America1

Russia and China have more global respect around the world now than America does. In fact, a majority of british people think the best thing they can do to avoid terrorism is to distance themselves from America. The BRITS .. who are America's closest ally. Additionally, my comment had nothing to do with ethics. But, I'm coming to recognize your "style" of debate .. which is to avoid issues actually germaine to the conversation. Let me help you out my brother. My comment was in response to the previous post regarding an attack in Iran. .. I commented about Russia and China because they are exactly who America has had to run and appeal to for any resolutions on Iran. Additionally, Russia and China are forming an even stronger alliance and attacking Iran may ultimately mean confronting an allied Russia and China. Given the fact they we have gotten out ass kicked in small virtually unarmed nations .. would a confrontation with a united Russia, China .. and a whole lot of other nations .. including many of them who have the oil ... and that China owns the US debt .. would a confrontation with Russia and China be a wise thing to do? If you could focus on the real adult aspects of this issue, it could make for really good conversation. We killed Saddam and his sons and replaced his gvt with a new one? We took the capital in 2 months. Who got thier *ass kicked in the actual fighting in open war? In short, you're a F'en moron!

I backpacked through Europe for 2 months and I had an American flag on my pack and no one said anything to me about it.

Whenever you think you're man enough, just come on down to the US and try it.

It is too early for me to think about presidential candidates until they get on the campaign trail. I mean Howard Dean seemed to be thoughtful and intelligent when he appeared on the series The Editors. On the campaign trail, people thought he was a little hotheaded. He was a good fund raiser though. I voted for Roosevelt as best U.S. President of the modern era. After that, I'd say Clinton and Reagan followed by Truman and Eisenhower. The rest had such flaws and problems that I don't that you can could call them the best. What did Clinton do that even makes him close to the best?

They were junior high kids. They've seen and done worse. how the hell do you know what they have or haven't done.

Why is it wrong? Because it's the president? Or because it was in front of the kids? Both. It's wrong to use that gesture infront ogf kids and it's wrong to use that gesture towards the President in fron of kids. You should repect the office of President even if you don't respect the man. You have an issue with that?

Giving the finger to the President infront of a bus full of kids is wrong no matter what party the President is from. I would have expected the same if it happened with Clinton.

and all of this was so compelling that Kerry and the Dems gave up the night of the election.

Actually, no. Most things being blamed on Clinton were either not blameworthy or not his fault. In contrast, the things Bush is criticized for are really bad and clearly his fault. Really??? I guess he had absolutely no responsibility for NOT going after Al Qaeda when the Cole and the World Trade Center got bombed, or not crushing the rebels in Somalia after we were attacked on a UN mission?

Are you really that clueless? The only reason NK wants nukes is because it sees the US as military threat. Bush was more than happy to feed the NK paranoia and encourage them to develop nukes as fast as possible. It is absurd for Bush to turn around now and say that he was not a big contributor to the problem. Honestly, how old are you? Do you not remember the 90's. NK used the threat of producing a nuke as a bargaining chip in ordered to be bribed into not using them (AKA He blackmailed Clinton with a "potential" nukes). NK has a completely broken economy and they need aid/assistance to survive. They blackmailed Clinton and his admin into give million and millions in aid and tech in trade they promised not to produce a nuke (which we all know thy did). Bush had nothing to do with that one. NK is playing the same card this time to get more aid.

From your link: The NK official is linking the nuclear program directly to the ham fisted tactics of the Bush adminstration. Are you really that naive??? Did you expect them to say "Of course we have been lying about our nuke program for years and you fools bought our lie about stopping."?

You should be thankful b/c the job (Canada's protection) is being done, regardless of why. Face facts, your military is in shambles and the best defense you have against foreign enemies is you are an alley of the US. Sorry if that stings the pride a bit but ,,, oh well, get over it.

HAHAHAHAHAH - ok buddy, "well known facts" - what a joke! There are NO "facts" about voting irregularities of any substance and to say otherwise is a flat out lie. If the Dems had any real evidence they would have made as brought it to court and WON. Instead, both Gore and Kerry admitted defeat b/c they had no leg to stand on and were beaten out right. It is standard liberal strategy to call voting fraud if the you lose. It happened with Gore, Kerry, even in Mexico with Obrador and they Dems have already started to float the "rumors" out about it now. Also note, that IF the Repubs lose either the house (possible) or the Senate (doubtful), you will not see this pathetic tactic used.

Crap. The US defends North America for its own reasons, not out of generosity. If it really cared about Canada's interests it wouldn't dispute our arctic territorial sovereignty. I never said it was out of generosity. I never said we care about your interests either. We would be doing it for our interest. We want our neighbors to be stable. It's purely in our best interest to have a lightly armed friend north and south of us.

This is such an ignorant statement. Why? Is it in anyway incorrect? Do you deny it? You know perfectly well that Canada has not had to maintain a large military b/c the US would never allow a war against one of it's neighbors without intervening. We need to beef up our military to protect us from the US. Yes you do, our tanks are already on the way up there. Honestly, please explain why.....

About 25,000 but close enough. What does pop % have to do with anything? 3,500 soldiers is not a "large" amount. It is helpful and I am proud to have them working with us. As I said I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the soldiers from Canada. But a large force, 3,500 are not. Yes they do. Is there a point here b/c it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation at hand?

This is such an ignorant statement. Why? Is it in anyway incorrect? Do you deny it? You know perfectly well that Canada has not had to maintain a large military b/c the US would never allow a war against one of it's neighbors without intervening.

Not that I don't respect the service of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan b/c I do, very much. But,,, Canada has what 3,500 (give or take) troops in Afghan. Not exactly a huge number by any means. You have less threats against you b/c no one will mess with you as long you are located next to the US. You are under the protection of the US and you should be thankfull about it.

Not at all. What a pathetic question, you're so transparent it sad.

Favorite for the century, that's kinda hard to pin point but here is a very telling one but, not surprising at all. We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

I have watched Coulter on her own show. Really? Interesting, when did/does it air and on what channel?

Howard Stern? has almost nothing to do with politics. Coulter doesn't have a radio or tv talk show. She is a guest many on many shows but she doesn't have one herself.

how to make money in the radio business for starters. What? Like Standard Broadcasting? Chum? Standard Broadcasting and Chum are both Canadian broadcasting orgs, so I don't see their relevance in a US political forum section in a thread about about Air America failing. I guess I cold have been more specific in my criticism of Liberal AMERICAN radio being a failure. Specifically those that put out Liberal talk radio. BTW, what is the name of a successful Canadian liberal talk radio host/program?

True but they basically were ostracized by country music and it’s fan base, especially hard-core followers from the south. Just look at how the concerts were doing or not doing to be appropriate. They cancelled many dates and had to make them up in traditionally liberal areas (Northeast US, Cali and Canada). So, although they orginate from Texas, they are more associated with the liberal left wing then Texans or country music in general.

how to make money in the radio business for starters.