America1

As editors of what? Try to back up your statements for once. Wow, more ad hominems. You're terrible, just terrible at this. Well, as much as I hate to disparage the few, the proud and the incredibly wealthy who sat at home while other did the fighting, I'm just gonna go ahead and do it anyway. And yeah, if one uses is family influence to avoid combat service (as Bush did when he vaulted over 500 better qualified candidates) you're a draft dodger. I know how much it pains you to hear such things about your Dear Leader, but there it is. Oops my mistake. So she was in full possession of her faculties when she ran her ex-boyfriend down. My bad. As for the rest, I'm starting to believe you are illeterate, given I have not spoken in defense of Kennedy at all. Furthermore, I challenge to present a single example of me defending Castro or Hussein. In fact, I dare you. The Constitution doesn't mention a lot of things (methinks abortion wasn't a common concern in 17-freaking-76). But then the Constitution was simply a list of what the federal government could and could not do. The right to privacy is considered a basic right, and as such is protected by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, which makes clear that the listing of individual rights is not intended to be comprehensive, and that "the people" have other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Despite being a well known and controversial case, Roe v Wade is considered (by many liberals as well as conservative) as weak legal reasoning. I'm not talking about the issue but rather the legal president it came too. The right of abortion aside, Roe v wade isn't a "sound" legal decision.

It's "Alito". And, as a party, you know you can't get any lower when you look down and see Republicans looking up. It's "Chappaquiddick", and I never said Kenedy was a saint. But if the Republicans are going to contantly dredge up an incident from almost 40 years ago, it seems fair to be able to bring up past Republican misdeeds such as George W. Bush's own drinking and driving (Laura's too, for that matter) and draft dodging. Or Cheney's drunk driving and draft dodging. Or Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (they were "concerned" with women and blacks getting into the school) and draft dodging (anyone seeing a pattern?). But why bother dredging up old sins when there's Jack Abramoff, warrantless spying, legalized torture, the ongoing boondoggle that is Iraq and so many other fresh bones to knaw on. When do repubs bring up 40 yrs ago? Kerry? he was the one who brought up his past. We just remembered it. I guess you forgot to mention Dems are also on Abrmoff's pay list.BTW, you forgot to mention that Mrs. Clinton just was fined for not reporting $ money raised illegally. GWB never draft dodged, he was in the National Guard. By no means is that draft dodging. GWB, Laura or Cheney never killed a passenger. But I guess that's just a pesky little fact that you don't want to admit. “warrantless spying"? Not exactly, it's not illegal or unjustified. "Torture"? - Nah, more like humiliation but regardless, I think we should have just put a bullet in their heads on the battle field and forget about the trial.

who's security?

Pfft. When it comes to integrity, the Republican mafia doesn't have a leg to stand on (coughAbramoffcough). Yeah, you're right, Teddy (Chapaqitic) Kennedy is a saint. I mean aside from getting kicked out of Havard for cheating, he left his date to drown in a river (Chapaqitic) after his car went off the road b/c he was drinking and driving.

Well, you're just plan wrong. Despite the Republican notion that the President has absolute power to do pretty much anything he wants in "wartime" (including spying on Americans, holding U.S. citizens without trial or charge indefinitely, torturing captives etc), and the contortions they go through to "prove" that the president is the law, such is not the case. I don't think there has ever been an adminstration as corrupt and as authoritarian in its leanings as the current one. No administration in history (save perhaps one) has embraced unlimited, unchecked Excutive power the way this gang has. That's what makes them scary. Seems like an appopriate appelation for a country run by a millionaire son of a milionaire who's inner circle consists entirely of millionaires. You should try advancing a real argument sometime. FRD and Lincoln both went much further in suspending civial rights. But since your so smart you probably already knew that but, just forgot to mention it. "Despite the Republican notion that the President has absolute power" - BS statement, not worth breaking down. Is Canada any less run by the mega rich? Martin from what i remember was a very wealth man before he took office. I'd say, a vast majority of the world leaders were very well off before they took office.

It may not be disappearing but it seems to be changing into an aristocracy where the people in power are rich, have no ethics or morals and ignore the law. An equivalent situation to that which provoked the American revolution. You should use "oligarchy" for a country run by the rich. The "no ethics or morals and ignore the law" is crap. No, the American revolution had nothing to do with a do with what you just layed out.

"the promise of America disappearing" is nothing but liberal hype that is not based in fact. The Bush admin is well within it's rights to do what they have done during a time of war. As a matter of fact, previous admins have gone much further in regards to treading on civial rights but you won't hear that b/c it won't help the dems get into office.

So in your view, patriotism is about agreeing with everything the current administration says or does? There is a difference between "agreeing with everything " and bring up FALSE claims about 'attacks on rights' in the US.

You know America1, I had a cousin like you that lives in the U.S. Very conservative, pro-Bush, pro-Iraq, basically would agree with everything you have said here on this forum. He was in the U.S. Navy, received numerous medals including the Purple Heart, and served in the Korean War. On Canada? Basically he said the same things you have been saying...socialist state, anti-American, horrible and useless. It didn't mind that some of his cousins lived here... A while back, I asked him to come here and stay with me. Naturally, he resisted at first, saying he wouldn't spend his money here, etc. I finally convinced him, saying that he'd be staying with me, etc. WELL, he came...not just to Canada, but to Quebec...French Canada. And, I might add, had a wonderful time. He concluded by saying that although there were differences in the nations, he thought that Canada was a wonderful place overall. He was surpirsed at how the people didn't yell at him or spit at him because he was American and was very impressed with the trip overall. He said he had a greater appreciation for Canadians and a new respect for the struggles that both of our citizens go through. My point here? Don't come on to this forum instigating Canadians. You might be surpised with how you'd be treated if you came here. Naturally, I assume your views of Canada are based on typecasts that you have seen in the U.S. media, etc. But I can assure you, the only reason that some people on this board might have gotten angry at you is because you have become come here to start something. I hope you will accept this as constructive criticism...it was intended as nothing else but to inform you that Canada may yet surprise you with our goodwill toward all... Sounds like you cousin is a good dude . I understand that I probably come off as aggressive but you must admit. This forum (for the most part) has a very critical edge when speaking about the America, Americans and especially the Bush admin and conservative. And since I am a conservative American, I get annoyed with the constant trashing. Every time I have come across Canadians in person, they seem to be generally good people. Perhaps that's why I get so annoyed with the way you put us down. It would be like a good friend talking who talks about you badly behind your back.

Arrogant Sob HUh! first off with the list of countries you mentioned,it sounds like you had a great ski vacation, secondly, don't pull the more patriotic than you crap with me! You sound like a trust funder who is afraid his bubble will burst. Do not even begin to compare you travels with me as a reference,because you will get a rude awakening, I will start with the Saigon River in 1968. My apology to the people of this site,however as an american, I'm a bit tired of this mentality representing me,and could not let this go... -Yeah, arrogant. That's how you came off. You were trying to belittle my experiences, as if you would have any idea where I’ve been or what I’ve done. -My travel(s) has nothing to do with "ski vacations". Again, you have no idea who I am, so why assume? -I'm not afraid of a "bubble bursting" and I'm not a "trust fund kid". -I'm not trying to represent you; I don't know you from a whole in the wall. We live in a big country with lots of different people; I think others get that as well. You are inferring that you served in Nam, if so, I respect your service but,,, what does that have to do with you starting this thread off with bull sh*t about losing licenses and being put on no fly lists, and crap about “threatening the planet”. Doesn’t sound too patriotic to me.

Still embarrassing yourself I see, you don't know anything and its obvious to pretty much everyone. The BLS doesn't keep those statistics, you see as long as people as slow witted as you can read whatever statistic they feel like releasing and taking it to mean the same thing as statistics released in other countries then people like you can be kept on the treadmill with the tiniest piece of cheese, congrats. I have spent a great deal of time in China as well, and I find it hard to believe that anyone who has been there wants to compare themselves to China. Not that its at all reasonable to compare an area that's been settled for 5000 years to an area that's essentially been settled for 300. And Brazil is for all intents and purposes a 3rd world country, congrats the US has been income equity then a 3rd world country. I don't believe you. Nobody could have traveled extensively in Europe and suggest that its a nightmare state. In some of Europe the tax rates are moderately higher, in others its lower. Besides which tax rate are you talking about exactly? Income Tax, Corporate Tax, Vat's, Sales Taxes, Production Taxes, Property Taxes? I doubt anyone here earns minimum wage, not that you would even understand the point. You see wage disparity ratios are a very good sign of significant social and economic issues. All of the most productive societies in the history of the planet had relatively low disparity ratios, Germany in the 30's, Russia in the 20's, the US in the 60's, Japan in the 70's and 80's. A high disparity has almost uniformly been followed problematic periods for nations, like the US in the 1890's and 1920's, Argentina in the 70's, Russia in the 70's, and I suppose now in the UK and US will be added to that list soon enough. Ya I am sure, because its not like "guaranteed pension funds" are disappearing left right and center to be bailed out by the US government at 50 cents on the dollar and I am sure that all those seniors working in walmart and kmart - although I am sure not for long considering their health issues just love to be out there working at 70. While I have no problem with Canada bashing (freedom of speech and all), are you seriously trying to tell me that there aren't a significant minority on this board who bash Canada every chance they get? Leafless? Montgomery? I'm still waiting for your stats that back up your nonsense.

Can you show me these "real unemployment rate" figures? I'd also like to see you economic stats that in anyway show that the US has larger economic stratification between rich and poor. I'd like to see your figures b/c I know they are BS. Oh, yeah, I've spent time in China and Brazil and I can tell you 1st hand that both have much larger disparities between the rich and poor than the US does. Basically what I'm saying is you are full of SH*T on everything you said!

I'm thinking that you may not have traveled much internationally. You refer to Europe as a socialist nightmare. Do you have knowledge of the systems and tax rates in European countries? When all is considered, taxes might be somewhat higher in Europe ,but aside from medical and pension, the system is built on building a better mousetrap than the other guy. Do you know that the minimum wage in Ireland,Denmark,Netherlands Etc is in excess of $10 per hr with medical civerage? There are no 70 yr old women working in the Waffle House at 0200 to make their rent! The so called freedom our kid s enjoy is a minimum wage of $5.15 per hr. which is in essence creating a smorgasborg, or buffet for international business to feast on. The U.S. has the cheapest wages in the western industrialized world, and our leaders intend to keep it that way. So before you start to berate those outside the U.S. you might take a trip or two..... You arrogant SOB. I've been all over Europe (GB, Netherlands, German, France, Italy, Check rep, Austria, Switzerland, Luxemburg). You don't know Sh*t about me. So don't assume. Slightly higher? The taxes are MUCH higher, on top of that, the EU unemployment is nearly double than the US, almost tipple in some countries when broken out. Why would you brag about their min wage? It's pathetic; it's like bragging about being the dumbest in the class. Min wage is for the most unskilled workers to have a bare min. Not exactly something you should be banking your family’s income on. Hell, get a second job if you don’t like, nobody said live was easy. BTW, in your example our '70 yr old women' wouldn't need to work b/c she would have Social Security and Medicare, among many other social services provided by the US. Not to mention whatever retirement plan she had built up throughout her life.

What you should be more afraid of is your country turning into a socialist nightmare like Europe.

Did I say ban? I said concern, or perhaps you don't give a s---. A good portion of these deaths were kids, not people who chose to drive, some drunk. And I said innocent. One death by careless use of a firearm is too many in my view. Much of this debate has been against the US right to own a gun. My apologizes. I'm sure there are plenty of innocent people killed in car accidents each day; many of them didn't choose anything, especially the children. And don't the kids who play with the gun "chose" too do so? My point was,,, saying that 802 people died b/c of guns is of course is heartbreaking (as is any innocent death is). But it does not; in anyway, make it wrong for people own guns.

802 out of almost 300 million people. Out of the 802, how many of those were unregistared and illegal guns? There were 1,614 deaths in car accindents in Pennsylvania alone in 2001 (42,815 in US). Should we ban cars? They are far more deadly than guns per years.

If our society collapsed into some Mad Max like distopia I would likely need and carry a gun at all times. However, in the society that we have today, I don't feel the benefits of gun ownership are large enough to justify the risks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1st things 1st, not everyone who owns a gun carries around all the time and even if they did, what risk(s) are their in carrying a gun? If you are trained and responsible with it, you'll be in no danger at all. The gun isn't going to shoot without someone pulling the trigger.

And a bible too just to make it complete. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right I got ya,,, you’ll need to give the bible to the sorry SOB to read, as he dies from the gunshot wound.

I just have my priorities in the right place: the safety of my family is more important than my stuff (that is why I pay for insurance). Any idiot can pick up a gun an point it someone and doing so is no sign of bravery. Confronting a burgler is dangerous even if you have a gun and are experienced with its use. It is irresponsible for me to risk my life in order to protect my stuff. If feel bad for your family if you believe that dying 'protecting your stuff' is better than doing what you need to stay alive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We'll, I hope you never need to be in a situation that calls for it but if you are, I'll bet a dollar against a dime that you would want the gun.

You are in denial. All examples demonstrate how American culture is obsessed with guns (I never said Americas are obsessed with violance). 1) Leave by the nearest exit.2) If 1) not possible, barricade ourselves in a room and call 911. 99% of thieves will just take want they want and leave. A gun is not necessary. In fact, having a gun makes it much more likely someone in your family will die. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> -NRA = org that was created to ensure people keep the right to have gun ownership b/c people like yourself feel you shouldn't have them. That and they promote gun regulations, safety, etc. -Gun show = a mass market for a legal product (usually in area that do not have stores that cater to their product). Simple capitalism, like a comic book convention for hunters mainly. -Concealed weapons permits = gun regulations (we are crazy oooohhhhh) -Stand Your Ground" laws = a law that say's if someone attacks me I don't have to run away, I can defend myself without having to worry if I will be arrested/ sued. Common sense if you ask me. None of these are fanatical in anyway. You would hide in your house or run away... and that's your way of defending yourself and your home? By letting some scum bag steal your property that you worked hard for. Cops are RE-active, they come after the crime is finished. I prefer to be PRO-active and prevent the crime from happening. I find your solution to a breaking in, nothing short of you being a coward. I feel bad for your family if you would protect them in such a manner. Perhaps we are much more different than I thought.

The NRA, gun shows, consealed weapon permits, "Stand Your Ground" laws. Do you ever ask yourself what is wrong with your society that would require such protection in the first place? People in other weathy industrialized countries feel perfectly safe without guns in their homes for 'protection'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "The NRA, gun shows, consealed weapon permits, "Stand Your Ground" laws." - Not one of these show an obsession for guns or violence. How would you protect yourself if someone broke into your house while you and your family where there?

Well you could watch "Bowling for Columbine" or http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/gun_control/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/725614.stm http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles_plby.html There isnt a Canadian equivalent to this or the following "Enough American civilians have died by firearms injuries in the last 40 years to equal at least 20 Vietnams. By midnight today in the US, about 85 Americans will die of gunshot wounds--and at least one of them will be a child under the age of 15. Yet except for occasional workplace mass killings, or school murders like Columbine, these deaths go ignored. " (Source http://thetyee.ca/Views/2004/01/07/Living_...a_Gun_Culture/) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> HAHAHAHA - you want me to watch Bowling for Columbine as a "real" insight into the US gun laws/culture. HOLY SHIT you, you maybe the most naive person on this board if you really believe this crap. BTW every article you posted was 1.) A fluff, opinion piece lump of crap with a incredibly bias slate and 2.) A weak source for news. Playboy being 1 of your sources. Try again kid. Those dogs won't hunt.

There's also an obsession with violence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please give examples of our "obsession" with guns/violence that is not found in Canada. Protecting oneself and ones family is a right in every country, guns allow you to protect yourself against violent attacks.

Owning them is one aspect. The point I'm trying to make is that that the media continually shows that using them is acceptable. It seems to demonstrate the paranoia of American society and that violence is the preferred solution to any perceived threats or disputes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your arrogance is only out done by your ignorance.

There are always exceptions to every generalization. Many Americans share the view Canadian/European/Japanese view that their is no reason to have a gun and gun ownership is a not a right. Only the Americans have turned gun ownership into a cultural symbol.What is unfortunate about this debate is most people do not/cannot distiguish between rifles and simlar long guns that have legimate hunting uses and handguns/automatic weapons that are designed only for killing people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dude, stop, you have no idea what your talking about.