trixster, do you feel shame for the fact that Mannyisthebest is a Canadian?

Don't be a moron, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You're not going to curb terrorism by continuing and amplifying military action and political hegemony in the Middle East. You're going to attract it. We spent trillions to "prevent" terrorism in the last ten years. Bin Laden's intention was to bankrupt the US. Know how I know this? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE FUCKING SAID. It'd have been a lot cheaper and more effective if we had stopped cavorting about in the region, hell, it'd have probably helped us if we used the cash to instead develop alternative resources. But Bush was family to the oil lobby, so...

Further, one of bin Laden's plans was to bring the war to his area, where they could fight on their own terms and kill Americans much easier. And we did exactly what he wanted. And we're still there, dammit.

So did the terrorists win after all? In many ways, they did.

He's from Toronto, though. I barely recognize him as Canadian.

And you are from Montreal and a Province that sees it self as a Separate Nation (I have no problem with that).

Your comment was incredibly silly and served no purpose. Also Toronto is like centre of the whole elitist socialist left in this country as well. Also the idea everyone in Canada is peace loving hippie is so inaccurate.



My whole point is after the initial attacks in the 90's we sat around and did not do much and got attacked in a spectacular fashion.

We attacked back and there have been many negative effects, however we all know the capabilities of the terrorists have gone down tremendously. The attacks have been reduced to lone wolf attacks and mostly in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area.

So all I am saying the solution to this problem is not so easy as you guys say. Imo if we sat around and did nothing after 9/11, I am certain we would have been attacked. However I do agree that we have gone to war and have reduced the domestic terrorist threat but have made the entire middle East into a hell hole.




I agree with that as well, but many now see Terrorism as less of a threat and the reason is that we have not been attacked.


I think you guys paint me as a radical, but I am quite certain I have a moderate view compared to the rest of Canadians/ Americans.


Also the war did not bankrupt the US by it self. It was also the Bush Tax cuts and our obsession with Keynesian economics after 2008 that has been a huge failure.




Right and wrong, we attracted to places in the Middle East but not domestically.

I'm not from Montreal, I just live here.

It's a bit more complicated than that. If you removed one block of several there wouldn't have been the issues we face now. Keynes especially doesn't apply well to a post-industrial economy.

Yes, but instead we are getting soldiers and civilians (and locals whom we back) killed. In fact, in much greater numbers

I agree Iraq war was pointless.

Afghanistan war at first did have a huge hit on the terrorists. I think covert operations and predator strikes will be more effective now rather then staying there.

Also I will remind you that I think right after 9/11, I think all of us likely wanted some revenge.
Its easy to say 10 years latter, we should not have but I am quite certain all our attitudes were different then.



I agree one thing leads to another, but If I set the fire and then you go dump petrol on it, were both at fault.

Bush's war and tax cuts sent the US from having a surplus to a crushing debt. Then the crisis hit and we decided to spend our way out of it making the problem much more serious.



Anyways, 10 years ago an event happened that changed our world forever. It has been so long but we still do not forget.

Perhaps they'll find this comment humorous...

Quote:

"Brit living in Canada here. In a checkout queue today I heard one Canadian say to another, "what's the difference between 9/11 and a cow? You stop milking a cow after 10 years!". Pretty much everyone who heard it smiled. I think the US may be getting more and more out of step with the rest of the world."

Herman Cain is on fire. Fox News poll last week had him jumping to 3rd, now this one says he's tied for teh lead http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

I prefer him to the other non Paul candidates

- He's not a politician
- He can probably beat Obama more than Romney can. Has some charisma, steals the black votes, etc.

I put the curse on both Bachmann and Perry. Their combined evangelical support is less than either Cain or Romney. Damn.

Nah, he's just another homophobic ranter on the right.

The GOP doesn't have a good candidate -- if they did, he or she would be way ahead right now. None of them have beaten Obama in current polls, despite the economy being so bad (a generic Republican does beat Obama but none of the specific ones do).

Cain is the current hope. First they were excited about Trump, and then Bachmann, and then Perry -- they're just putting all their hopes in and then when they find out more about their current love they realize how bad that person is.

The GOP's best hope is either Romney or Huntsman. The votes are in the middle. 40% will vote Democratic no matter what and 40% will vote Republican no matter what. You need to get that 20% in the middle, and if you nominate a right wing crazy you'll chase all that middle away. (That happened a bit last time, with Palin actually chasing moderates away from the GOP).

Holy shit, I know you're Canadian and thus have never met an American with black skin before, but no. A black Republican won't steal the black vote in any way (okay, maybe Colin Powell). And there are very good, complex sociological reasons for this. Ever hear of Alan Keyes?

I'll rephrase that; He won't steal "the black vote", but he'll get more than Romney or Perry would

Are you sure about that? Nobody likes a tone-deaf asshole that considers the rest of his race in the country to be "brainwashed". Or a coward:

I don't think Romney could beat Obama. Tea Partiers will throw a fit and feel totally alienated - he's still the founder of Obama-care and some people will never forget it. And when it comes time, I think Obama is going to show he's been preparing for the election and lucidly make points and rally support in ways he hasn't done since 2008. It won't be the same campaign, but you best believe he hasn't played his whole hand yet.

After all, as this thread shows, he doesn't really need to. Republican competition is limp.

That's why, again, re-electing Obama should be the BARE MINIMUM goal of any progressive/liberal. Winning either the Senate or the House will be incredibly difficult thanks to the small amount of Republicans up for re-election versus lots of Democrats in the Senate and more importantly, the way Citizens United has corrupted campaigning.

I hope Romney gets the nomination for a few reasons:

1. Obama will be able to attack him for being such a flip flopper, and will rightly point out that the "Obamacare" health plan was based on Romney's plan, so how can he criticize it?

2. Many Christian bigots will refuse to vote for him and will probably stay home.

3. The Tea Party may decide to run a third party candidate which will drain votes, or will at least not vote.

4. If Obama loses, Romney is the most reasonable and rational of the Republicans running. I don't think he'd destroy the country like the others would.

Yup.

Romney can win if this doesn't become 1968 or the Teapers don't get whipped into just the right frenzy. I said "can", not "will".

I agree with this and if Romney won. I could tolerate Romney. I think he can be a sleeze bag but he is at least rational and won't destroy the country. If Paul won, he would get rid of 5 cabinet departments and probably send the country into a depression. Cain, Perry, and Bauchman would probably do similar destruction.

Magnus is right in polls that have Obama vs the Republican generic Candidate its not close at all.

Once you add in the names of GOP candidates, Obama beats everyone apart from Romney.
Romney is pretty much around statistically tied with Obama in almost all polls.

Ronmey can win and would give Obama a tough time, because the economy sucks.

To suggest Obama is going to get another landslide with 9% unemployment is silly.

Look at the last two landslide wins before Obama's in 2008 , They were Roland Reagan's "Good Morning America" 1984 landslide and Clinton in 1996.

Both times, the people of America were happy.


Even if Obama wins, Republicans will keep the House and at a min pick up 2 seats or more in the Senate. The Senate has a good change of changing parties.
So Obama can win but he will have a tough time like 2004, and will also have one or both houses against him.

It all depends, Obama needs those first time voters to come back or he is going to back to fighting the election in Florida and Ohio like Bush did.


You have to worry for Obama, the economy has led to incumbent Presidents being defeated before (Jimmy Carter and Bush Sr).
Going into the 1992 election, if you said George Bush sr would lose after winning the war in The Gulf, you would be crazy, The economy went into a recession and Clinton pressed hard and won.

Carter was a weak President and people just fell in love with Regan with his personality.

Luckily for Obama none of the GOP candidates are like Ronald Reagan.

Actually, you know who really gets elected each time? The one who looks most like a President.

Forget issues, forget parties -- they only matter in close calls. But if there is one candidate who looks Presidential and another who doesn't, the Presidential one wins every time.

1976: Carter more than Ford

1980: Reagan more than Carter

1984: Reagan more than Mondale

1988: Bush more than Dukakis

1992: Clinton more than Bush

1996: Clinton more than Dole

2000: Gore more than Bush (look, don't argue with me, the point is that the majority supported Gore)

2004: Bush more than Kerry (but that one was really really close since neither really were very Presidential)

2008: Obama over McCain

2012: Obama over anyone so far (Romney being the closest)

Imagine Americans as casting directors, deciding who looks more like a President should look. That's who they pick.

Actually, you know who really gets elected each time? The one who looks most like a President.

Forget issues, forget parties -- they only matter in close calls. But if there is one candidate who looks Presidential and another who doesn't, the Presidential one wins every time.

1976: Carter more than Ford

1980: Reagan more than Carter

1984: Reagan more than Mondale

1988: Bush more than Dukakis

1992: Clinton more than Bush

1996: Clinton more than Dole

2000: Gore more than Bush (look, don't argue with me, the point is that the majority supported Gore)

2004: Bush more than Kerry (but that one was really really close since neither really were very Presidential)

2008: Obama over McCain

2012: Obama over anyone so far (Romney being the closest)

Imagine Americans as casting directors, deciding who looks more like a President should look. That's who they pick.

True personality plays a big part as well ^^


The two presidents that defeated incumbents are now legends to their parties.

Reagan and Clinton are two most popular presidents of the modern era.

(Modern era is after Kennedy as Eisenhower and Kennedy did not suffer very low moments of support ever)

Reagan is greater in death then in real life imo. He has become like this demi God.
Even though I see he had so many faults, I still like him. Maybe that explains everything.

Clinton time in office is very nostalgic to many, as times were good.


Johnson and Bush Sr were well liked over their terms in office but ended on a low note.




Frankly even though Bush was an idiot, many people thought Kerry was a useless guy.



Lol I think even Mondale would agree over that.

The Bush / Kerry election was one of the closest in modern times; it was also one of the nastiest (since Bush's team -- with Karl Rove -- put some of Nixon's tricks to shame). Bush won by the smallest percentage of any incumbent who was ever re-elected. Kerry did not have the personality to overcome that (as opposed to Obama who was able to deflect most of the attacks on him). If the Democrats had nominated Dean I'll bet the result would have been different.

It was a close election but Kerry was not a good candidate.

The 2004 election is what I expect the 2012 election to be like.

A mean, desperate election...