Reverend Blair

I voted yes, but I think Nader's influence will be quite small this time around. The US has become very polarised and those who want Bush out of office are unlikely to vote for Nader.

Indeed we should, Caesar. Globalisation, in its present form, does equal imperialism. It doesn't have to. Trade can be a powerful force to raise living, human rights, and environmental standards all over the planet. Instead it is being used to amass wealth for a very few individuals, mostly in the US and Western Europe, to the detriment of most of the planet, including working people in the US and Western Europe.

It's funny....I remember when Breshnev died. The jokes were on the TV and radio immediately. Same when Khomeni kicked off. Andropov too. Trudeau certainly wasn't immune from criticism because he died. I'm sure that when Castro dies, or Gorbi, or Lech Walesa, or Brian Mulroney, the jokes and criticisms will be flying. These men are all contemporaries of Reagan. All were heads of state. All were heros to their people to at least some extent. Considering the many reprehensible things that Reagan did during his career, the fact that many many of us feel that he earned nothing but our derision, why shouldn't we offer criticisms and jokes at his expense?

Don't mean to be rude, but just to get back on topic for a second.... Somebody mentioned that nobody watches CPAC. The Great Canadian Job Interview also aired on NewsWorld at least twice, so it was well worth the small investment of time required by the candidates. I would have been very interested to see what Harper's responses to the questions would have been. These were questions being posed by young Canadians, people we are supposed to be encouraging to vote. I know, as an NDP supporter, I would have been very critical of Jack Layton had he skipped such a public forum during an election campaign. If the Conservatives are indeed responsive to the grass roots of Canada, Stphen Harper should be making every effort to hear from those grass roots and respond to their questions and concerns.

Harper did not speak out against the Liberal plan to allow Lockheed-Martin to conduct the Canadians census. Apparently neither he nor Martin cares about the privacy of the data of Canadians. When Maher Arar was first illegally deported by the US, Harper backed the US over Arar. He did not take the time to learn the facts of the case, just assumed that Arar must be a terrorist, and thought that sending a Canadian citizen to a third country to be tortured was a good thing. Harper is for supporting Missel Defense. So is Martin. Polls have shown that the majority of Canadians are against this initiative because it will lead to the weaponisation of space; is already leading to a new arms race; does not provide security against the real threats in the post-Cold War world; is massively expensive and would likely reduce available funding for our military; and, most of all, doesn't work. The Conservative party blocked attempts by an all-party comission to impose a fine on US-owned meat-packing plants for contempt of parliament. Stephen Harper's economic plans are the same kind of thing we've been seeing for over twenty years. In that time the Canadian standard of living has shrunken, as has the standard of living in the US, where the same basic policies have been used. Stephen Harper is evil, since that's the terminology being used here. Not much more evil than Paul Martin perhaps, but evil is still evil. There are so many other choices in most ridings, I really have no idea why anybody would vote for either Martin or Harper. Most people do not own huge corporations after all.

I think we need to keep in mind that before Bush came to power Canada, and the Chretien government, had a pretty good rapport with the US and the Clinton administration. It was Bush's policiies of isolationism and unilateralism that led to the conflict between the US and Canada and the friction between the Chretien government and the Bush admistration. Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded. They lied to the UN (and the American people) about evidence. They continue to break international law now that the invasion is over and the occupation has begun. Backing the US up, or even failing to criticise them, when they act against the wishes and, arguably, the best interests of the world community is not good for Canada. It makes appear to be nothing more than a satellite state in the eyes of the world. Not only is it not unpatriotic to criticise the actions of the US, such criticisms are an act of patriotism.

I don't see most of the posts as being antoi-American, but rather anti-US policy and Anti-Bush. That isn't just a Canadian phenomenon, it is world-wide.