ft.niagara

Instead of lecturing others on propriety, how about you learn where the shift key is. Sometimes you bother to use it, but most of the time you don't. It is difficult to take you seriously, when you have such a problem with such a simple issue.

Don't you just love catching someone with both feet in the hypocrisy jar? Hypocrisy? I call you a coward, which you are, and you accuse all Americans of shitting their drawers because a measly 3000 people get killed. What a silly perspective you have on hypocracy. Furthermore, who cares whether Canadians think Bush is irrelevant. What a silly topic. I got a better topic, Is Canada Relevant?

I joined this forum in the summer, and of course was drawn to the US Canadian relations forum. You can see I do not have that many posts. At that time there were a handfull of posters, with about three quarters of them American bashers. Now, more than six months later, and the same faces and 1000 posts later, I see the same attitudes. As far as a trade war, do it. I can't wait.

Canadia is very 'predictable'. Probably GWB did not expect Canadian cooperation. Probably, it was a political move to pin Paul Martin against the wall in a public way. As has been said elsewhere, Canadian participation is not essential, and IMO symbolic. Again, Canada does not step up to the plate, because they are too afraid of getting involved.

Frankly, I do not see Canada as being in danger, with or without participation, except collateral. With 90% of your population within 100 miles of the boarder, well. As far as a possible battle being fought OVER Canada, well. I think the inclusion of Canadian military 'at the table' is symbolic of a united NA. So far, the idea of missle defense is probably a pie in the sky idea. Probably if it were ever developed a 'Clinton' would share the technology. I do not see defending yourself causing an arms race. I do not see the US ever attacking a Russia or a China, but I am not so sure of the opposite, especially something like a North Korea. Unfortunately, because of the way the Earth is configured, possible missle attacks against the US would not come from Canada, but might come THROUGH Canada. Obviously, Canada is involved whether they would like it or not. As far as Canadian air space and soverignity, only a moron would think that it would be respected in time of war.

What's this little problem with "mad cow" disease which doesn't seem to go away. How come? Can't you fix a problem, and keep it fixed? You did seem to "fix" the SARS virus problem though, thank God.

I think the referenced quote brings up an interesting dilema. While it is not a personal attack, it is an attack upon something I take personally: my country. To respond to such a dittie, I have to attack the country the poster is from in a vicious way, or the poster himself. The forum rules do not allow personal attacks, so then I guess I am supposed to viciously attack Canada and its citizens. Is this the idea?

Could George W Bush Be Right? This is from the english Der Spiegel online, please read the whole article. I think stick in the muds will always be stick in the muds. They never seem to "grow up". What's your name? Anticlimates? Anticlimates (Stick in the Mud), glad to meet you.

This is my take on Canada. I live very close to Canada. I travel there fairly often throughout the year. I think Canadians have benefited greatly from proximity to the US. If there were no US, Canada would undoubtly be doing fine: like perhaps Chilie or Brazil. The difference between these countries and Canada equals that benefit. Canadians love that difference, but they are cowards by nature. What was your dittie: "stick your head in an oven"? Yep, that's a Canadian alright.

Huh. what kind of American are you? You talk of the President of the United States as an enemy. Perhaps these kind folks will provide you with emigration papers.

Senerio One: Missle fired at NA. US says to Canada, want to shoot it down. Canada says sure. Missle destroyed before it is over Canada. Senerio Two: Missle fired at NA. US fires, missle destroyed OVER Canada. Canada thinks that by remaining neutral, they remain safe. It worked for Sweden and Switzerland, perhaps it will work for Canada. The best of both worlds, strong defense, and neutrality. The only problem is it is not neighborly since the US is the target, and Canada gets benefit from its proximity. Furthermore, future time, world population increases. Liebensraum is on the mind of Asia. Canada is underpopulated. Goodbye Canada.

It seems you get two CNN channels. I suggest taking off the Headline News. Fox is really much better, take my word for it. I get both.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no more influential station in the US than Fox News. Before Fox News, the Democrats controlled Congress for 40-50 years. Single handedly, Fox News has negated network news bias. Fair and Balanced, in that way yes, it balanced the news landscape. And ironies of ironies, it is owned by an Australian. Canada, being Canada, likes being antiAmerican. Fox is dangerous because it might sway public opinion in an uncomfortable way. If 8 of 14 channels are American, take one of the eight off an put on Fox. If for no other reason, if I were Canadian, I would be curious to know what all the fuss was about.

Sure, why not? The issue is economic. If enough Americans wished to see a Canadian cable channel, great. There is a Canadian sex therapist on the O channel, and here in Buffalo, one of the Canadian broadcast channels are on the lineup. It is entertainment, and believe me it can be entertaining.

Pollution of your airwaves is so condescendingly silly, it is a LOL laugh out loud. Look in the mirror whenever you refer to censorship. BTW, what are you afraid of? "Stupidity" is not contagious.

I suspect that if there can not be an impartial media, then there will have to be two version of it. It is just an evolution of an industry.

Wow, what a constructive comment. I would suspect that it takes one (a monkey), to recognize one.

I think with the advent of cable tv and the many channels which it can accomodate, I am often surprised by the absense of interesting content. I think Fox is very entertaining, and MSNBC as well. Both sides are presented. Hannity is only one of the commentators on Fox. Its content is primarily American and world, but I recommend it for being very entertaining. I think for Canada to understand the US better, they should have access to Fox.

Bush was the governor of Texas. No country has a greater impact on the southern part of the US than Mexico. Mexican President Fox was the first north american president seen by the newly inagurated President Bush. Traditionally, it was the Canadian Premier, but this was a tradition probably over due for change. At the very least, the first visit should be alternated. Bush is a what you see is what you get type guy. Perhaps that is a healthy thing. People generally like those people who like them in return. Bush knew Cretian did not like him from the outset, and a working relationship was not in the cards. Tony Blair, and Russia's Putin were able to develop working relationships with Bush because they recognized something which Cretian could not.

Caesar, I do not see a regime change in 2004. I will vote for Bush, and my wife also, and she is a democrat. I think the democrats could have won, with the right candidate, but I do not think Kerry is him. Presidents are usually former state governors. Clinton, Bush, Reagan were all former governors. There also needs to a little bit of charisma, and Kerry does not have it. Then throw in the Viet Nam antiwar baggage, plus the reporting for duty commedy routine, and you have a loser. Mind you, he really has to try to lose. He has a lock on New York, California, and Illinois, with their big cities, which means he is very unpopular with the common American. In Bush, I see someone who rose to the occasion, and in Kerry, a challenger not worthy of knocking him off his position as President. But, surprises do happen. Turman beat Dewey.

I would like to thank eureka, Argus, and August1991 for their lengthy and well crafted postings. I enjoyed reading your (canadian) views. It seems that just as in the US, there is great debate as to the proper course of action.

If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs, or If you want to get rid of the mosquitos, you have to drain the swamp.

Hey Caesar, Is the capitol of Canada Toronto, or Montreal? Just wondering. ft.niagara

While many would argue that saying such a thing is anti-semetic, (Wierd, semite means Arabic, or middle-eastern) Izzy Asper said he would not allow any condemnation of the actions of Israel to be printed in his papers. Ergo, he is openly saying he taints the news and views of the readers, for good or bad. Antisemetic is commonly thought to be antijewish, but yes it could be thought as antiarab. I was just quoting someone else. I get the Buffalo News, and Warren Buffet owns it. It is liberal based, and so is Buffet. I would think that the newspaper should reflect the views of its owner, who in turn hires the editors on down. I am more surprised when the paper does not reflect what I would have anticipated the best interest of the owner to be. ------------------------------------------- I have a suggestion to the Israel problem: move the jews to some underpopulated area in Africa and set up their homeland there. It may not be biblical, but it is more practical. Everything else is like trying to fit a round cork into a square hole. They could buy the Sudan and colonize it and make it bloom.

Yes it would be terrific, if you are a liberal democrat, but don't hold your breath, its not likely to happen. He has one advantage though, he is taller, and the taller candidate usually wins.