>> ^ShakyJake:

Very true. After all, Great Britain had a huge part in helping write the U.S. constitution, and they helped ease a gradual change from British rule to American sovereignty. Any other way just couldn't have worked, ...right?


Indeed, they moved straight on to a stable democracy with freedom and equality...

If you were a wealthy white male.

America as we know it is the result of better than a hundred years of pain and suffering fighting for what it is today. Egypt may well be on the start of that same road, but that isn't going to promise it will be pleasant for them or their neighbors.

Very true. After all, Great Britain had a huge part in helping write the U.S. constitution, and they helped ease a gradual change from British rule to American sovereignty. Any other way just couldn't have worked, ...right?

@bcglorf
there is a huge difference between a person of jewish heritage and a zionist.
zionism does NOT equal judaism.
and to excuse an entire population by what some OTHER over-zealous political party did to the jewish people (NOT zionists) is disingenuous and totally buys into the narrative.
it boils down to that whole two wrongs dont make a right thing.
just because the jewish people suffered under nazism does not give them the right to oppress another people and you would THINK that maybe they would have more empathy.
which ..if you look at some of the blogs regular isreali citizens write..they do.
do you know who DOESN'T?
zionists.

here are some facts:
1.3million jews/christians/muslims lived in jeurusalem peacefully until the british empire amended the balfour declaration.
2.this was a political gift from all the support the zionists gave during WWII.so while the jewish community owned less than 5% of the land the new amended document gave them 56% and hence we see..to this day..strife in that region.
3.the supposed "deal of a lifetime" that was offered to the palestinians was absolute garbage.the ONLY thing offered was a bare sovereignty.they could have a flag..but no military.they could own a home...but not the accessways.
and it goes on and on and on.

but you go right ahead and keep telling yourself that isreal is the victim.
they did nothing wrong,its those arab people..its all their fault.they are the agressors.

now i am not ignoring the arab side i am just pointing out that your "isreal is the victim" is utter bullshit and only someone entrenched in american media would ever view this conflict so myopically.

saying that a zionist is the same as jewish is like saying a neo-conservative is an actual conservative.
totally different animals.

>> ^gorillaman:
Let's glance back first to dark history and the rise of the mob. If we want to imagine democracy as a response to plutocracy, we can hear the democrats' call to arms clearly: "We're tired of these plutocrats shitting on us. Let's all shit on each other instead!"

Actually it was more of a "we're tired of power being concentrated in the hands of a few, unaccountable, self-centered, self-important people, let's disperse that power amongst everyone!"

That form of democracy still has yet to be tried, but from where I sit, the closer a society's government hews to that principle, the better off the society.

>> ^gorillaman:
Where voters are held to no standard they vote their own interests and prejudices, at any cost to others, at any cost to society. Democracy necessarily admits no standard. No standard for truth, no standard for justice but what the electors, palsied twitching monkeys that they are, can conjure. What's more, oligarchy is inevitable in any system, and oligarchs inevitably reflect the system that created them. A culture of selfish idiots trying to rip each other off produces an elite of the same.

Awesome argument for abolishing markets and capitalism...you know, the system that rewards amoral selfish idiots who succeed in ripping others off. For abolishing democracy, not so much.

>> ^gorillaman:
So, the future. Less important to define a superior system than to recognise the corruption of our current thinking, but the path seems clear. Democracy is evil and evil is stupidity. The antidote to both evil and democracy is wisdom. Establish a sovereignty of reason and power flows to the rational. Selfishness, all forms of corruption are irrational, could only be opposed by such rulers. Plato, relatively fascistic though he was, agreed with me even a couple of thousand years ago. After all that time you're still trying to hold us back. All that time wasted.

So your bold new plan for the future...is Aristocracy.

Tell me, do you think yourself a philosopher-king, an artisan, or an auxiliary? No faux modesty here, please.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I'll admit to sometimes using a loose definition of fascism for rhetorical purpose, but I flatter myself I understand political theory well enough not to need wikipedia's help this time.

I want an advance to post-democratic times.

Let's glance back first to dark history and the rise of the mob. If we want to imagine democracy as a response to plutocracy, we can hear the democrats' call to arms clearly: "We're tired of these plutocrats shitting on us. Let's all shit on each other instead!"

Where voters are held to no standard they vote their own interests and prejudices, at any cost to others, at any cost to society. Democracy necessarily admits no standard. No standard for truth, no standard for justice but what the electors, palsied twitching monkeys that they are, can conjure. What's more, oligarchy is inevitable in any system, and oligarchs inevitably reflect the system that created them. A culture of selfish idiots trying to rip each other off produces an elite of the same.

Democracy isn't the ultimate development of government, as you seem to believe, it's its ultimate collapse.

So, the future. Less important to define a superior system than to recognise the corruption of our current thinking, but the path seems clear. Democracy is evil and evil is stupidity. The antidote to both evil and democracy is wisdom. Establish a sovereignty of reason and power flows to the rational. Selfishness, all forms of corruption are irrational, could only be opposed by such rulers. Plato, relatively fascistic though he was, agreed with me even a couple of thousand years ago. After all that time you're still trying to hold us back. All that time wasted.

You have never lived in a society with a constitution. Not if you live in the US you haven't. Your hated plutocrats long since overcame that last remnant of wisdom left by founders who presumably believed they wouldn't be needed so many years later. Imagine if the constitution were living thinkers rather than a dead relic; an active body to oppose corruption rather than a rotting, passive corpse waiting pathetically to fall to dust.

Are you a coward? Do you want to better society or cling to the sense of virtue your own corporate media narrators have fed you?

The truth is no one informs my political thought. It crawls implacably from the sludgy depths of hatred I've cultivated for the world in which I live.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001258

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/22/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV CA
SUBJECT: THE U.S. IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION -- NOT!

REF: OTTAWA 1216

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reason 1.4 (d)

¶1. (C) Summary. Despite the overwhelming importance of the
U.S. to Canada for its economy and security, bilateral
relations remain the proverbial 900 pound gorilla that no one
wants to talk about in the 2008 Canadian federal election
campaigns. This likely reflects an almost inherent
inferiority complex of Canadians vis-a-vis their sole
neighbor as well as an underlying assumption that the
fundamentals of the relationship are strong and unchanging
and uncertainty about the outcome of the U.S. Presidential
election. End Summary.

¶2. (C) The United States is overwhelmingly important to
Canada in ways that are unimaginable to Americans. With over
$500 billion in annual trade, the longest unsecured border in
the world, over 200 million border crossings each year, total
investment in each other's countries of almost $400 billion,
and the unique North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD)
partnership to ensure continental security, excellent
bilateral relations are essential to Canada's well being.
Canadians are, by and large, obsessed with U.S. politics --
especially in the 2008 Presidential race -- and follow them
minutely (with many Canadians even wishing they could vote in
this U.S. election rather than their own, according to a
recent poll). U.S. culture infiltrates Canadian life on
every level. 80 pct of Canadians live within 100 miles of
the border, and Canadians tend to visit the U.S. much more
regularly than their American neighbors come here.

¶3. (C) Logically, the ability of a candidate, or a party,
or most notably the leader of a party successfully to manage
this essential relationship should be a key factor for voters
to judge in casting their ballots. At least so far in the
2008 Canadian federal election campaign, it is not. There
has been almost a deafening silence so far about foreign
affairs in general, apart from Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's pledge on September 10 that Canadian troops would
indeed leave Afghanistan in 2011 according to the terms of
the March 2008 House of Commons motion, commenting that "you
have to put an end on these things." The Liberals -- and
many media commentators -- seized on this as a major
Conservative "flip flop," with Liberal Party leader Stephane
Dion noting on September 10 that "I have been calling for a
firm end date since February 2007" and that "the
Conservatives can't be trusted on Afghanistan; they can't be
trusted on the climate change crisis; they can't be trusted
on the economy." He has returned in subsequent days to the
Conservative record on the environment and the economy, but
has not pursued the Afghan issue further. All three
opposition party leaders joined in calling for the government
to release a Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the
full costs of the Afghan mission, which PM Harper agreed to
do, with some apparent hesitation. However, no other foreign
policy issues have yet risen to the surface in the campaigns,
apart from New Democrat Party leader Jack Layton opining on
September 7 that "I believe we can say good-bye to the George
Bush era in our own conduct overseas."

¶4. (C) The U.S. market meltdown has provided some fodder
for campaign rhetoric, with the Conservatives claiming their
earlier fiscal and monetary actions had insulated Canada from
much of the economic problems seen across the border.
(Comment: there is probably more truth in the fact that the
Canadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
QCanadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
U.S. and other foreign markets, and instead concentrates on
the domestic market. The Canadian financial sector has also
been quite conservative in its lending and investment
choices. End comment.) PM Harper has insisted that the
"core" Canadian economy and institutions were sound, while
promising to work closely with "other international players"
(i.e., not specifically the U.S.) to deal with the current
problems. He warned on September 19 that "voters will have
to decide who is best to govern in this period of economic
uncertainty -- do you want to pay the new Liberal tax? Do
you want the Liberals to bring the GST back to 7%?" The
Liberals have counter-claimed that Canada is now the "worst
performing economy in the G8," while noting earlier Liberal
governments had produced eight consecutive balanced budgets
and created about 300,000 new jobs annually between 1993 and
¶2005. The NDP's Layton argued on September 16 that these
economic woes are "the clearest possible warning that North
American economies under conservative governments, in both
Canada and the United States, are on the wrong track," but
promised only that an NDP government would institute a
"top-to-bottom" review of Canada's regulatory system -- not
delving into bilateral policy territory.

¶5. (C) On the environment, Liberal leader Dion, in
defending his "Green Shift" plan on September 11, noted that

OTTAWA 00001258 002 OF 002

"both Barack Obama and John McCain are in favor of putting a
price on carbon. Our biggest trading partner is moving
toward a greener future and we need to do so too." PM Harper
has stuck to the standard Conservative references to the
Liberal plan as a "carbon tax, which will hit every consumer
in every sector" and claimed on September 16 that, under
earlier Liberal governments, "greenhouse gas emissions
increased by more than 30 percent, one of the worst records
of industrialized countries." NDP leader Layton argued
that, on the environment, PM Harper "has no plan" while
"Dion's plan is wrong and won't work," unlike the NDP plan to
reward polluters who "clean up their act and imposing
penalties on those that don't," which he said had also been
"proposed by both U.S. Presidential candidates, Barack Obama
and John McCain."

¶6. (C) NAFTA? Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?
Border crossing times? The future of NORAD? Canada's role
in NATO? Protection of Canadian water reserves? Canadian
sovereignty in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? At
least among the leaders of the major parties, these issues
have not come up so far in the campaigns, although they seize
much public attention in normal times. Even in Ontario and
Quebec, with their long and important borders with the U.S.,
the leadership candidates apparently so far have not ventured
to make promises to woo voters who might be disgruntled with
U.S. policies and practices. However, these may still emerge
as more salient issues at the riding level as individual
candidates press the flesh door to door, and may also then
percolate up to the leadership formal debates on October 1
and 2.

¶7. (C) Why the U.S. relationship appears off the table, at
least so far, is probably be due to several key factors. An
almost inherent Canadian inferiority complex may disincline
Canadian political leaders from making this election about
the U.S. (unlike in the 1988 free trade campaigns) instead of
sticking to domestic topics of bread-and-butter interest to
voters. The leaders may also recognize that bilateral
relations are simply too important -- and successful -- to
turn into political campaign fodder that could backfire.
They may also be viewing the poll numbers in the U.S. and
recognizing that the results are too close to call. Had the
Canadian campaign taken place after the U.S. election, the
Conservatives might have been tempted to claim they could
work more effectively with a President McCain, or the
Liberals with a President Obama. Even this could be a risky
strategy, as perceptions of being too close to the U.S.
leader are often distasteful to Canadian voters; one
recurrent jibe about PM Harper is that he is a "clone of
George W. Bush." Ultimately, the U.S. is like the proverbial
900 pound gorilla in the midst of the Canadian federal
election: overwhelming but too potentially menacing to
acknowledge.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

It's not been limited to Obama, but a long thing in US (and other nation's) history, with the occasional "collateral damage" hidden in diplomatic paperwork.

I think Pakistan "closing down" the land-line to Afghanistan is a mere bargaining chip for reconstruction funds and an attempt to demonstrate its supposed national sovereignty to its own people in light of recent events (the flood-catastrophe, even requiring financial/humanitarian aid from its "nemesis" India).

With the local infrastructure weakened by the floodings Pakistan might even need US intervention to keep local landlords from returning back to power (you might recall something similar happening last year with parts of the pakistan border regions forming a semi-autonomous Islamic-sharia-state).

That's me hoping at least.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
The middle east should be a completely nuclear weapons free zone. That means Israel doesn't get them either. That is what the majority of Americans want that is what the overwhelming majority of the world wants, that isn't what the government of the United States is ever going to allow. Democracy....fuck it.

Because the idea of the UN was the use the might of first world nations to subvert the sovereignty of entire regions. Like the Democracy in the playground of my youth.


Not sure what you're saying there. Is that sarcasm or do you think nuclear weapons are a good idea?

>> ^Yogi:

The middle east should be a completely nuclear weapons free zone. That means Israel doesn't get them either. That is what the majority of Americans want that is what the overwhelming majority of the world wants, that isn't what the government of the United States is ever going to allow. Democracy....fuck it.


Because the idea of the UN was the use the might of first world nations to subvert the sovereignty of entire regions. Like the Democracy in the playground of my youth.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Norsuelefantti. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Bushs-Sovereignty

Reminds me of Dubya's "sovereign" moment.

Still not sure how "secession" is not tied directly to slaves, slave trade and state sanctioned racism/discrimination.

The only time secession was actually declared was in the Confederate States of America (ie: the confederate slave trading racist motherfuckers). in 1869, the SCOTUS declared that secession is basically null. Also, I'm not sure how one can be constantly screaming about following the US Constitution, without understanding that it replaced the Articles of Confederation. Meaning, this state sovereignty schtick is hollow rhetoric. You can't believe firmly in one, and the other at the same time. Well you can, but you're either doing it to hide your real racist views, or you're an idiot.

The more and more you push this secession and property owners rights to discriminate against races, the more and more you scream "I'M A RACIST!".

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.
-@NetRunner

Read the history of my comments and you may find that I harbor no love for the enrichment of the Military Industrial Complex. I find the creation of the F-22, and C-17 a little like creating weapons platforms just so money can be wasted. In reality, is it really necessary to have a F-22 when there are Nuclear devices?

I guess it's fine to violate a nations sovereignty in the pursuit of justice, but to use military force is another thing completely. - Sarcasm. I point to the US and its relation ship with South America.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war? I also have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is the saint that he's made out to be.
-@NetRunner

It is quite clear that the Republican party is pro war. I can't argue that and to do so would betray my opinion of a corrupt party so bathed in neo-conservative foolishness.

You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.
-@NetRunner

EDIT: I shouldn't have to remind you of my stance on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Corporations are not people, they are conglomerations of people. But that's the problem with this country isn't it? The root of the problem, is that this country's policies are dictated by the almighty dollar, and who has the most; corporations.

What is clear to me about the Supreme Court is that it is divided by partisan ideology. They are not impartial, and pragmatic about laws. They constantly make decisions based on political ideology. For example, the 2nd ammendment. I wonder if anyone from the Judicial Branch has taken a good look at unbiased statistics (I'm not concerned with how the statistics point now, for gun or against gun). If arguments could be put in a more emotionally independent fashion, perhaps that would make a difference. To often is politics a game of ideology and emotion. Although I wonder if this solution is simply evil arbitrarily.

The military industrial complex does not demand war. Supply and Demand. The Military Industrial Complex exists out of a need to meet supply, and make a profit on it. For this I point you to Germany, a Documentary called "Bullet Proof Salesman". How do you stop supply and demand? Stop the wars, no war at all. Cut military spending. I think that would have been the best way to deal with Terrorism with good police work and diplomacy. The military is, by design, not for police work; they exist to fuck shit up.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.
-@NetRunner

The elimination of one party would leave only the other party. A situation rife for Majority Rule, which is counter to a Democratic Republic, or a Republic at all.

But know this, I agree with you that it's time for a change of scenery; republicans need the boot.

The US hasn't declared war since 1944. Congress has simply authorized the use of force. "War does not decide who is right, only who is left" - George Bernard

>> ^NordlichReiter:

And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I didn't say that, but there's a matter of degrees. Republican corruption usually involves outright devastation to people's lives for profit (let's "privatize" social security, let's start a war to get oil rights, let's pretend the environment is indestructible), whereas Democratic corruption usually presents itself as siding with Republicans on whatever horrific scheme they're looking to implement, plus they get involved in some of the "traditional" corruption -- funneling public money into private hands in return for campaign contributions -- though they seem to do this to much smaller degrees than Republicans do.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party.
I did add the qualifier "In my lifetime" for a reason. That said, the Federal Reserve Act was a good thing. Only crazy people are against the idea of having a central bank at this point. I may want more firm oversight to ensure it's not being mismanaged, but that's wholly different from declaring the very idea evil.

Plus, while I'm not going to try to defend Woodrow Wilson against nonspecific charges, I should point out that it's not as if his name evokes the same effect as Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, or even Herbert Hoover in people.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

...and Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. So Clinton's failing was that he didn't fight the Republicans like the left of his party wanted him to. Still fits my description.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees?

You mean the rights denied them by a 5-4 decision (5 Conservative vs. 4 Liberals) of the Roberts Supreme Court?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

The Afghanistan war was started by Bush, as were the violations of Pakistani sovereignty (though it seems unlikely that we are really operating without Pakistan's approval). Again, the worst you can say here is that Democrat Obama has been insufficiently anti-Republican in his stance, something I would agree with as a general criticism of Obama. He isn't as left as I wish he was.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.


Ahh, so I am to let your eminently answerable questions stand as if I had no answer for them? Talk about limiting freedom of choice...

What's limiting your choice isn't what the two parties are doing, it's your view that there's nothing you can do to a) change how the Democratic or Republican parties do things, or b) form your own party around a platform that would appeal to an untapped coalition of voters.