Are there still any Bush supporters here?

[atomicone]

Originally Posted by Bob Smith

I voted for Bush. I dont think hes done a spectacular job by any means, but I sure as hell would rather have him than Kerry.


Agreed. The idea of small govt and fiscal responsibility has been completely lost on both parties.

DIDO!!

[Dionysus]

I personally do not support Bush, and yes I think he should be tried for treason.

No, I am not arm chair quarterbacking, so dont even play that crap.

I am not angry at those who do support Bush, for I believe many who support him do so because they believe he is trying to do the right thing.

At least, thats what helps me sleep at night.

When asked, almost every Bush supporter I have ever talked to knew nothing about neoconservativism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
That tells me they also do not understand the far reaching implications of globalization.

One interesting observation: Bush supporters frequently get irate at people who do not support him. They call us every name in the book. Therefore they must like the fact that he is blatently denying us our constitutional rights! Seems freedom of thought, speech and religion will be our next rights to be removed, at least if they get their way.

[Grizzly]

Globalization is a forgone conclusion. Unless we destroy all the technology of the last 20 years, there's no way to avoid it.

[Dionysus]

Go rub on a tree Griz, if you wanna be a tool, go right ahead. I'm gonna go down fighting. Its the only thing I know.

[Kayz]

I personally do not support Bush, and yes I think he should be tried for treason.

For what?

That tells me they also do not understand the far reaching implications of globalization.

Globalization has been occuring long before GWB came along. Part of the reason America is so fucked up these days is that Corporate America NEVER planned and adjusted for globalization. Look at GM and Ford. Their economic models put in place in the 1960's were out of date in 1985...and they NEVER changed their practices. In 2006, Toyota and Honda are kicking their ass. It is inevitable that it will continue.

Bush supporters frequently get irate at people who do not support him. They call us every name in the book.

As a conservative, I have experienced the same thing with respect to Democrats who supported Kerry. It goes both ways.

Therefore they must like the fact that he is blatently denying us our constitutional rights!

What rights have we been denied??? My life has not changed in the slightest since Bush took office. I bought another gun a few months back, I still say what I want, I go where I want. Sure, life has become more strained due to security purposes (getting on a plane, going thru a pat-down at NFL games..which was just ruled unconstitutional and they no longer do it where I live), but by and large, my life has continued as normal. I've been denied nothing.

Seems freedom of thought, speech and religion will be our next rights to be removed, at least if they get their way.

It's impossible to deny freedom of thought. Freedom of speech has continued without any disruptions. All I hear on the TV is Bush bashing...don't you think if Bush wanted to do away with freedom of speech he'd censor those networks that attack him personally as a man and his policies?? The government has no hand in religion so they can't remove that "right" either. You can practice and believe anything you want.

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Dionysus

Go rub on a tree Griz, if you wanna be a tool, go right ahead. I'm gonna go down fighting. Its the only thing I know.

Huh?

[Kayz]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Huh?

I think he was calling you a tree-hugging fairy, but I could be wrong. He also just attacked you personally because you disagreed with him, which is kind of odd because he just said that neocons/bush supporters resort to personal attacks when he expresses his discontent with Bush's policies.

[Dionysus]

Kayz: I think that hardly qualifies as an attack there "sparky". And it was directed towards his philosophy of defeatism re. globalization, not his presidential preferences.



Grizzly: I understand why you feel that way, griz, but personally I just cant bring myself to tow that line.

[Dionysus]

In light of all of the crimes against the American People I would support a movement to try him for treason.http://www.thefourreasons.org/

[Grizzly]

Well, since treason is for crimes against the gov't, I guess he can't be tried.

I don't understand your problem with globalization. I don't think it's a problem.

[van-man]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Globalization is a forgone conclusion. Unless we destroy all the technology of the last 20 years, there's no way to avoid it.

You are one hundred percent correct on that Grizzly. Unless there is a drastic upheaval of the world economic market place, there is no way around globalism. It is competitive necessity at this point.
True there are many down sides to such a market place, but so long as price is the ultimate market driver then there is no other recourse.

[Grizzly]

Depends on your definition of "downsides". IIRC, Mr. Dionysus is a socialist(forgive me if I'm wrong, as that's a serious accusation ), which truly makes me wonder what he thinks is so wrong with it.

Globalization has only "hurt" Americans and other highly industrialized nations. It has done nothing but raise that standard of living of the savages around the world. In the end, the entire world benefits.

Now, I'm not saying I think this is some great achievement. Quite frankly, as long as I'm making a damned good living, I don't give a shit if you're starving. I don't have a "duty" to any of you assfuckers. However, since "the good of the whole" is the moral imperative of the day, no matter how asinine that is, it seems to me that globalization should be welcomed by all.

Of course, that goes over just as well as telling the hippie, socialist pig fucker who espouses egalitarianism to give 1/2 of his salary to the bum he just saw. Apparently, it's only alright to make the uber-rich give away their shit, not the "normal" people.

[van-man]

True true. For me, the downsides are the specialized economies and the inefficiencies that large global corps create when compared to the numerous smaller individual companies that used to perform the same function.
Specialized economies leave nations incomplete and unable to self sustain in times of crisis. A perfect example of this is the American steel industry. I mean its gone! If we want steel we have to turn to Mexico, Brazil, or worse... China! Heaven help us if we something were to happen and we were no longer able to trade with these suppliers because we don't have anything to fall back on.
Efficiency loss is represented by global agricultural corps. I read a study during the course of my undergrad by one of my secret socialist philosophy professors that raised some interesting observations. In Latin America, most of the private farms have been bought out by the mutinational corps dominating the market today. But, when gross agricultural yields were measured, these global corps produced with far less efficiency than the old world farmers. These corps won out simply because they controled the flow of goods to the market place. It was much easier for this one company to schedule a train to run though central america to pick up crops from all of its farms than it is for hundreds of small farmers to try to individually deliver their goods.

[Dionysus]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

Globalization has only "hurt" Americans and other highly industrialized nations. It has done nothing but raise that standard of living of the savages around the world. In the end, the entire world benefits.

I disagree that the whole world will benefit.

As natural law would have it, only the strongest survive and thrive enough to pass on their genes. When we change the natural order by allowing the weak to thrive at the expense of the strong, we create a society that is self destroying.

I say let nature do what she would with the "savages" as Griz put it. If they were meant to starve and die off, then so be it. If they thrive and industrialize, so be it.
But funding their existance with money and jobs taken from the industrialized and competative nations is only destroying the process of natural selection.

[Bob Smith]

Originally Posted by van-man

Specialized economies leave nations incomplete

That goes against most everything in international economics. A nation doesnt have to be "complete." If we were complete, we would produce every single good and service that Americans buy. 1) thats not possible, we simply dont have the capacity and work force to do it, and 2) that would make those goods and services more expensive.


Specialization (ie, competitive advantage) is the reason we can buy stuff at Walmart for half the price of its American-made counterpart. You build what you excel at, and Ill build what I excel at. We'll import/export the rest and we'll both be better off because I will be able to supply you my goods for less than you could produce them on your own. Thats why China, India, and a lot of Southeast Asia is growing so rapidly, they have a competitive advantage in terms of really cheap labor. Why pay some American union worker $25/hr to do something that a little Asian man can and will do for $2.75/hr? You dont. And its part of the reason why the American auto industry is dying. They never adapted to change, and with a global marketplace if you dont change you will die. GM is a perfect example of "Im king of the hill....oh shit, here comes Toyota. Im king of the hill" (as Toyota is kicking GM down the hill).