Who Would You Like to See Run in 2008?

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Its surprising the way you seem to know about Brazil politics and its cool ...but just to bring up something new-- This guy abandoned socialism a log time ago--and connsequently he disappointed millions who voted for him (me include--even though I still love him )

I dont think that the majority brazilian people are socialist, so why choose a socialist??? Lula (his nickname) has a beautiful and sad personal history : he survived poverty and became the charismatic and ethical work leader of the Worker's Party. And people were tired of years and years of explotation and corruption and they wanted to try something new : Lula was the new. Lula was a chance to change things. He was a chance to make things better, especially the social part (always forgot by the others presidents).He was a chance to moralize politics.

But seemed that president forgot his ingenuous socialist ideals, cause he assumed an equilibrated position, especially in economics which disappointed a great number of people, and to get things worse his party is involved in a corruptions scheme.

But I still support him cause im not an ingenuous person to think he can change things in just four years. He needs more time...

In my opinion, I believe that it was in Brazil's best interest that he abandoned most of his socialist ideas. I mean, certain socialist measures are successful... but as a whole, history shows us that socialism is a long term failure. The nation's that lead the world are capitalist... and even China's economy is going capitalist.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

In my opinion, I believe that it was in Brazil's best interest that he abandoned most of his socialist ideas. I mean, certain socialist measures are successful... but as a whole, history shows us that socialism is a long term failure. The nation's that lead the world are capitalist... and even China's economy is going capitalist.

Yeah, i agreed that socialism wasnt exactly the best thing, but you know all youth people (out off America I think) experienced those ideals as an alternative to exploitation brought by capitalism. But of course after some years all that innocence is over...

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

^Yeah, which basically measn you are more conservative than the U.S., where abortion is legal and homosexuality is some places.

Go Brazil.

Most of this situation is explained by the power of the Catholic Church here...

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Bush is far from neo-conservative.

you're absolutely right. he doesn't use religion as a basis for anything, nor do the majority of his current supporters.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

you're absolutely right. he doesn't use religion as a basis for anything, nor do the majority of his current supporters.

Oh I wouldn't say that much. HE doesn't, but I know TONS of ultra conservatives who use God as an answer for everything from the war to tax cuts...

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Oh I wouldn't say that much. HE doesn't, but I know TONS of ultra conservatives who use God as an answer for everything from the war to tax cuts...

A LOT of people use God and religion as an excuse for everything...and they claim themselves like religious people...

[RMadd]

yeah, the funny thing about that, Ana, is that I'm pretty sure Jesus/God wouldn't advocate a war like Bush has.... but I guess it's just appealing to our inner redneck or something like that....

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

yeah, the funny thing about that, Ana, is that I'm pretty sure Jesus/God wouldn't advocate a war like Bush has.... but I guess it's just appealing to our inner redneck or something like that....

But would Jesus/God advocate the Taliban support of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? But would Jesus/God advocate the mass murders of Kurds and Shia at the hands of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party? There's nothing redneck about stopping a regime that funded the 9/11 hijackers and about putting a mass murdering dictator in a prison cell.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

you're absolutely right. he doesn't use religion as a basis for anything, nor do the majority of his current supporters.

You're trying to make Bush out to be aligned with fascism because the man is a Christian. Like I said before... he hasn't done anything to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States... nor has he been conservative with the economy. He hasn't really done much to protect Christian holidays from rabid ACLU members. Being against abortion and gay marriage doesn't make someone a neo-con. John Kerry is against gay marriage... as are many other prominent democrats. Bush didn't invade Iraq because of religion... or for oil. He, like many other countries around the world viewed Saddam Hussein as a legitimate threat to peace in the Middle East. Sure, there was flawed intelligence... but the decision to oust Hussein isn't the product of neo-conservativism. If anything, Bush's foreign policy regarding the Middle East is liberal. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, enlightened and rational policy, the rule of law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade are all fundamentals of liberal though. Iraqis are now allowed to abide by all of these components.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

You're trying to make Bush out to be aligned with fascism because the man is a Christian. Like I said before... he hasn't done anything to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States... nor has he been conservative with the economy. He hasn't really done much to protect Christian holidays from rabid ACLU members. Being against abortion and gay marriage doesn't make someone a neo-con. John Kerry is against gay marriage... as are many other prominent democrats. Bush didn't invade Iraq because of religion... or for oil. He, like many other countries around the world viewed Saddam Hussein as a legitimate threat to peace in the Middle East. Sure, there was flawed intelligence... but the decision to oust Hussein isn't the product of neo-conservativism. If anything, Bush's foreign policy regarding the Middle East is liberal. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, enlightened and rational policy, the rule o law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade are all fundamentals of liberal though. Iraqis are now allowed to abide by all of these components.

Personally I cant see Bush as a fascist, but I cant stand his foreign policy as everyone here knows... But answer me that : do you think these are (the points in black) really the Bush reasons to invade Iraq??? Really???

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Personally I cant see Bush as a fascist, but I cant stand his foreign policy as everyone here knows... But answer me that : do you think these are (the points in black) really the Bush reasons to invade Iraq??? Really???

I honestly see that as part of the reason, yes. There's an idea within American foreign policy called "democratic peace." Keep in mind that this isn't a new issue... it was heavily prevalent during the Cold War as well. What this means is that the more democratic nations there are in the world, there is a less chance that these democratic nations will go to war with each other. This a major theme surrounding America's policy on counterterrorism. It's no surprise that the main reason why terrorists are in Iraq is because they don't want Iraqis to live by the principles that I have previously mentioned.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

I honestly see that as part of the reason, yes. There's an idea within American foreign policy called "democratic peace." Keep in mind that this isn't a new issue... it was heavily prevalent during the Cold War as well. What this means is that the more democratic nations there are in the world, there is a less chance that these democratic nations will go to war with each other. This a major theme surrounding America's policy on counterterrorism. It's no surprise that the main reason why terrorists are in Iraq is because they don't want Iraqis to live by the principles that I have previously mentioned.

"Democractic peace" using war as a method? So ironic...

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

"Democractic peace" using war as a method? So ironic...

How do you get Saddam Hussein to step down? How do you get Josef Stalin to step down? How do you Slobodan Milosevic to step down? With them... diplomacy is futile.

If war is a method that will rid the world of these rogue states who have a past of human rights violations... then I guess it's not as costly as allowing them to stay in power for generations.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

You're trying to make Bush out to be aligned with fascism because the man is a Christian.

if the shoe fits... lol (j/k)

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Like I said before... he hasn't done anything to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States...

before 9/11, he was hoping to create a more liberal (not in the political sense, but just in the sense that it would allow more) immigration policy, working with Vincente Fox (Mexico's president) to develop one agreeable to both states. that's been pretty much pushed to the bottom of the pile now.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

nor has he been conservative with the economy.

I'm well aware of that: that's why I'm saying he's more neo-conservative than simply conservative. He's really not a traditional conservative at all, but is definitely a neo-con.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Being against abortion and gay marriage doesn't make someone a neo-con. John Kerry is against gay marriage... as are many other prominent democrats.

So John Kerry and "other prominent democrats" can't have neo-conservative beliefs or tendencies? You seem to be saying they, by some rule or something, have to be 100%, straight up liberal? Kerry himself isn't a neo-conservative, but he, as you have pointed out, does have at least one neo-conservative belief (the more opposing liberal view, of course, supports gay marriage & civil union).

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Bush didn't invade Iraq because of religion... or for oil. He, like many other countries around the world viewed Saddam Hussein as a legitimate threat to peace in the Middle East. Sure, there was flawed intelligence... but the decision to oust Hussein isn't the product of neo-conservativism. If anything, Bush's foreign policy regarding the Middle East is liberal. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, enlightened and rational policy, the rule of law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade are all fundamentals of liberal though. Iraqis are now allowed to abide by all of these components.

Has someone been watching Fox a bit much lately? It's always about the oil. You have to think, why Iraq, of all countries? There's countries in our own "backyard" that have some pretty crazy leaders, but why don't we do anything about them?

You may want to read this to get a better understanding as to what constitutes neo-conservatism. It points to hawkish views in foreign policy (i.e. deciding to go to war when there do exist other alternatives), a Christian undercurrent, etc.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

Has someone been watching Fox a bit much lately? It's always about the oil. You have to think, why Iraq, of all countries? There's countries in our own "backyard" that have some pretty crazy leaders, but why don't we do anything about them?

Ryan...your said everything!