YankAbroad

Well, the Democrats are dead, they just don't realize it yet. They're going to be either completely remade, or supplanted. Part of the opportunity is coming up in the increasing anger from libertarian Republican supporters who are getting tired of the big spending, big government and social conservatism of the present administration.

Yeah, I'm used to hearing all the excuses from Democrats who campaigned on "voting for the war before they voted against it." If the Republicans are the evil incarnate which the Democrats argue they are, Democrats are arguably worse -- because they're an opposition party which supports the evil people who are running things. I could give umptymillion examples, but suffice to say that as little credibility as the Republicans have with me (and I give them zero credibility), Democratic politicians have even less credibility. They're always providing excuses about how they "just couldn't" do what they wanted to do because of "pressure in swing states" or "Bush wrapping himself in the flag," etc. Democrat politicians will look voters and supporters in the eye, promise to oppose something the Republicans are doing, and then they end up supporting it and throwing out some half-assed excuse about how "we had to do this to avoid an acromonious wedge issue." Well what the heck do we need an opposition party for, then? The state of the country would improve dramatically if the Democrats would just finish up their death throes, liquidate and allow a classical liberal opposition party ala the Libertarians to head up a principled opposition to the Republican big-spenders.

I'm firmly a believer that people shouldn't live in places they find distasteful or disgusting, especially if they have the ability to go somewhere else which is better. This is why I'm perplexed by immigrants to the USA, Europe or other places who ceaselessly complain about what horrible, oppressive, capitalist right-wing immoral hellholes they are compared to back home -- yet curiously remain in these backwards hellholes rather than return home to paradise. Could you explain why this is so in your case? The phenomenon fascinates me.

I know this is a touchy subject, but how exactly would Canada enforce an effort to dominate the Arctic? The Russians and Danes both militarily outmuscle the Canadian army, meaning Canada would require US help regardless. And it's unlikely the US will assist Canada against those countries without some form of concession on this issue.

I'm not sure if I believe that either. After all, virtually every Democrat in Congress voted for the thing.

Actually, things wouldn't be much different today under a Gore administration than they were under a Bush administration. The hilarious thing is that Republicrats and Demopublicans disagree with that simple fact.

How does Canada defend claims over ocean which is further than 12 miles from its shores? That would be like the USA claiming the Atlantic ocean all the way up to Bermuda or something.

Lots of people in rural counties have to travel 50 miles or more to shop at a supermarket! Remember that facilities are constructed based on demand, and there just isn't much demand in rural areas for any medical services. My father regularly drives 50+ miles for his kidney transplant treatments too. Abortion is a specialized procedure with limited demand and limited supply. It makes sense that they would be located in urban areas where demand is significant enough to keep the facility and its professionals employed. I don't see that as a conspiracy to deny women abortions any more than I see my dad's situation as a conspiracy to deny him access to kidney treatments.

I want to see Gilles Duceppe as PM.

I admit it as an American. I cannot believe our secret got out. All of us are racists. We're taught from a young age to absolutely DESPISE the 60% or so of our country which isn't white. They're even taught to hate themselves! Oh yes. Canada is a completely, totally different society with nothing in common with us whatsoever -- a warm and welcoming place where visible minorities dance in the daisies (until they're depressed by the regular lynchings which occur in our major minority-populated cities like New York, Los Angeles and Boston). Racism doesn't exist in Canada -- especially in Toronto. In fact, the word would have disappeared from the Canadian vocabulary entirely due to its obsolescence, if it wasn't for the Americans and Alberta (ah, but I repeat myself). Everyone knows it's dangerous to be American and black. None have been elected to Congress or the Senate. None have ever held high-ranking posts or have even had jobs. Everyone knows it's dangerous to be American and speak Spanish. You never see it on street signs, on the television, or in books. The racism has gotten so bad that Puerto Rico just renamed itself "Richport Island" to avoid being nuked! America is run by white men and has never had a minority president. Contrast this to Canada, with its long and proud tradition of prime ministers who are racial minorities. In fact, I don't believe Canada has had a white prime minister in the last 50 years! Yep, a dangerous and racist hellhole, the United States. It's best avoided -- even crossing the border could get you shot to death by a racist nuclear-weapon-toting sexist Republican right-wing neoconservative redneck driving a Chevy K-Series -- and that's at the Vermont border!

The same offer is outstanding from me should you ever visit London (the original one).

Well TML, next time I'm in Montreal, perhaps you can buy me a real beer!

Ummmm. . . Canada's population is shrinking due to inadequate reproduction and a lack of settled immigrants. The ZPG nonsense makes for good alarmism but has no logical basis. Further, most of the folks who argue that people automatically create environmental havoc and thus shouldn't be produced also tend to be socialists. Are those socialists willing to give up the public pension ponzi schemes, government health care, and other big nanny state programs which require population growth in order to put off the day of reckoning when the pyramid finally collapses? I have my doubts.

You have to understand the nomenclature of religious politics. Here's a primer. "witnessing to lost souls" = abusing the shit out of people I don't like and ceaselessly demanding they stop being who or what they are in order to meet my religious beliefs "oppression" = disagreeing with me "anti-religious" = disagreeing with me "hateful" = disagreeing with me "righteous indignation" = when I do oppressive things to and say hateful things about people I don't like "traditional values" = whatever values from my holy book which match how I live today, especially if I can use them to bash people over the head (i.e. Leviticus on gays) "irrelevant" = whatever values from my holy book which condemn how I live today, especially if they make me look hypocritical (i.e. Leviticus on eating cheeseburgers, getting one's hair cut, lending money out at interest; Jesus's commandments on giving away one's money to the poor and not divorcing, etc.) "truth in love" = hate speech which is motivated by my religion "hate speech" = any words you say which disagree with my condemnation of an entire group of people "just and proper" = laws which force you and your religion to operate along my religious or spiritual beliefs "unprecedented violation of religious freedom" = laws which force me and my religion to operate along your religious or spiritual beliefs "deeply held beliefs" = silly, irrational and bigoted notions which would be laughed out of any normal discussion, except that I can call them religious and then demand you respect them "selfish" = people who were raped by the church and seek economic recompense for their suffering "spiritual leaders" = the church leaders who aided and abetted the systemic rape and are moving to block compensation of rape victims "moral authority" = what I have because I say so "immoral" = what you are because I say so "religious freedom" = legislating my religion and only my religion as the one true way "diversity of religious communities" = a few variants of my Christian belief who agree with me on 90% of what's said "satanic" = Muslims, Quakers, Jews, atheists, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs or any other group whose religious traditions are different from my own "broader faith community" = satanic people who happen to agree with me and my religious corporation on how things should be on a given issue, who I will grudgingly ally myself with until the issue is settled and then will turn around and bash again "let the people decide" = what I will say when Parliament or a court makes a decision based on established law with which I disagree "exercising profound leadership" = what I will say when Parliament or a court makes a lousy decision based on politics with which I agree "moral decline" = what society is going through when they let the people decide and the decision doesn't go my way That's a basic start

People are entitled to their opinions. To label others with an emotionally charged slur just because they don't agree with you is every bit the bigotry to pretend to oppose. Labelling someone, accurately, as homophobic isn't a slur, nor emotionally charged. If it walks, quacks, etc., duck. Because he wasn't in favour of it until the SCC boxed him (and the conservatives) in by noting this little inconvenient thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Incidentally, he'd probably have been an implacable foe of gay marriage had Dubya come out for it!

Only extremists on both sides actually believe there's a serious chance that abortion would be made illegal or difficult to get again. Even politicians in the reddest of red states would find themselves tossed out of office if they made that happen.

I already mentioned Trent Lott and Rush Limbaugh, but you keep moving the goal posts. First you demand "liberals," now you are simply talking about Democrats (who may or may not be liberals). If I change my party registration from Libertarian to Republican, utter a racist tirade, and then switch back to Libertarian registration, does that "prove" that "conservatives are racist?"

I often have fantasies about what would happen if the United States government adopted a Liberal-Party-style policy back towards Canada -- i.e. actively undermining it, insulting its leaders, reneging on commitments to score political points at home, etc. The effects would be rather deleterious on Canada as a whole, which is one reason I hope it never happens. But I just wish that people who advocate those sorts of tactics would stop, think, and imagine them being used back at them -- what the effects would be. And then ask themselves why they're prancing around with their fake moral superiority complex, when if they were the targets of their own behaviour, they'd be screaming bloody murder!

Nagin? Sure, I agree with that. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain how that isn't race baiting because Davis wasn't racist, he was just fighting a "strong central government." Regardless, it's patently dishonest to claim that only one "side" of the old parties is happy to leverage race. I'm sure in 10 to 20 years, Republicans and Democrats will be arguing over who is more homophobic too. . . right now, the GOPers have taken that award clearly. That said, the Dems have some impressive nominees of their own in that category.

The reality is that people who are "opposed to gay marriage" for whatever reason are motivated more or less by homophobia. There's no other rational explanation. I believe they've got a right to be homophobic if they want -- I despise "hate speech" laws -- but they don't have a right to institutionalise their homophobia in the form of laws which violate the rights of others.

Whereas Parrish was a former senior ranking member of the governing party. . . which is far worse than being a niche cable broadcaster in the USA. Imagine if Donald Rumsfeld had stomped on a Paul Martin doll and stabbed it in the face on a CTV broadcast, and Americans had responded by saying "Donald Rumsfeld isn't a broadcast journalist." Good Lord, what happened to civility?

That's true, too. I tried explaining this to people outside the USA who don't like Bush. I don't like Bush either. But all the screaming and hatred towards Americans who vote for him doesn't do them a whit of good. Why? If the prevailing assumption is that Canada or the EU is going to criticise the USA and slam its citizens and leadership no matter what the USA does, then why shouldn't the USA just do what it wants to do and ignore the EU and Canada alike? There's been no detriment to it so far. What's Canada going to do to the Americans anyway? Sell its oil to China instead? Does Canada really think it's in a position to threaten the United States? Good Lord, I wish people would grow brains on these issues. If you want to influence American policy and American voters, do it by making the success of Canada important, personally and economically, to Americans -- with things like a real free trade zone, removing restrictions on professional services, eliminating restrictions on work and residency, etc., etc., etc. Otherwise, all you're doing is chopping off your nose to spite your face.

You're not listening to me, Drea. I KNOW the tariffs were imposed on soft lumber by the USA. Canada imposes tariffs on Americans and American businesses as well. My point is -- either you support the "right" of the two countries to put tariffs on to "protect" industries, or you don't. I don't support tariffs on soft lumber (USA) OR professional services (Canada). I think both are stupid. However, Canada cannot cry foul on the abrogation of free trade principles for soft lumber, but then exercise lots of tariffs and also non-tariff barriers to protect Canada's domestic professional services market from American competition. Free trade is free trade. Ever lived or done business in China? I have. The "burgeoning middle class" is about 100 million urbanites in the east of the country, most of whom are members of the Communist Party and support the leadership. There's no democracy there, and the vast majority of the country is poor AND getting poorer. That's one reason why, if China's growth drops below 7%, Beijing's a cooked goose. Selling China lots of oil is fine. . . but the Red Army (not democratically controlled) is diverting many of those profitable dollars from industry (and oil) into their armed forces. I know it's fashionable to point out that the US has a large armed force as well, but the US isn't exactly planning to annex its neighbours, nor is it a dictatorship which requires lots of military muscle to maintain control. If you want to support that sort of thing, more power to you, but don't complain when Washington says it doesn't like it. I'm not "afraid" of Chinese enterprises investing in the USA -- as long as it's private money. However, China's "investments" overseas are typically government enterprises which use public funds to make their investments -- not very competitively sound. Would you allow the American government to buy TD, Air Canada, CN, or Bombardier? Probably not, and the USA is an erstwhile ally who never talks about attacking Canada. Why should the USA allow the Chinese government to buy large and strategically important companies, especially when the Chinese have expressed a desire to go up against the USA and has talked, publicly, about nuking our west coast? The USA will be on an alternative energy source long before that day comes. The investments in alternative energy being made right now in Silicon Valley and other technology corridors are orders of magnitude larger than the equivalent investments in computer technology which created the e-business economy we presently live in. Within 20 to 30 years, hydrogen will be a mainstay fuel alongside petroleum, and the relevance of oil will be significantly lower than it is today. Of course, it would be in Canada's best interest to ensure the people who protect it from foreign enemies, provide it with over 40% of its economic activity, and buy lots of its stuff have regular access to energy supplies as well. Which is, sadly, why Canada is destined to middling status in the G7 for eternity. As long as it wastes all of its energy on fake English-Canadian nationalism preaching about how much it hates those damn Yanks who keep them all employed, and pretends that major geopolitical conflicts aren't happening, or that its eggs aren't mostly in the North American basket (as opposed to the Chinese or European one), it will continue to see its influence diminish. Oh sure, people will pat Ottawa's diplomats on the head in Brussels and Beijing when they say "the right things about the Americans," but that's not going to make Canadians any money (as is evidenced by Canada's stagnant wage growth over the past ten years). As an American citizen, I have little time for tiresome geopolitical nationalism, especially of the "we fear you and your leader sucks" variety. I cannot think of a G7 leader who isn't an odious twat -- Canada's PM included -- nor can I think of a G7 country which hasn't practised the hypocrisy in foreign, domestic and trade policy which everyone insists is America's exclusive purview. I cannot say I get too excited these days by it. I've come to expect it, and if Canada doesn't want my money, talent, investment or jobs, I'll go where they are wanted. So far, I've not had any trouble, and it gives me the ability to not have to listen to people screaming about the wicked horrible Yank all the time, who is personally responsible for George W. Bush's decision-making.

Of course, Nagin has been a Republican for virtually all of his political career, right up to the party switch he made in order to become New Orleans mayor. Which demonstrates less that it's a "party" thing and more that it's a "political" thing pushed by both sides. Neither party avoids racism, sexism, homophobia or xenophobia if it believes it will help it win votes. And more to the point of the thread topic, Nagin could hardly be considered a "liberal."

My religion will marry me to another man tomorrow morning if I can demonstrate a bona fide commitment to a lifelong partnership with the man in question. Why are you attempting to impose your religion's view of marriage on my church?