Will you reconsider traveling to the USA?

[Guest American Woman]

I think the 4 amigos here are trolls and look like clowns when they post the same thing over and over and over without actually participating in the actual conversation.

Who in this thread hasn't "actually participat[ed] in the actual conversation" - other than you? - and BC chick, who popped in to do nothing but agree to a personal attack?

Edited December 16, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

Funny, I guess when you accuse a fellow AFBD member of being a troll, all swarm to their defense! Be wary my fellow MLW'ers.

Why shouldn't we point it out when you're abusing the "trolling" rules to suit you? You're throwing that accusation around like it's the last time you'll ever play ball! And you got that right.....it's all purely accusation!

Edited December 16, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I think the 4 amigos here are trolls and look like clowns when they post the same thing over and over and over without actually participating in the actual conversation.

I participated in the discussion. Shame on you - you post a topic and it seems you don't even know how to PRETEND with the courtesy of reading the replies!

[Moonlight Graham]

Anyway, I'm defending everyone's right. Just because you don't know how to answer Cheney's argument, you want to button him up.

The post, in a bubble, is fine. The issue is that I and many other posters on here have responded to the same claim countless times over several years, a claim posted with the primary intent of trying to offend readers and provoke a negative emotional response (see definition of trolling). Smallc obviously agreed with me in the reply that first drew my attention to the post:

blah blah, your shtick gets old.

besty: Like I said....you're stepping on my rights as well. You're controlling what I read. Why should we bow down to your censorship? Unless that means following the forum rules.

I'm not controlling anything you read, not stepping on anyone's "rights", and censoring nobody. I have no such authority.

Especially when it comes from someone who has nothing substantial to say....often times. You're notoriously hit-and-run. You avoid direct rebutts. Your method is usually duck-and-hide....

Really? Let's leave that for the majority of MLW posters to decide.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wanna do a reverse poll on specific places in Canada? Ask Canadians what city in Canada they'd want to avoid.

Good point...and the answer is probably > Winnipeg

[bush_cheney2004]

Isn't Cheney a pagan???? I thought he said he is a pagan? Well....if he is a God-believer, I obviously misunderstood him.

Correct....member bush_cheney2004 is a pagan.

A lot of people here don't challenge my theism! There's only a handful of you who challenge and gravitate around me like a rotten halo and you all suck with your dysfunctional reasonings. Just look at you now.

Agreed.....I support your right to any belief system you choose, and acknowledge/respect that BILLIONS of other people also have religious faith and a belief in God.

[betsy]

The post, in a bubble, is fine. The issue is that I and many other posters on here have responded to the same claim countless times over several years, a claim posted with the primary intent of trying to offend readers and provoke a negative emotional response (see definition of trolling). Smallc obviously agreed with me in the reply that first drew my attention to the post:

never mind throwing names around like as if just because smallc agrees with you, you've got the official seal of approval! SmallC throws the word, "bigot" around like Santa throws candies....like you throw "trolling" like a discus. He seems to be highly excitable too. So, between the two of you - what? Peas in the same pod? Twins? You're the cheech to his chong? The laurel to his hardy?

So you've been butting heads with Cheney on the same issue (and many others have been in on it) - well it is the first time for me to see this issue between you two. If you don't want to engage him - just do what any mature poster in this forum will do when they don't want to be bothered with anyone. Ignore him.

Like I said, you've got no place in the forum if you meet arguments/rebuttals you can't answer by just suddenly accusing them of, "trolling." That's being unfair and dishonest. Not to say, childish. Furthermore, you abuse the word, and cheapen the rule. That's all I'm saying.

Edited December 16, 2012 by betsy

[Boges]

If anyone would think twice about visiting the US because of this, I trust they never travel to third-world countries for a vacation ever.

[betsy]

If anyone would think twice about visiting the US because of this, I trust they never travel to third-world countries for a vacation ever.

They probably don't even watch the news. They all go flocking to Mexico - where a lot of Canadians got whacked. Come to think of it, how many Canadians got murdered in the USA in the last year? I don't think Squid ever got a poll going on Mexico travel.

Edited December 16, 2012 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

If you don't want to engage him - just do what any mature poster in this forum will do when they don't want to be bothered with anyone. Ignore him.

Agreed...wise advice. I do the same for several immature members who cannot / will not engage topics or responses without descending into petulant, personal attacks when faced with a well formed counter-argument or observation about Canada.

The post in question presents a fundamental problem for the America haters...there is no way for them to reconcile my pithy but accurate observation given the USA's much larger population. Some have tried to explain that it is the "weather", but this does not account for the large number of Canadians who not only routinely travel to the USA for vacation or cheaper gas, but those who permanently emigrate to the United States.

Edited December 16, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[betsy]

Agreed...wise advice. I do the same for several immature members who cannot / will not engage topics or responses without descending into petulant, personal attacks when faced with a well formed counter-argument or observation about Canada.

The post in question presents a fundamental problem for the America haters...their is no way for them to reconcile my pithy but accurate observation given the USA's much larger population. Some have tried to explain that it is the "weather", but this does not account for the large number of Canadians who not only routinely travel to the USA for vacation or cheaper gas, but those who permanently emigrate to the United States.

I don't understand why some are so anti-Americans....when we consider how close we are in values and system, not to mention we're trading partners.

[Boges]

They probably don't even watch the news. They all go flocking to Mexico - where a lot of Canadians got whacked. Come to think of it, how many Canadians got murdered in the USA in the last year? I don't think Squid ever got a poll going on Mexico travel.

Should Canadians go Mexico? is a lively debate here. Lots of people think you're nuts if you go to Mexico but there are places were it's perfectly safe to visit Mexico as long as you don't act foolish. Jamaica has a high murder rate but the crime doesn't happen in the tourist areas. America is a large country, there are places in the US I probably wouldn't go to either. But to write off the country as a whole because of their gun laws is silly to say the least.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

Just out of curiosity - where wouldn't you go?

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't understand why some are so anti-Americans....when we consider how close we are in values and system, not to mention we're trading partners.

This is their terrible conundrum...how to reconcile such close economic, political, and value systems while hating with all their might the domestic and foreign policies of the United States. It is a mental tug-o-war that some can't handle, as they live lives that are nearly identical to those who live in the USA. To my earlier (and much hated) observation, many America haters have family members who have crossed the border for good, and this just adds more resentment. Remember what they did to Wayne Gretzky ?

[Boges]

Just out of curiosity - where wouldn't you go?

Not sure actually, most places I probably would go.

There are parts of Detroit, LA, Miami, New York, Atlanta that aren't terribly safe and I'd want to avoid, If I could. Then again there are places in Toronto I wouldn't want to go. Ditto with Winnipeg or any urban centre.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

Not sure actually, most places I probably would go.

There are parts of Detroit, LA, Miami, New York, Atlanta that aren't terribly safe and I'd want to avoid, If I could. Then again there are places in Toronto I wouldn't want to go. Ditto with Winnipeg or any urban centre.

I agree; I was told by several Canadians which parts of Toronto to stay away from when traveling there, and of course there are sections of cities in the U.S. I've avoided, too. I've been careful about what parts of the cities/countries I'd go to everywhere I've traveled, and I think that's ultimately all a person needs to do - and it applies everywhere.

[Guest American Woman]

This is their terrible conundrum...how to reconcile such close economic, political, and value systems while hating with all their might the domestic and foreign policies of the United States. It is a mental tug-o-war that some can't handle, as they live lives that are nearly identical to those who live in the USA.

This poll is highlights that:

Has anyone stopped traveling to the USA due to the culture of guns/violence?

• No, I'm not worried about it. It isn't Frequent enough to deter me.
  
• Yes, I don't travel down there unless I have to.
  
• No, but I am considering it given the recent mass shootings.
  

There is no straight "yes" option; it's "yes, I don't travel down there unless I have to." Why would anyone "have" to travel to the U.S.?

[The_Squid]

Why would anyone "have" to travel to the U.S.?

Flight connections.... For work...

You really don't know why someone might have to travel to the USA? It's not hard to figure out what some scenarios might be...

[Guest American Woman]

Flight connections.... For work...

You really don't know why someone might have to travel to the USA? It's not hard to figure out what some scenarios might be...

It was a hypothetical question. Given the comments in the post I quoted and was responding to, I thought that would be clear. Of course it's for work. It's like bc said: "This is their terrible conundrum...how to reconcile such close economic, political, and value systems while hating with all their might the domestic and foreign policies of the United States."

But I'll tell you one thing - I'd either be scared for my life - or I wouldn't be. I surely wouldn't compromise my safety for a flight connection ... or work, for that matter. As long as you "have" to come to the U.S., you need the U.S. - just as bc said.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no straight "yes" option; it's "yes, I don't travel down there unless I have to." Why would anyone "have" to travel to the U.S.?

Yes, we see such waffling and equivocations time and time again. So many excuses for "having" to travel to the USA, from their job to visiting family to buying cheaper smokes. As you have pointed out several times, many Canadians live within 100 miles (160 km) of the US border, think of cross border shopping as a Canadian right, and would resent attempts to stop such traffic. Ditto for the thread concerning a new bridge over the Detroit River (DRIC).

Canada is a country that for historical, geographic, and economic reasons would be much more isolated if not integrated to American transportation and communications networks.

[cybercoma]

I spoke the truth

Now all of a sudden you believe in an absolute truth. Weren't you the one a number of months ago that argued vehemently that truth is subjective? Or does that not apply when it's your truth?

[Guest American Woman]

Now all of a sudden you believe in an absolute truth. Weren't you the one a number of months ago that argued vehemently that truth is subjective? Or does that not apply when it's your truth?

Weren't you supposed to be putting me on ignore? You told me just yesterday that you were. I even said thank you!

*sigh* I said that truth is subjective when "faith" is involved. All one has when there is no proof one way or the other is one's beliefs, and in such instances, "what you believe is true"- to you. Get it?

[cybercoma]

So the truth is subjective sometimes, but not other times. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your inconsistency.

[Guest American Woman]

So the truth is subjective sometimes, but not other times. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency. Thanks for clarifying your inability to understand what I said.

[cybercoma]

How many times a day do you insist that people are unable to understand your posts?

Think about it because at some point you're going to have to question whether it's their reading comprehension or your inability to string together a coherent argument.