Buckdog

Ahh ... George Bush has a 'Rapture Contingency Plan' for the White House in case he is taken up.

"God talks to me" ... George Bush.

You don't have to look too far to find religious lunacy in power in places you should least expect it.

And near the bottom of the page:

Kangiqsujuaq’s mayor, Mary Pilurtuut, said she hadn’t been informed of fresh damage at the site and doubted “something religious” would have been involved.

“Recently, it’s not the case,” she said, suggesting that most of the deterioration at the site has been “caused by nature.”

Lance, thanks for the point. I elaborated a bit to show my concern - 'equivalancy'?? I don't believe that equivalancy is a necessary measuring stick.

I consider this different degrees of similar substance.

Well ... the mayor has to be concerned with community image! - I put quite a lot of weight on the observations of the scientific professionals.

Every morning I get up and check the news to see if Bush has been taken up in the Rapture'!

http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2004/
11/white_house_exp.html

comment moderation has gone up when I hit the hay to try and prevent the chickencrap profanity that gets planted here by a very sick little right wing mental case - usually about 3:00 to 3:30 am. I have already contacted the individuals Internet Provider.
-------------
Back to your point. The Taliban are bad. I agree. They are totalitarian religious extremists. I do not disagree. Now come back over to civilized North America.

I continue to stress my concern that Bush's bizarre religious beliefs require our vigilance and scrutiny to ensure that we don't start on a slippery slope that will ultimately end in fundamental christians enforcing their religious ideology as law in the USA.
You always go directly to the extreme and hence I consider your examples to border on 'extreme'. What I want to see from Sussex Drive and the White House is logical response to the insane reality of the middle east. Fanning flames of counter insanity is not helping.

I am flattered that you get up so early in the morning and have Buckdog on your mind for a first thing in the morning posting. Flattered, I tell you!!

I am flattered that you spend so much time here every evening. Flattered, I say!!

Postscript:
Here is a Baptist church site from the USA that wants to do the same as the Taliban example you just used. They are demanding the the US Government institute the death penalty for anyone who is gay.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

The difference between these Baptists and the Taliban is a matter of 'degree' not 'substance'. Both are completely INSANE.

don't fall off your chair when I say something good about Richard Nixon. Although I do not like him historically for the Vietnam War, I will say this about him. When he shocked every Republican in the USA by recognizing 'Red China' and travelling there to meet with Mao, he displayed visionary insight that is almost mind boggling. At the worst of the nuclear sabre rattling between the US and China, Nixon had a vision of using trade and commerce to bridge the gap between the 2 nations AND he managed to put a bigger wedge between China and the USSR as a result.

So tell me why all of you free market guys can't come up with something like that as a proposal for the middle east rather than being resigned to the fact that the US has no choice but to attack Iran. As nuts as Abadimajad is (and he is) don't forget that it was Bush who inflamed the whole situation a few years ago with his famous 'axis of evil' speech.

Even though I don't buy into the 'market is master' stuff, your free enterprise guys have had a unique opportunity to prove to all of us lefties that your way can bring peace and prosperity to the planet. Instead, the forces of the free market are building war economies based on the manufacuture of weapons and war goods with public dollars.

Bush, if he truly is a free market type AND NOT just a war hungry yahoo from Texas, has probably blown an opportunity for you right wing guys to prove us lefties wrong.

I mean for gawds sake, the USA has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war in Iraq. The US could have probably put the whole nation on salary for a couple of years rebuilding after Saddam (don't forget the annual average income of an Iraqi is not very much) - instead the money has been used to inflate the american arms industry with war economics.

This is your chance to prove all of your free market ideology.

Where is the vision? Where is the bold initiatives to improve life for humanity on the planet.

Instead we have a 'good old boy' who sounds like he has marbles in his mouth. Enough with the war crap.

"China is hardly a bastion of free market capitalism."

Yes I KNOW that - point was a right wing President found a way to talk and investigate trade without war and nukes. Point is why can't this President try something bold as first step rather than the bombing or invasion of Iran that is looming.

"If in your mind the free market doesn't work why would you entertain a so-called free market solution? Don't you trust your own judgement?"

Your 'market rules' ideology is not working well for peace and prosperity on this planet. It seems to love the commerce and profits that a war economy generates. I was trying to let you argue the merits of your ideology to see if there is any elbow room for investigating solutions that due not go directly to war. In other words, does the ideology that you espouse have ANY wiggle room to try and solve some of the problems in the middle east with out thousands and thousands of people having to perhaps, die?
Lay it out - what's the plan?

Leftdog,my question to you now is,let's say we go all out,try to talk to Iran,try to calm the waters,then they tell us to take a hike. how long do we keep trying,is there a time limit? Do we try so long that we have given them the time they needed to develope nuclear arms,or should they have been stopped by other means(force),before they reached that point.I hope you realize how many people will die(babies too!) when Iran initiates the final Jihad.

You remember when George Bush called Iran part of an 'axis of evil'. The president they had then was MUCH more moderate than the guy they elected a short while ago (Amadimajhad - hard name to say). The Iranians elected a HARD liner in reaction to what Bush said. To counter Bush's threat, they elected a crazy guy.

Now Bush is threatening to bomb or invade them. Do you think it is wise foreign policy for President Bush to be throwing gasoline on this volatile region? Harper and others fault only the Iranian Leader when Bush is doing stupid, risky and basically INSANE actions! Don't poke at a bear with a stick unless you want him to react.

Friend - Bush wants Iran to react to his taunts! He wants a change of government. American interference in Iran when the Shah (who the americans put into power) was there contributed to the Islamic revolution in the first place. You simply have to do some reading on the history of Iran to even know what the heck you are talking about.

Bush doesn't want to talk. He wants to change the government of Iran. He clearly wants a war just like he wanted a war in Iraq (remember, no weapons of mass destruction found which was his reason for the invasion). Bush is nuts. So is Amadimajhad. God help us all from these madmen!

O.K I don't agree with what you just stated. But you have not answered my question.If all negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear ambitions,do we sit by and allow them to produce and possess nuclear arms?

I live in Canada. I do not believe that Iran can do anything to harm us here.

I don't believe for one minute that Iran would start a nuclear war with anyone.

Excellent posting, Leftdog. I totally get it.

IMPORTANT NOTE TO READERS OF THIS POST:

The person who posts here as 'moneybags4me' has been exposed as DAVID MCLEAN of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. He used a number of names until he was exposed:
-moneybags4me
-the artist formerly known as...
-farmerjoe
etc etc etc.