moderateamericain

no i dont thinks so. i grew up in michigan and spent alot of time in toronto and montreal --> how i stumbled about this site.

Being a 'moderate Canadian' would mean that you were not an 'extremist Canadian', by putting Canada's interests first. Let's take Saddam Hussein as an example of a 'moderate' in the Stockwell example of serving US intersts. Saddam was seen by some as a dictator, thug, and Ba'athist extremist. However, he served US interests by fighting Iran, (while the USA got richer by selling arms to both sides) and by providing oil to the US (some 50+% of Iraq's production was sold to the US in the month before the invasion of Iraq so the US could 'top up' it's strategic reserve). The USA was actually on very good terms with Saddam right up until the invasion of Kuwait in 199o.Noriega is another example, with him being cast in the light of 'brutal dictator', while being on the US Army payroll for 31 years, and the CIA's for 15 years prior to the illegal invasion of Panama. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> let my make sure of what your saying; by supporting a moderate stance i am supporting the war in Iraq, im supporting Noriega? RSVP

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/27/bus...ergy/index.html cnn website about bush's speech http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=AD_AP department of energy recent report basically the jist of it is the US from 2000-2010 will see an increase in only consumption by 33 percent, while a decrease in production. thus, we will have greater dependency on foriegn governments which as the article puts it "dont have the best intentions for Americans at heart." so if your american please take the time to review this, and check out your congressmen/HOR stance is on energy, if it doesnt have anything to do with improving are situation vote them out.

yep we are certainly assaulting democracy......

It will ever be so, until the individuals of the human race begins to value it's and all existence as greater than individual rights. And acknowledges it willingly.Dear moderateamericain, I vaguely agree with you, but your definitions are a bit off. As defined by my Standard College Dictionary, (Funk & Wagnall's Canadian Edition, 1963), Liberal: 1.Characterized by or inclining towards opinions or policies favouring progress or reform, as in politics or religion. 2. Not intolerant or prejudiced; broad-minded. Moderate: one who is not extreme, either in politics or religion. (recently, as former CIA Col. John Stockwell once said, "It has to do with whether or not you serve US interests. If you do, then you're a moderate". This applied to people who otherwise were viewed by many as 'dictators and thugs', such as Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Charles Taylor in Liberia.) I basically agree with the 'extreme' bits though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> wait so to be moderate is to serve US intrest? i disagree with that, what if i was a moderate canadian, how would i be serving US intrest? maybe im having trouble with what your saying.

as i see it being state side moderate=makes a decision off of personal values, in the best intrest of you and your family. does weigh both sides of an argument (ex. abortion) extreme conservative=follows republican party to a tee without question, does not take the time to look @ other arguments or possibilities. Pushes opinion as the ONLY real answer. fanatics (ex religious nuts, anne coultier) extreme liberals-follow democratic party to a tee, hates or makes only emotional responses to anything, gives opinion on everything, looks down on everyone, is mediocre at everything they do, is a leach on people. (ex. Michael Moore) does not believe in value for value.

I bet you won't even understand why the irony in the above makes others laugh. Ideological diarrhea.If you want to assign blame for the Korean and Vietnam wars you have to include the homicidal Communists of North Korea and North Vietnam who slaughtered millions without a second thought. Not to mention their supporters in Communist China and the Soviet Union which prodded them to war and supplied them with massive amounts of war material as well as advisors, and in some cases, particularly Korea, with soldiers as well. The right wing governments in the south were not popular, but neither was there a great deal of enthusiasm for living under brutal Communist dictatorship. Through American and other aid, including Canada's, South Korea defeated the North and has progressed into a succesful democratic nation. North Korea is still a brutal thuggish Communist regime, and Vietnam is still a tyranny. And how many were killed by Cambodia's maniacal Communist regime? Will we ever know how many died in the killing fields? You mean like the French? Because they were being bribed by Sadaam? Against proxies fighting for the Soviet Union and China and Cuba. But your bigotry and fanatical hatred of the US means you want to blame them entirely. That's sheer ignorance and stupidity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i dont think he has a anti-french position at all, how is pointing out the oil for food scandal anit french, clearly an irrational emotional jump in logic there, your better than that. i think its safe to say that tokoyo has summed it up better than i have, i think there are far too few fact to show that the us has killed 8 million in the last 50 years, unfortunetly we have indirectly participated in killing quite a few people, the only thing i can say is the average american is not a bloody handed cold killer who scoffs at mass genocide. I merely defend my country by showing there ARE far worse butchers out there that get little or no anger directed at them. My question is why would you target america for less than 10 percent of all the murders commited by a governments when countries like the USSR, Vietnam, and China are far worse? where the out cry against them? Now i understand as a democratic nation we should be held to a higher standard, but for canadian citizens to specifically target america and completely disregard there own involvment (directly or indirectly) and completely not take into equation what others have done, is very hypocritical.

so basically this possible pop wishes for a return to the middle ages where churchs had much control over the territories(if thats what you call them back then) great that turned out real well.

so why decend to her level black dog? how you garner a drug addiction out of that is foolish. nobody doubts she is a sick individual, lord knows i take her with a grain of salt. but you just put yourself at her level. why woud you do such a thing?

once again you post without the burden of proof, at any point are you going to address the issue, how many people has the american government had a direct hand in killing. i dont believe its 8 million and not a single person has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have killed that many, using 2 different sources i concluded mathematically (assuming the sources are accurate) that it would be not plausible for america to have killed 8 million, all anyone has done was attack my source backed up by no proof. other than there own opinions. so i ask again, with proof this time, please post how america has killed 8 million in 50 years. i dont want your opinio i want proof. im more than willing to concede on the point with accurate proof.

haahah you dont really believe that do you? most americans dont even like the kennedys! haha what nonsense.

eureka for someone who post quite a bit, i have not seen you post one link, statistic, or factual statement to back up anything in this thread, are you gonna add to the discussion or just sit in the peanut gallery? In other words shit or get off the pot. the data is relevant i havent seen a single fact proving the US killed 8 million in the last 50 years. unless someone can provide me with substantial proof have a nice day.

she does cocaine? have you proof of that claim? i havent heard that one yet, clearly she is an extremist, and the best way to make her and people like her (michael moore for example) is this ................................................................................ ......... silence isnt it grand.

clarification please, in order to answer more accuratley i think the culture class is really a clash of moderation vs extreme facism vs extreme liberalism. and i dearly hope that people come to there sense and realize a middle ground is better than either extreme.

tokyo you seem to find reliable sources well, could you find something with a much more accurate statistic on how many deaths the United states has directly accounted for. seems nobody believes my statistics from either site. (even tho very few have posted reliable sites to prove that the US HAS killed 8 mill in 50 years) of course we have completely disregarded that the US has done very little of this genocide, most likely far less that the statistic quoted. anyhow please give us a much more reliable figure if you could.

well if my figures are off, please by all means show me the truth. backed up by data and math. id love to see a more accurate percentage of deaths by communism vs total democide in the world. lets assume im way off the mark. lets say 100mil murdered by governments. 100-87= 13 million. so now you want to tell me that the us is responsible for more than half of the remaining 13 million killed in the last 100 years? how many people did the Nazi's kill? what about africans? i mean come on i think its fairly safe to say that the guy didnt have a clue.

well according to http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects/gl...iefOverview.htm in the last 100 years 42 million people(rough estimate) have been killed by democide. if my first article posted is accurate 87 percent of 42 mil works out to be, 36.54 million, thus his quote of 8 million people in the last 50 years cannont mathematically be accurate. 42-36.54=5.46 million difference. And that 87 percent is ONLY communits led countries!!! that means the other 5.46 million were all killed by america. o wait, no they werent. Fascist germany, tribal african wars, the middle east. dang #s dont lie do they. so it is mathematically impossible for america to have killed 8 million people in 50 years. THANK YOU FOR YOU TIME, MOD AMER 4 the win.

no my post was accurate the original poster was the fallacy not i, i backed up my stance by statistics and research he made a foolish statement with no data to prove it. I didnt not deny or condone the actions of the United states i merely disproved his statment. why is that concept so hard to understand? i understand that you jump to conclusions and dont take the time to make a true read through (obviously by your post) but to make off the wall assertions about what my intent was is just plain foolish.

you simply must be a teacher to not face the reality of what most teachers are. failures at whatever field they teach. now i know some enjoy there jobs and do it for the fullfilment of it but to sit there and say i have no concept of reality when my very own teachers have said what i originally posted is no argument just a vain attempt to insult me.

i never denied it either. do i have to point out the already known? i did not deny the us has done dirty things, nor did i say they had. you put those words into my mouth.

here is what you are missing trudeau, its not that we are saying that the US is clean hands, what we are saying is that HOLD UP, you cant say unfounded things that are incorrect to begin with backed up by no data. (burden of proof) i showed an example of democide in the last 100 years, (most of major US history) you jumped to conclusion and said that i was trying to show the US is better because weve killed LESS people. which is not the case, my point is, how can you be so arrogantly hyporcritcal and post incorrect data backed up by no proof, which was obviously just a malicious attack on the us, judged by the amount of effort to put actually data into it that he did. The fallacy is with the original poster not with those who dispute it.

haha what a stupid piece of legislature, besides, if the professors that i did have were all nuts anyhow, i find it intresting that a supposed expert in economics is teaching it instead of going out there and making a bundle of money, he is an expert.......or not. if a professor said something o like "socialism is the greatest idealistic form of government" i wouldnt argue with him, id make sure i put that on the test, and laugh my ass off at him over a few beers afterwards. news flash college professors for THE MOST PART, are to lazy or inept to practice what the preach and they know it.

how can you say that 87 percent of the murders commited since the turn of the century are a fallacy? he posted an article without source that indicated that the us invaded 200 countries and killed millions. i desputed that fact by saying that over 87 percent of murders in the last 100 years have been by commited by communist countries alone, NOT INCLUDING HITLER(facsist), or the middle east. I think if you took the total democide over the last 100 years the United States would be very low on that list. I wont venture a number because it would be unfounded. So whats the fallacy here, attacking the US with unfounded data, or me defending it by showing the true fallacy, that the us isnt even on the same level as the butchers in other countries.

so quick to point out what we have done, but yet so quick to squash anything done by the other side of the world. "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" i love how communism gets off with a slap on the wrist we run a police action in a foreign country and all the sudden were the next hitlers. damned if you do damned if you dont. for those of you too lazy to read the article 87 percent of democide has been cause by communist/socialist countries

i actually named 7 if you could add.