j44 Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 Why would you want Americans contributing to your parties and politicians; what would be the advantage to that? ~ Or did you mean to say that you would not want it? Oops, meant to say would NOT want that. Can't say I'm surprised....in 2008, 15% of polled Canadians would give up their domestic vote just to be able to vote in US elections. I guess we put on a better show! I remember seeing that. As much as I love American politics doing that seems a bit silly. Also, there is a lot to admire in American politics but there is a lot to dislike as well. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 ....I remember seeing that. As much as I love American politics doing that seems a bit silly. Also, there is a lot to admire in American politics but there is a lot to dislike as well. It was a bit odd, but some Canadians just got caught up in the Senator Obama "Yes We Can" concert tour. Maybe they wanted to make sure Bush wouldn't come back. American politics is for...Americans. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
j44 Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 It was a bit odd, but some Canadians just got caught up in the Senator Obama "Yes We Can" concert tour. Maybe they wanted to make sure Bush wouldn't come back. American politics is for...Americans. The Bush and Obama stuff might have had something to do with it but I wouldn't be surprised if you got similar numbers if the same poll was taken today. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 The Bush and Obama stuff might have had something to do with it but I wouldn't be surprised if you got similar numbers if the same poll was taken today. I really can't relate to the concept, but I sarcastically note that some Canadians live this idea vicariously. I suppose it starts with heavy exposure to US media and comedy shows on broadcast/cable television programming. Border city viewers would also see the barrage of American campaign ads during primary and general elections. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bleeding heart Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 It was a bit odd, but some Canadians just got caught up in the Senator Obama "Yes We Can" concert tour. Maybe they wanted to make sure Bush wouldn't come back. What's most hilarious is that in several respects...Bush did come back! I assume the former President enjoys it, and who can blame him? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
j44 Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 What's most hilarious is that in several respects...Bush did come back! I assume the former President enjoys it, and who can blame him? Are you referring to the continuation of some of Bush's policies? He might take some comfort in that but I tend to think it isn't much. Quote
bleeding heart Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 Are you referring to the continuation of some of Bush's policies? Absolutely. This was predicted, with great accuracy, by many on the left...after which the Obama liberals threw (also preditable) tantrums. He might take some comfort in that but I tend to think it isn't much. Yea, who knows? I was just joking, and have no idea what Bush thinks about anything. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 What's most hilarious is that in several respects...Bush did come back! I assume the former President enjoys it, and who can blame him? President Obama didn't have much choice when faced with the exigencies of office once innaugurated. Candidate Obama had to become Bush and has done so with a few exceptions, driving "progressives" nuts. 'Gitmo is still open for business. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bleeding heart Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 President Obama didn't have much choice when faced with the exigencies of office once innaugurated. I don't know that this is perfectly clear...but maybe you're right. You're certainly right that election rhetoric sobers up quickly sometime every fourth January or so. Candidate Obama had to become Bush and has done so with a few exceptions, driving "progressives" nuts. Yes, I've heard some of the wounded outrage. However, there are two other types of progressives with different views: those who would support and defend Obama even if he slapped their mothers; and the lefties who predicted with varying degrees of negative accuracy--some of it exactly correct--what Obama would be like as President. Along the lines of your own remark, they argued that the institutional factors of the position made broad predictions easy and obvious (there are of course always details that cannot be known). These guys and gals were quite loudly derided by Obama liberals, as "the far left is soooo out of touch, man...so suspicious of Power!" Once proven correct, it only made these lefties more sinister and aggravating in the eyes of the hardcore liberal base. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest American Woman Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 It was a bit odd, but some Canadians just got caught up in the Senator Obama "Yes We Can" concert tour. Maybe they wanted to make sure Bush wouldn't come back. Yet Canadians voted for their own Bush. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 2, 2012 Report Posted April 2, 2012 That might depend on how the lawsuit turned out .... Canadians sue for right to donate to US campaigns What a stupid lawsuit. That is ridiculous. Foreign interests should not be involved in the politics of other countries. It undermines a nation's sovereignty and the loyalties of parties/politicians to their constituents or the people that they represent. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted April 3, 2012 Report Posted April 3, 2012 Santorum can kiss a Wisconsin win goodbye: He'll eat their cheese. He'll drink their beer. He'll even visit Lambeau Field. And though he's vying for the love of Wisconsinites this week, you won't find Rick Santorum wearing a yellow polyurethane triangle on his head. Anyone who won't wear a cheesehead doesn't have a chance of winning Wisconsin. Quote
The_Squid Posted April 3, 2012 Report Posted April 3, 2012 Santorum can kiss a Wisconsin win goodbye: He'll eat their cheese. He'll drink their beer. He'll even visit Lambeau Field. And though he's vying for the love of Wisconsinites this week, you won't find Rick Santorum wearing a yellow polyurethane triangle on his head. Anyone who won't wear a cheesehead doesn't have a chance of winning Wisconsin. What about bold-faced liars? Is that acceptable? http://www.dailycal.org/2012/04/02/santorum-california-universities-dont-teach-american-history/ “I was just reading something last night from the state of California. And that the California universities – I think it’s seven or eight of the California system of universities don’t even teach an American history course,” Santorum said. “It’s not even available to be taught.”But UC spokesperson Brooke Converse told Think Progress, which originally reported the story, that all University of California undergraduate programs require students to study American history and institutions, though the exact requirements vary by campus. Quote
jbg Posted April 3, 2012 Report Posted April 3, 2012 What a stupid lawsuit. That is ridiculous. Foreign interests should not be involved in the politics of other countries. It undermines a nation's sovereignty and the loyalties of parties/politicians to their constituents or the people that they represent. At last we agree. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
kimmy Posted April 5, 2012 Author Report Posted April 5, 2012 Yet Canadians voted for their own Bush. While a few far-left crybabies contend that Harper = Bush, I don't think many rational people take the notion seriously. And I strongly doubt that the Canadians who voted for Harper are the same Canadians who are suing for the chance to donate to Obama. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
kimmy Posted April 5, 2012 Author Report Posted April 5, 2012 Is he anything like Obama's Rev. Wright? Cause I was told a few years ago that that stuff really isn't a big deal. Also, is he anything like Obama's critical race theory professor buddy from Harvard? You know, the guy that Obama said we should all open our hearts and minds to his words? Cause I was also told that that stuff isn't really a big deal. And is he anything like Obama's terrorist buddy from Chicago? You know, the guy that helped launch his campaign for state senator, several years after launching bombs at police stations around the country. Cause once again, I was told that that stuff isn't really a big deal. I guess just in Rick's case huh? Jeremiah Wright? Is that that nig-- uh, preacher who we heard about non-stop for months in 2008? Yes, I remember that pretty well. Republicans and their supporters certainly seemed to think that having ties to the wrong religious people was a big deal at the time. Now they can't even be bothered to utter a peep about Santorum's buddy Denny Terry. I wonder what changed? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Jeremiah Wright? Is that that nig-- uh, preacher who we heard about non-stop for months in 2008? .... I wonder what changed? Obama got elected anyway. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) While a few far-left crybabies contend that Harper = Bush, I don't think many rational people take the notion seriously. I didn't say he equaled Bush, I said he was Canada's own Bush. You know, "Bush Lite." And I strongly doubt that the Canadians who voted for Harper are the same Canadians who are suing for the chance to donate to Obama. I don't doubt that for a moment. My point was that perhaps they should care more about who's getting elected in their own country - in other words, donate that money to Canadian candidates. Edited April 5, 2012 by American Woman Quote
kimmy Posted April 5, 2012 Author Report Posted April 5, 2012 I didn't say he equaled Bush, I said he was Canada's own Bush. You know, "Bush Lite." That's highly dubious. I don't doubt that for a moment. My point was that perhaps they should care more about who's getting elected in their own country - in other words, donate that money to Canadian candidates. That's an excellent suggestion. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 ....I don't doubt that for a moment. My point was that perhaps they should care more about who's getting elected in their own country - in other words, donate that money to Canadian candidates. Gee....what a novel idea! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kimmy Posted April 5, 2012 Author Report Posted April 5, 2012 Obama got elected anyway. Indeed he did. And the Dennis Terry incident is irrelevant to Rick Santorum's chances of getting the nomination (for 2012, at least). However, I'd really like to hear the Shadester discuss why the Jeremiah Wright thing was such a monumental issue for people like him, while the Dennis Terry thing is of no consequence at all. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Guest American Woman Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Gee....what a novel idea! Really, eh? They concern themselves with who Americans elect - as their own country "votes" for the PM often portrayed as a Bush Lite. Seems to me their money would be better spent in Canada. Quote
stopstaaron Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Santorum is what I just did to my toilet Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
kimmy Posted April 5, 2012 Author Report Posted April 5, 2012 Santorum is what I just did to my toilet Oh? I thought you said you were not sexually active. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
stopstaaron Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Oh? I thought you said you were not sexually active. -k What I did was not in a sexual manner Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.