YankAbroad

Mrs. Bush undoubtedly sits in a political office, and often represents the USA abroad and at home. It's a different sort of office, to be certain, but one nonetheless. It's time to drop the hypocrisy on these issues and focus on the debate. Kennedy (and Mrs. Bush) are not up for a SCOTUS nomination -- Alito is.

Oh sure, but that's assuming that sexual partners are the only way to make babies. Lesbians with turkey basters have done wonders.

If they don't like a Catholic school, which they voluntarily enrolled within, they should leave and start their own school -- not demand the Catholics hand theirs over.

Je comprends l'histoire du Québec. Ce que je souhaite évaluer est votre arrangement. Je suppose que vous parlez français, non? C'est necessaire "to give a history lesson" en regard de Québec.

A friend of mine who works with folks who work for the US Trade Representative tells me that the government in Washington is considering retaliating for the soft lumber lawsuits with a similarly NAFTA-based broad attack on Canadian media laws, which ban watching foreign satellites, heavily tax recorded media, subsidize Canadian artists, and tax/restrict American media being viewed, played or accessed in Canada. They are fairly confident the action will be successful since the clause which precludes culture from NAFTA also precluded natural resources like soft lumber. The Liberal government's action to get that clause struck down now opens up the entire Canadian media/culture regulation sphere to a NAFTA-based action. Pretty clever. My question is -- would Canadians rather see soft lumber not taxed and also see their government's anti-competitive media policies revoked? Or is there a special right for Canadians to sell lumber without taxes in the USA, but not have Americans sell media without taxes and restrictions in Canada?

Nobody forces Canadians to watch American television, buy American music, watch American movies, etc. Even efforts to restrict free trade in culture and jail people for watching US satellite broadcasts have not dulled Canadian appetites for US culture. So something tells me that it's not a "bombarding," but an embracing.

The boys running your country now came up with an ad slamming Canadian soldiers and bizarrely arguing that Harper plans to impose martial law on the whole country. As for Islamic fundamentalism, wasn't it the Liberal Party which was responsible for having sharia law recognized for family law purposes in Ontario -- until it was uncovered and there was a public outcry? What's the difference between sharia being made into law for "multicultural purposes" and Harper having his own religious beliefs? Well, for one thing, as a gay man who was once resident in Ontario, I find the prospect of debating Harper about the role of his religion in society to be far less frightening than the idea that sharia could become part of law "to make others feel welcome."

Si vous savez du Québec, vous démuni avez démontré la connaissance. Cette attitude populaire explique le sentiment dans la belle province!

Gee, is this the latest "citizen action" from Iraq? Sorta like the statue of Saddam which "Iraqis" pulled down. . . which turned out to be pulled down by US tanks and the dancing "Iraqis" ended up being members of Chalabi's group. Let's not forget, either, the "free and democratic constitution of Iraq" places sharia (radical Islamic) law as the supreme law of the country. Bring on that freedom!

Except that, if you accept that Chappaquiddick automatically disqualifies Ted Kennedy from public life or a political opinion ever again, you must also accept the same for Laura Bush. Something tells me, however, that you don't.

Oh yes, you've got to love PC efforts to accuse someone of being racist. I was described by one particularly odious bore here in Britain as a "racist" for using the term "people of color" -- which he claimed was racist -- right up until I pointed him to speeches and articles by Mary Frances Berry, Kweisi Mfume and other black civil rights leaders which use it as a term of community and respect. The irony is that people like the moron you encountered, or the British bore I've encountered, is that their supposed commitment to "multiculturalism" automatically crumbles to dust when it comes to respecting AMERICAN cultural traditions -- including our proud tradition of civil rights struggle.

That's just plain silly. Canada didn't exist for the first 80+ years of the USA's founding. More revisionist history. You obviously have not had any discussions with francophone Quebeckers -- do you even speak French? America's generous trade and investment deals with Canada resulted in far more than two million jobs going north of the border, particularly in manufacturing. Utter nonsense. The average American is financially better off than the average European or Canadian. As someone who has lived in the United States, Canada (both French and English Canada), France, China and Great Britain (where I live today), I assure you that the "more equal" societies are poorer and have a lower standard of living at a higher cost. That cost would be called "80+% of the Canadian economy." As others of your countrymen had noted, that would be a wallop which would make the Great Depression look piddling. This is, of course, utter nonsense. All of the powers in the Patriot Act in the USA are already available to the Canadian government to use against its own citizens and residents. You're going to have to get used to the idea that much of what you're saying is just plain misinformation. Live in a country outside of Canada for a while -- spend more time in the USA, Asia, and Europe -- and then free your mind from your talking points.

He pledged in his prior career not to rule on cases involving Vanguard (since he owned a significant share of their mutual funds). He then violated this sworn commitment later, and made rulings which had potentially direct impact on his own personal wealth. That's a failed character test, sorry.

Oh, but they are. If Martin made the same statements about Jews, they'd be undeniably antisemitic. If he made the same statements about blacks, they would be racist. If he made the same statements about gays, he'd be homophobic. Actually, the Globe and Mail demonstrated how they were INaccurate -- some were just plain flat made-up out of whole cloth. Just like many (most) Arab nationals support acts of terrorism. Yet I don't see the left-leaning folks suddenly manufacturing excuses for Islamophobia or anti-Arab sentiment -- they quite-rightly see both as contemptible. But when it comes to nursing their own bigotries against Americans, suddenly, such common decency flies out the window. And I can look to similarly extremist press on the right and find "explanations" of why they don't like blacks, gays, etc. Is the Canada which loudly announced its intention not to let Jews from Nazi Germany migrate not something to be anti? Is the Canada which was created from a British imperial edict and which has never accorded its conquered French persons a referendum on their own government something to be admired? What about martial law in Montréal with invocation of the War Measures Act? One can play these stupid rhetorical games until he's blue in the face. Both countries are complex, nontraditional countries with long histories of incredible accomplishments and dark chapters in their history. To pretend that only the good (or bad) are components of the country is to be deliberately obtuse. I'm sorry, but Canada's policy under your Liberal Party has been a thumbing of its nose against its commitments to continental defense AND a policy of aggression -- passive aggression. In that case, better not rely on the Liberal government as an analogue, since it passed its own "Patriot Act" and most of the powers which the US bill accorded to government were already available to Mounties. What are you doing to help us? Nothing. Besides, a large portion of the "income inequality" argument is just plain dishonest -- most other countries don't allow or support people becoming wealthy. The distribution of income is "more equal," but the average man is poorer and higher taxed. This is certainly true in Canada, where the brain drain is not north-south, but south-north. America ain't perfect, but we have people getting on old truck tires to float across the ocean to get here. We have net inmigration from both of our NAFTA partners, and we provide a large, open market which allows many of those condescending socialist government critics of American life to sell stuff and support their creaky socialist systems for another few years. The absolute worst thing which could happen to many of those countries (and certainly to Canada) is a decision by the United States to become more self-sufficient, stop indulging our $90 billion annual trade deficit with Canada, and develop a real America-first policy which encourages manufacturing and services to happen within our own borders. If the Martin way of the world continues to be Ottawa's policy, I can easily see future American governments -- conservative and liberal alike -- moving down that road. The problem with Martin's hate speech is that it's forcing lots of US citizens, including ones like me with strong ties to Canada, to start asking what we're getting out of our special relationship with Canada. We don't undermine Canada, take steps to humiliate it on the world stage, or blame it for every ill in our society. We run a MASSIVE trade deficit with Canada which keeps its economy humming. We've moved fully half of our heavy manufacturing jobs, including auto manufacturing, north of the border, costing us tremendously. We pay for the upkeep of continental defense, and we cannot even count on Ottawa to share intelligence about foreign nationals who enter Canada and may seek to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. If that status quo continues, it will not be good for Canadians OR Americans. And it will be very easy for a future US leader to make those tough decisions if the only sounds we hear from Ottawa are condemnation -- after all, who cares what they say if they already hate us, right? Think differently.

This argument is so ironically like one of George W. Bush's or Karl Rove's that I couldn't help but chuckle. US Republicans are very good at accusing anyone who criticizes their policies, at home or abroad, of "hating America" just like Martin's folks appear to be doing to those who criticize the Liberal Party's policies. Martin's learning from some rather unscrupulous sources -- I hope for the sake of the Canadian polity and his own personal integrity that those learnings are ineffective politically come Monday.

Actually, I believe the citation wasn't same-sex marriage (which addresses the equality of individuals under the constitution without regard to their gender), but rather, religious freedom laws which are strongly supported by opponents of SSM -- specifically, the idea that one's religious belief that he's entitled to multiple spouses is protected by those laws. I'm a big-L Libertarian -- I don't believe government generally has a place regulating or "licensing" marriage at all. I'd much rather see the "rights and responsibilities of marriage" by available to everyone to use as they see fit and marriage ceremony/designations returned to the private sector for people to use as they please. It doesn't injure me one bit if consenting adults choose to live in relationships which are different from my own. Sorry for the off-topic post.

Again, suppose Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter "did it" too. If I murder someone and then point out that other murderers remain unarrested, on the run, and unconvicted, does that mean I shouldn't face the music myself? Of course not. Ditto for people who murder our constitution.

My second point you quoted is that deficit spending IS a form of tax increase -- that debt has to be serviced with interest payments which come from taxes and eventually have the principle repaid with tax money as well. If the debt wasn't taken out, that's cash flow which could be used to provide tax relief. The result is longer term higher tax rates. Also, Bush has most certainly raised taxes -- just not income taxes. Check out your US mobile phone bill sometime. Or your US landline phone bill. Both have seen federal taxes soar. And state/local taxes have seen tremendous increases the last couple of years due to unfunded mandates like "No Child Left Behind." George W. Bush is a bigger "tax and spend liberal" than Bill Clinton!

Well, that's actually rather in keeping with something that Tipper Gore or Phyllis Schlafly would advocate. . .

Some interesting details about the "Bush economy": 1) Over half of the new jobs created since 2001 are government jobs (i.e. outside of the productive sector); 2) The growth in overall economic activity closely mirrors the decline in the value of the US dollar (erasing the real-world spending power which the growth is supposed to deliver); 3) Government spending and government employment under the "conservative" Bush administration has grown at a level unparalleled in modern times, with government employment growing over twice as quickly as during the New Deal and Great Society eras. And an interesting detail about the Canadian economy: 1) Without new government employment, total employment in Canada since 2000 would have declined. Neither economy is doing very well, overall. Both are overtaxed. Canada is overtaxed to pay its existing debts and social programs. The USA is passing stealth tax increases in the form of unbridled deficit spending. A tax "cut" with soaring deficit expenditure is really a long-term tax increase, since tax levels over time will have to remain higher than average (and even elevate over time) to make the interest payments and principle payments on the debt. George W. Bush's administration has increased taxes in two ways: 1) Deficit spending (with its resulting longer term higher tax rates); 2) Unfunded mandates, which shift taxation and spending from the federal government to state and local governments -- which increase taxes in order to pay for the mandated programs. Of course, Republi-Crats don't like this sorta discussion!

Ah, yes, the infamous "activist judge." Activist judge = judge who makes a decision about the law which I disapprove of Proper jurist = judge who makes a decision about the law which I approve of Legislating from the bench = judge who strikes down an unconstitutional law which I supported Defending our liberties = judge who strikes down an unconstitutional law which I opposed Etc., etc., etc.

You know, I'm a registered Libertarian, and I cannot help but laugh at the double standards that the two Old American Parties show. The same knee-jerk conservative who invokes Chappaquiddick, for instance, when Kennedy goes to speak about any issue would be outraged if a liberal Democrat slammed Laura Bush for killing her ex-boyfriend with her car (as she did a few decades back). As for Alito, my primary concern regarding his conduct is the fact that he has a history of making ethical breaches -- including reversing a commitment not to rule on Vanguard-related cases (when he owned hundreds of thousands of dollars of Vanguard funds). He strikes me as an ideologue and someone who isn't going to do the court proud (unlike the recently-appointed Chief Justice, who I supported). As conservative Republicans were constantly reminding us during the Clinton administration, "character counts," and I believe Alito fails the character test. I'm sure I'll get all sorts of rationalizations now that the shoe's on the other foot -- but then again, Tweedledee always emulates Tweedledum.

I was surprised to read this -- last time I checked, this homosexual's "baby making equipment" was in working order. . . How does the way that other people define themselves impact you -- directly or indirectly? I find that eight-year-olds are generally rather UNconfused about things like family relationships and the various sorts of people who are out there -- they become more confused with time when they have rigid ideologies, either Politically "Correct" or religious mysticism, imposed upon them to deny that the round earth they're seeing really exists!

So does the Jewish faith, with both of those religions deriding Christians as 'idol-worshippers'. You get back to me when Jews start blowing us up. Some US states still have sodomy laws on the books, but the death penalty isn't applicable...like Saudi Arabia. In China,(not sure how they still view it)it is not admitted to exist, and criminal charges would fall under 'offensive behaviour'. There are a few such laws still on the books because no politician wants to be the one to propose they be taken off, not in the south anyway, but just about any time one is charged under one of them the law gets struck down. Nope, those laws are ALL invalid (in the USA at least) due to the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas. I find most organized religion to be less spiritual and more political. The obsession with gays being a prime example -- most Islamic clerics and Christian clerics will spend hundreds of hours and millions of dollars in alms campaigning against homosexuality (a fact of nature), yet spend zero time and money on most of the other things their faith condemns. Such a pick-and-choose approach makes organized religion less of a "creed to live by" and more of a sandbox to poke one's head in, to confirm and justify bigotries and beliefs which otherwise would have no rational basis. If one was to have the same beliefs a-priori, rather than with a "faith," he'd be viewed as dumb. . . it's the mystical aspect of "faith" which adds a veneer to what otherwise is patently irrational.

Again, why are people allowing themselves to be manipulated by nationalist politicians? You do realize this is done to make us easier to control, right? One prominent example -- SKY News in Britain runs reports from FOX to "prove" what right-wing idiots Americans are. FOX runs reports from Sky News to "prove" the "Anti-American jihadist sentiment against Americans has reached fever pitch in Europe." Both companies are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. You don't think he's playing both sides like a fiddle? You think similar things aren't happening in the USA and Canada as well? Then I've got a bridge to sell you in Buffalo. Cheap.