he's succeeding at it yet either.

 

Right. By that logic, damn the government for also offering roads, street lights, clean water and sidewalks! Oh, but those are necessary for having a functional economy, you say... right. So it's justifiable to build roads, but it isn't justifiable to save human lives.

 

You know, why not just abolish all services! Abolish all government! All these socialist services.. roads.. sidewalks.. what's the point? No taxes! Then we can revert to anarchy because that's obviously a superior strategy!

 

With all due respect, i think your logic is fundamentally flawed and your opinion is based on misconstrued political rhetoric.

 

As for Obama's health care plan giving full freedom, that's ridiculous. They are going to crush the competition by making it uninteresting for people to go with none other than the government's plan and soon enough, there will be no private sector left.

 

Just like the U.S. Postal Service has effectively destroyed all competition, right? Excuse me while i mail a package with FedEx or UPS... empirical data suggests the notions you suggest are simply not true.

 

There's plenty of evidence in their bill and I can prove it.

 

Please do!

[GoMontreal]

You can be absolutely convinced that socialism is bad, but you ought to still hope the president succeeds in pushing for a socialist agenda if that agenda yields results. The rationale? Simple : "I hope i'm proven wrong."

 

Example : If i strongly believe conservative policy X is bad, very very bad, and if President Y was trying to push for it, i would disagree with the policy, but still hope it worked. I would hope that President Y succeeded in making that policy achieve its objectives. Then i could happily say i was proven wrong.

 

It's called having an open mind and changing your views when new information challenges your previously held opinions critically.

 

No problem, I can agree with that.

 

 

 

 

I simply disagree. Obama has implemented a tremendous amount of reform in his short term in office. Some sources point to figures suggesting he's actually done more in the last 9 months than Bush in his entire second term. I personally believe a lot of that is genuine change. Increased gay rights. Increased separation between church and state. Closing of Gitmo. Pulling out of Iraq and stepping up the game in Afghanistan. Going after ambitious health care reform. Etc.

 

I think it is change, not more of the same. In fact i think there is a factually undeniable amount of genuine change going on. Whether or not that change will all turn out to be good change... remains to be seen. I think it will, for the most part. That's just where you and I don't see eye to eye.

 

I agree that Obama has done a lot of reform. Yet the reform that I wish for would be that he would get out of toying with the economy, get out of stimulus/subsidies, get out of health care, get out of social security, get out of defining marriage (churches and other groups can do that and then we wouldn't have any gay marriage problems), etc. That would be real change. Conservative politicians don't even have the balls to do that. Besides, once government gets into something, it's virtually impossible to take it out of, which is why government shouldn't get into anything because it does everything badly.

 

 

 

 

You know, psychologists say the most rational people are the ones that are able to change their minds whenever new information is presented. I'm not saying i'm the most rational person in the world, but i will say this. I know my stance on issues. I'm also extremely open minded.

 

I know that and I am also open minded. However, my core beliefs of freedom will never change. It took me a while to get to this belief and I would never choose a social safety net over pure freedom, because with my freedom and my hard work, I believe I can do better than the life the government offers me. Yet when the government gets into health care, like here in Canada, if I'm a millionaire (which I'm definitely not) and want better health care, I am not allowed to have. Right now, people have the choice to go to the states for care, but not for long. Government will kill insurance companies, kill innovation and competition in the US and the whole world will suffer for it.

 

"If Bush's policies turn out to be good, then fantastic". Yes, indeed. Why on earth wouldn't i find it fantastic? I'd love to be wrong if it meant the betterment of society. If policies i thought were incorrect turn out to be correct, then good for the people! It would challenges my ideas, force me to think, analyze... but what's wrong with that? I would ultimately grow as a rational individual.

 

That's good. As for me, I base my opinions on this fundamental principle: does this take someone's freedom of choice away? If yes, it's bad. For example, government run health care (monopoly) in Canada doesn't give you the choice to take your money and go elsewhere therefore it's bad. Government also has a monopoly on highways and bridges, if I want to drive on a 4 lane no-pothole highway with less traffic to go to Quebec city and am willing to pay for it, too bad, the government has the same low standard for everybody.

 

See, here's the thing about ideals and convictions... a strong conviction isn't about believing what you want to believe no matter what, always standing by your ideas. No. A strong conviction and strong ideals is about believing something and being able to rationalize and justify very thoroughly why you believe what you do. If you're able to do that, and new information is presented that challenges your convictions, then those convictions should logically change, lest you ignore the hard facts and go on thinking what you thought was correct.

 

This is a fundamental principle of liberalism : rationalization, logical critical thinking, open mindedness and the capacity to change and evolve your ideas, concepts, convictions and beliefs according to the ever changing world around us.

 

Right, yet people's need for freedom won't ever change and that is the foundation of my beliefs. Things can evolve etc, but freedom will always be guiding my stance on something (does it or does it lead to taking away freedom).

 

 

I see no factual evidence that suggests Obama or his staff is far-left and socialist. Bring me proof to the contrary and i'll be happy to reconsider my position.

 

Well first, here is the definition of socialism (first two paragraphs) as found on wikipedia:

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. Contrary to popular belief, Socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalize economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism, allowing for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

 

Now explain to me how GM, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and soon, the health care system do not fit into this.

 

To start, look at Van Jones background (green jobs czars), he's an admitted marxist.

 

 

I'm sorry but will have to continue answering the rest later as I need to go to work now. :-)

[peluche]

An American who hates Bush is not anti-American but unpatriotic. .

 

I can't believe some people actually hold this view.

[MTLskyline]

I can't believe some people actually hold this view.

 

I can't believe people actually think George W. Bush is a war criminal.

[GoMontreal]

Again, i see nothing that suggests that at all. Got any examples or factual evidence that might support your arguments?

 

Conservatives outnumber liberals in nearly every state

 

Right. By that logic, damn the government for also offering roads, street lights, clean water and sidewalks! Oh, but those are necessary for having a functional economy, you say... right. So it's justifiable to build roads, but it isn't justifiable to save human lives.

 

Well ya, business does it better, why should government have the monopoly over these things?

 

You know, why not just abolish all services! Abolish all government! All these socialist services.. roads.. sidewalks.. what's the point? No taxes! Then we can revert to anarchy because that's obviously a superior strategy!

 

Well, there would still be taxes, don't get too excited. Crime prevention and defense are not things I would put companies in charge of, but what's the problem with developers building roads and sidewalks in neighbourhoods, owning them and maintaining them, kind of like a privately owned city? There are plenty of large neighbourhoods in the US that operate this way and they are among the best places to live.

 

With all due respect, i think your logic is fundamentally flawed and your opinion is based on misconstrued political rhetoric.

 

Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

 

Just like the U.S. Postal Service has effectively destroyed all competition, right? Excuse me while i mail a package with FedEx or UPS... empirical data suggests the notions you suggest are simply not true.

 

What a great example! USPS sucks and the only reason FedEx and UPS can survive is because USPS completely sucks. If USPS didn't exist, believe me that FedEx and UPS or others would get into the business of daily mail. The only reason USPS still exists is because it offers services at unreasonable prices, for no profit, kills it's potential competition, and operates under large deficits and gets bailed out by the federal government every year. It's ridiculous, how is this sustainable?

 

 

Please do!

 

More later... back to work for me.

[peluche]

An American who hates Bush is not anti-American but unpatriotic.

 

You cannot even imagine how I would appreciate seeing and hearing you telling my three american friends they are not patriotic because they hate George W. Bush.

 

One of them has not spoken to his mother for a couple of years as she kicked him out of the house at dinner time because she accused him of being unpatriotic because he said he hated W. She also said he was not patriotic because he opposed the invasion of Iraq. The typical republicain rubbish.

 

It's exactly because he loves his country and its institutions that he hates W Bush. He felt Bush was caving in to large oil companies and the religious right. He also felt Bush invaded Iraq on a lie, authorized torture and divided the country by accusing the liberals like him of being non patriotic and even a traitor. He felt Bush bullied even his allies and nearly destroyed America's reputation abroad.

 

Man would I love to hear you a canadian living in Monteal telling him he was not patriotic because he hated Bush. Lol. Hilarious. I would be willing to buy tickets at a very high price to see and hear this. You see, many republicains accused him and millions like him of being unpatriotic and even a traitor, with the implicite blessing of the Bush administration......and people like you wonder why he hates W Bush?

[Cataclaw]

So, in general GoMontreal, it seems out of two issues we agree on one and disagree on the other.

 

We agree in principle that wanting Bush, or wanting Obama, to fail, isn't cool. Disagreeing with the policies is one thing, but hoping those policies fail, even if they succeed resoundingly thus helping millions of Americans, isn't appropriate.

 

But we seem to disagree on the whole socialism thing. And that's where our core differences prevent us from seeing eye to eye, even if we tried. For that reason i don't see a need to debate further, we've said our pieces and it's unlikely we'll convince each other.

 

The one little bit i'd like to comment on is USPS.

 

You claim the public option would destroy competition because it would be too good for the consumer, yet you believe the government can't do anything right and cite the example of USPS.

 

Well, if USPS is only borderline satisfactory which is why FedEx and UPS can operate, logically it would be reasonable to expect a similar potential outcome with the health care service. The public option will most likely be borderline satisfactory, and private options will continue to operate.

 

I'm not asking for you to agree with me on the viability of the public option, but for the sake of logic, you have to at least acknowledge the possibility that the aforementioned outcome is likely or at the very least possible!

 

 

I know how you feel about this... i can almost guess what you're thinking. Rationally, you suspect what i say has the potential to be correct, but emotionally you can't stand the idea of government stepping into the picture. Well that's where i bust out my big word: "balance". I firmly believe that in most things in this world, balance is key. If you're too nice, you'll be trampled over. If you're too mean, everyone will hate you. Balance. If government fills in for what the private sector can't do, that to me is appropriate balance. It isn't "taking over everything". If government ran everything, we'd truly be socialist, and i wouldn't want that either. There are extremes... and in this instance, i find a modest public option to be a sustainable and viable solution that respects the notion of balance.

[MTLskyline]

You cannot even imagine how I would appreciate seeing and hearing you telling my three american friends they are not patriotic because they hate George W. Bush.

It would be my honour.

 

One of them has not spoken to his mother for a couple of years as she kicked him out of the house at dinner time because she accused him of being unpatriotic because he said he hated W. She also said he was not patriotic because he opposed the invasion of Iraq. The typical republicain rubbish.

That's a little extreme coming from the same family but she was right. In times of war, a patriotic American stands by his/her President and armed forces. I don't know these people, so there is a good chance that there are many more problems between them than just the political question.

 

It's exactly because he loves his country and its institutions that he hates W Bush. He felt Bush was caving in to large oil companies and the religious right. He also felt Bush invaded Iraq on a lie, authorized torture and divided the country by accusing the liberals like him of being non patriotic and even a traitor. He felt Bush bullied even his allies and nearly destroyed America's reputation abroad.

All of this sounds like its straight out of a Michael Moore movie. Bush claimed that America was addicted to foreign oil and that needed to stop. Bush is part of the religious right, and as President he has every right to govern according to his and his supporters' own beliefs. Bush did not invade Iraq on a lie, but rather on a CIA error. Regardless, the outcome has been positive. Iraq is now without Saddam, and is well on its way to becoming a stable democracy. Torture should be authorized in extreme circumstances to get information that would save and protect American lives. Bush asked for a lot from his allies, and Canada, under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin gave the USA a slap in the face by refusing to join him in rebuilding Iraq. You seem to forget that 9/11 changed EVERYTHING.

 

Man would I love to hear you a canadian living in Monteal telling him he was not patriotic because he hated Bush. Lol. Hilarious. I would be willing to buy tickets at a very high price to see and hear this. You see, many republicains accused him and millions like him of being unpatriotic and even a traitor, with the implicite blessing of the Bush administration......and people like you wonder why he hates W Bush?

I would love to hear you a Canadian from Montreal telling Republican voters they are complete idiots for electing and reelecting this man. Of course the majority of non-Americans (particularly Europeans) are like you, and you seem to have no problem with it. However when it comes to someone scolding the leftists of America for hating their former President more so than Osama Bin Laden, it is a "faux pas". I don't have a problem with calling people who hate Obama unpatriotic either. These men have very, very difficult jobs and deserve our respect. You don't seem to understand that. Being the President is not a joke.