America1

The American media that we see in Canada seems to be fascinated with gun violence. Whether it's TV shows, movies or video games, America seems to worship guns and gun culture. The's obviously going to be a spill over cos we simply can't stop this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What are you trying to say? Does anyone speak flashman? American's aren't fascinated with guns, many of us just feel we have every right to own them b/c it is a given right in our constitution. Why would you NOT want a gun to protect your family? I think it's very foolish not to own at least 1 gun. Newsflash, the criminals are going to have weapons, they don't care if they are illegal or not. So,,,,, I'm going to sure-as-hell have one. Granted, I do feel there should be regulations (which there are and I would even go further on some makes of guns.) but to say they should all be banned is down right foolish. BTW, the recent shootings in Canada are not by licensed gun owners, they are by gang-bangers who could give a shit less what the gun rules are.

so, you think it was made up and that they never said anything of the sort?

I just wanted to know if Canadians ever take responsability for themselves? Your PM and mayor of Toronto blame the US for a gang related shooting. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/...e.ap/index.html Canada blames U.S. for gun violence

LOL You sure got that right! WE have a SURPLUS! YOU have a DEFICIT! Neener neener neener! btw surplus means extra money in da bank -- deficit means no money in da bank. Now, how many TRILLIONS of dollars is your country in debt? I'm at work now but will find a link and post it for you when I have more time. LOL <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, see what I 'm talking about when I say Canadians come off very arrogant at times. 2004 GDP United States $10,980,000,000,000 Canada $957,700,000,000 Are we done talking about economic strength yet?

Do Canadians actually feel that Quebec will separate one day in the near future? How does non-Quebec Canadians (for lack of a better term) feel about them wanting to be separate? If they did try to break away, would the Canadian military get involved? I apologize if this seems elementary but, it’s hard to get an honest opinion from people\media outlets sometimes.

The British election was won on one simple issue: the British economy. It is strong, vibrant, and growing fast. Do you really think Tony Blair campaigned on the war? The UK Conservatives voted for it and the Lib Dems are a fringe party. Are you suggesting an "anti-war" party with no past in the UK elections should have been formed? They would have been marginialized by the Labour and Conservative interest backers. Tony Blair was challenged by the father of a soldier who died in the war and Blair won handily. Really America1, if your only reason to come here was to trash Canada, I suggest you go to the Ann Coulter Forum. Please do stay if you wish to have an even-handed debate though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Trash Canada? More like, not let you kick around the US to make yourselves feel better. For no reason that I can see, many Canadians feel they are one-up-on us dumb meathead hicks from the US. Point in case; listen to how pompous Yaro is coming off. Yaro, yes, I've had enough economic schooling through my years to understand Canada is not on par economically as the US. Again, if it hurts your feelings, I feel bad but it's still true.

I am !!!. !!! is no more. Apologies for the confusion. Um... this may come as a bit of surprise, but the war was not the sole issue of the campaign. Few elections are decided on a single issue. Further complicating things was the fact that the other major party in the UK is also pro-war, leaving anti-war people with little to choose from. However, despite those factors, Blair still lost nearly 50 seats and his share of the vote dropped five per cent, while the pro war Conservatives picked up only a single seat and the anti-war Leb dems picked up 6 seats and a four per cent increase in their share of the vote. So while Blair was reelected, its clear he was punished for his Iraq stance. Seems to me your understanding of the situation is completely superficial. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wait a second, so you agree, both the major parties in England are pro-war and you still don't think the people are behind it? Sounds kinda fishy to me. If there was truely "overwhelming opposition" don't you think that a major party would be willing to run on that issue to galvinize their supporters and get the WIN. Or, perhaps the anti-war crowd isn't as HUGE a % as you think. And yes, the war was a MAJOR issue in the elections and,,,,, the voters proved who they side with.

When I was talking about the bully mentality I was refering to the kind of threats people like you, pundits like Coulter and political figures like Wilkins who keep warning of the consequenses we'll face if we don't stop hurting your collective feelings. This from the country that turned "freedom fries" into a national obsession, proving that, like most bullies, the U.S. can dish it ot, but it can't take it. This is funny beause it shows how little you really know. The people of England were overwhelmingly against the Iraq war. In fact, the only country where there was not overwhelming opposition to the war was the U.S. itself, and even then, the population was sharply divided. So while the UK government may be Best Pals with the Bush regime, don't think for a second that it is a popular position. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I never said you did, if you look, I quoted !!!. Please pay attention to the thread you’re posting in. What's really funny is that Blair was the PM that sent the British into the war with the US and he is also the PM that just got re-elected despite the “overwhelming opposition” to the war . Seems to me that voters PROVED who they "like" and what they think. I guess the anti-American media and crowds in England aren't that many after all. Oh yeah, same can be said about Australia.

See, a lot of people still point to the internment of Americans of Japanese descent as a blemish on the record of the nation and F.D.R.'s presidency. I guess it all depends on who you talk to. But the thing here is that the president breaking the law is a big deal. It's an even bigger deal when this same president has authorized torture, illegal confinement and started an uneccesary war that is still getting a lot of people killed. And those failures are just on the foreign policy front. It's hard to see how Bush will be remembered as anything but a dud, if not an outright embarrasment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I could argue each point you put up but, at the end of the day, it's just your opinion and I disagree.

That's your intrepretation, not mine. I don't think we need to constantly remind ourselves that we love our country, unlike some of your citizens who fly flags on lawns or wear flags on lapels. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Constant reminder is a bit over-the-top but, not to have pride in your area shows some internal issues. If you're not proud of it, get off your ass and make it something to be proud of.

You'd have more of a case if that hostility wasn't shared by pretty much every world leader who's name isn't Blair. Maybe the bully mentality you've displayed in this thread and Bush has shown the world has something to do with it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Bully mentality" - this must be a joke. I'm sorry if it hurts your feeling that I'm (and the Bush admin) are AWARE that our country is the world military and economic power of our time. You act as if we should be ashamed of the fact? You act like we did something wrong by being a powerful country. Don't all countries aspire to be in our current position? I don't think we should have to apologize at all. I think many Americans work their asses off to get what they have, no LUCK involved. BTW, I think most Americans realize not too many Europeans and Canadians "like" us at the moment, and although I’d rather they did, I’m sure we’ll do just fine either way. At the same time, that's why we consider the English our closest allies. Come hell-or-high-water (and defiantly popular opinion) they hang with us.

Indeed. I'd like to see this become a bigger issue in this country (and what better time than during an election campaign?). At least the U.S. has laws about this sort of thing (even if they are being broken). Canada is clearly in no position to take any moral highground on this issue. Canada also allows spying on citizens Funny you should mention old Ronnie Reagan. This was the guy who's rhetoric more or less defined small-government (read: Republican)conservativism in the late 20th Century. Today, though, the party of the late St. Gipper can't get enough government. As for Bush's legacy, this op-ed writer says it all: "I have no doubt that one day the Bush administration's curtailment of civil liberties, especially the torture of prisoners, will be looked back on as a national shame." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess will have to wait and see. Funny though, when you think of FRD, you only think of the great he did for us and you don't ever get much "how could he lock up the Japanese in camps during WWII" - So Bush's "legal wire taps" aren't really to much to worry about in terms of civil liberties being breached by Presidents.

I guess your not as informed as you thought. Well, I never claimed to know everything. Oh THEM. But "war" traditionally is a word that described a state of conflict between nations. I wasn't aware that AlQaeda was now recognized as a nation. Does this mean that the USA does not consider itself to be *ahem* "at war" with any other terrorist organizations??? I stand corrected. You're right. His exact words were, as you stated "major combat operations" were over. But the funny thing is (you may have to correct me again, but I believe this is the case) more US troops have been killed since these "major combat operations" ended, than were killed when the "war" was still officially on. Strange, that. In any case, good post, and thanks for the correction. BTW, I sent you a PM. Did you get it??? (Edited to say: Apologies to BHS. When I was writing this post, I had not yet got to yours wherein you defined "war" in a similar way) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree the AlQeada "War on terror" is unconventional, but since they have attackedand killed a great # of us in 1 shot, it must be considered a "war". Yes, more have died since but, the US military isn't good at policing, we are much better at open combat. This seems to have been the case for a while now. nobody's perfect Not yet, I may have deleted it as spam if I didn't notice the sender address.

You are undoubtedly head of the Bush optimist club if your feeling of being in "good shape" is based upon a one month uptick. His approval rating has gone from 88% after 9/11 to 50% in Nov 2004 to 34% in Nov 2005. Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do feel Bush will go down as a great president b/c I firmly believe we will succeed and he will have been a rock when everyone else wavered (Regan was hated by many during his presidency but he held strong and was proven right in the end on many of his issue, know he is a held in great regard) Well, almost no president ever gets to 88%, I think we both can say that's an un-maintainable %. The 34% is also his lowest and only stayed that way for about a month, which he has already rebounded to a "normal" range, most Pres range in the 40 - 65%. This however, does happen to 2nd term Presidents more often then the 88%. Clinton (the darling of the Anti-Bush crowd) found himself in the 30% range in his second term also.

I didn't say he did pocket. But most Americans I'd be willing to bet feel this way. It's in their advertising, on their TV shows, and the politician says this all the time. Of course "best" is subjective.That was part of my point. Hence the word crap. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Com'on, obviuosly we have a strong sense of nationalismm in the US. I don't doubt that but, you are infering that Candians don't. Have you ever read the Globe and Mail? They constantly come of like Canadians think they are "more sophisticated" then the US all the time? They seem to think we just got "lucky" to be where we are today. Like we are some dumb hicks that stumbled into being a powerful economy and military.

Actually, NEWBIE, America1 did NOT say anything about being "the best" country. I give him great credit for this, because "best" is a highly subjective term, and is a matter of personal opinion and nothing more. But he DID say the USA is a "much more powerful country in every possible way", which is a simple statement of fact with which I have to agree. (Although, when it comes to the "pissing contest", if the rules have anything to do with being able to write your name in the snow, you'd have a hard time beating Canada ) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly, it would be like Canadians say you can beat the US in hockey. I couldn't argue b/c it's easily provable (put them on ice and you win 8 out of 10 times). Note: I know canadians do other things well besides play hockey, it's just an example. I'm not saying Canada is weak and a terrible country, it's just not in the same class in terms of "power" as the US at the momment. Not bragging, just the honest truth.

You seem to feel that Canadians started this "anti-Americanism" and that it is fairly recent. Canada and the U.S. have had tense moments for years. I would not blame either country for starting the "fight" because there are loudmouthed idiots on both sides of the border. The people I respect is those who have graduated from this preschool-like fighting and name calling. Kids insult...adults should talk rationally. With this much on the line, people on both sides of the border need to start maturing fast. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think the Americans started the "anti-americaism" in Canada. You must admit that your last 2 PMs and their gvts have been much more hostile to the Bush admin then Bush admin has been to them.

Why don't you start small, like trying to get a navy that isn't falling apart. hahahahahaha- you are on drugs! Your economy can't even be compared with ours. Get a clue!

Why? If this had come out before the elections last year, it could have hurt Bush's campaign. I can't think of any otehr reason why they would hold off on such a story than to help Bush (just like they helped spread Bush's WMD propaganda durin the run up to the Iraq war). So lt me get this straight: you dismiss the notion that the Times conspired to hold the story when it could have really hurt Bush, but contend they conspired to publish it now (when Bush is already floundering in the polls)? How does that make any sense? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here is further proof that the wire taps weren't illegal or unprecedented. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

You are at war??? Who with??? Bush said quite some time ago that the war in Iraq was over. Is there another one I don't know of??? If so, who is the enemy??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess your not as informed as you thought. Did you ever here of Al Qaeda? I don't think we ever stopped that one. Bush did not say the was in Iraq was over, he said "major combat operations" were over. Now this is parsing words but, that's what politics is all about.

Yes I'm aware, I'm also aware that we are a much more powerful country in every possible way. You may not lik to hear it but Canada is getting involved in a pissing contest it can NOT win. I feel bad if your ego is hurt by that comment but, it's true.

-the wire tapes are not illegal. - Note: that the author of the article is putting out a book on this subject very soon. Coincidence??? -If you think the NY Times was/is protecting the President you are out of your mind. - On a conspiracy angle,,, the NY Times put this out the day after the Iraqi elections to possible squash any positive press that Bush might get from it (which he clearly has). -

Yep. It looks like he got a bounce (no doubt in part due to the Iraqi elections). I wonder, though, how long happy images of finger-paint adorned Iraqis will hold up in light of these spy revalations. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1.) The spy revelations are only with those who were receiving calls from known Al Qaeda members, in which, I agree that they should have been looked into. Don’t forget we are at WAR. The Bush admin would have been remiss if they did not look into these calls and another attack happened. 2.) Or you could look at it that, we have hit all of our major "bench marks" and this is just one more, reinforcing that G.W does in fact have a plan and that it is working (perhaps not as well as we would like at times but, name 1 war that did go 100% as planned).

What polls are you reading? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> since you probably wouldn't trust US media reports... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4544444.stm 'Sharp rise' in Bush popularity US President George W Bush's popularity appears to have received a significant boost from last week's Iraq elections.

Did you think that we would just sit back and let you bash us at will? You can thank Paul Martin for things to come. I hope you all have your passports?