US Citizens Are Coming, US Citizens Are Coming

[Guest eureka]

I don't think I said "pulling his shirt collar." If I did, that was wrong. I thought I said collar - without looking back through the posts.

Anyway, the story as I recall it was by the neck. I "euphemized" it by referring to collar. I went through this years ago and found that many had looked for the references and found them. I didn't because I knew the story and it fitted Johnson and Pearson.

However, I am not overly concerned with this since it merely sidetracks the interesting difference in our attitudes now. We are quick to condemn our officials who speak truth about the US and wring our hands fearing retaliation. They get all prickly at any criticism while assuming the right to insult whoever they please whenever they do not get agreement with their bullheadedness.

[caesar]

It is wrong to hold it in and not speak of our displeasure with the USA and the questionable choices they have been making. Because Bush is a "little man" and has little sulking fits when someone doesn't idolize him does not mean we should not speak up, Things will never change and get better that way. The previous generation allowed Hitler liberties so as not to have his attention upon them. The world allowed him to go too far and we are now allowing Bush and co to go too far.

[August1991]

Because Bush is a "little man" and has little sulking fits when someone doesn't idolize him

WTF? Bush? Sulk?

The previous generation allowed Hitler liberties so as not to have his attention upon them. The world allowed him to go too far and we are now allowing Bush and co to go too far.

Do you really mean to compare Hitler and Bush?

They get all prickly at any criticism while assuming the right to insult whoever they please whenever they do not get agreement with their bullheadedness.

Do Americans get prickly?

I think the whole point here is that Americans know little about Canada and care even less. But they do not wish us ill.

----

Carolyn Parrish has every right to speak her mind - in fact, as an MP, I think it should be her duty.

But she is speaking to a certain group of English Canadians, that's all. I suspect that she is knowingly engaging in demagoguery, playing to the cheapseats, perhaps because it makes her ego feel good.

[takeanumber]

So: the outflow of Canadians to the US is much higher than the inflow of Americans to Canada.

To quote Mike Myers: Boo-Frickety-Hoo.

If a Canadian is moving the United States, I bet it's motivated by greed. To them, I say, good luck. Don't come back when you get old and expect Canadian society to take care of you. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.

The 5000 americans that Canada gets are probably terrific liberal. So on the whole, that's a net gain of liberals to Canada.

Which is the way it should be.

[caesar]

To August I say; yes, you bet, of course that is exactly what I mean Americans are fed a steady line of propaganda and so they are a little self centered. Canadians do take other countries into consideration.

[Cartman]

If a Canadian is moving the United States, I bet it's motivated by greed. To them, I say, good luck. Don't come back when you get old and expect Canadian society to take care of you. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.

I disagree. We let corporations move freely throughout the globe and argue that they are generating wealth, so why not let individuals do the same?

[caesar]

I don't hold anything against someone who feels they need to seek work in another country. Many Canadians have many friends and relatives in the USA. I just do not like the present leader and find it hard to comprehend how he could ever get re-elected. Do these people who voted for him really believe that he is making them safer. I really think it is the opposite. He has angered much of the world and has really shown a disregard for any Muslims. He has made the world a much more dangerous place with countries scurrying to arm themselves with nuclear power. He has shown a complete disregard for Geneva Conventions unless the victim is an American.

[takeanumber]

If you leave Canada to work in the US for more money and lower taxes, don't be comming back to Canada when you get old.

It's bad enough that your taking your education and running, but then to expect everybody to pick up the tab for you when you get back is downright selfish.

If you're going to leave, leave your citizenship along with it.

[CdnRepublican]

People move to the US for many reasons - not just greed as you put it - though i would argue there is nothing wrong with greed. Greed generates economic activity, taxations, benefits, products, innovation and higher living standards. If you wish to reconcile yourself to subservient UNO sponsored socialism go right ahead. Maybe a foray into the FSU or North Korea might cure you. What do you say about Cdn firms, exporting product to the US ? Are they greedy capitalist pigs fattening themselves on the poor gruel of the US market ? What about greedy Cdn politicians that increase their pay and pensions at the expense of taxpayers or loot the public treasury to pay off their greedy friends that elevated them to power ? What about greedy Cdn professional hockey players that are pricing the so-called national game out of the reach of the middle class would-be ticket buyer ? How about the greed and corruption of former PM Chretien who had the public write off $800K of a personal bad debt ? What about all the greedy middle - class canadians that want a bigger car, a bigger home and to send their greedy children to Ivy league prep schools ?

Do these people and others who wish to improve their lives make your list of the obnoxious swine that move to the US because they want a challenge; keep more of their money; access to better technology; or just warmer weather ? Or are 'domestic' Cdns greedy for a better life somehow better and more cultured than the oily cringeing gang that slips into the US to live ?

I suppose people like yourself vacation in Florida. Greedy for sunshine i suppose.

[maplesyrup]

Call to secede sounded

Looks like California has had enough and some people are beginning a successionist drive - I was wondering how long it was going to take for something along these lines to start happenin'. Progressive US folks are now getting a feelin' of what it was like to be a confederate, eh!

[August1991]

Many conservative voters in the US did not vote for Clinton but none, to my knowledge, spoke about leaving the country as a result of his election.

What does it say about the so-called progessives in the US that some now talk of leaving? Have you seen Michael Moore's web site? You sure you want all those from LA moving north?

Maple Syrup, are you planning to leave Canada because the NDP only won a few seats?

[maplesyrup]

Every day, whenever I see or hear something about what is going on in the US I appreciate Canada, Canadians, and what Canada represents more and more.

US must be carved like a turkey - pundits

I think anyone who lives outside Jesusland would be very welcome in Canada.

[Guest eureka]

Where could any of those "conservative" voters in the US have gone? They are out of step with the civilized worlf and have nowhere they could call a home except where they are.

Possibly Saudi Arabia might have suited them.

[August1991]

By posting that, Michael Moore is in effect contributing to the demise of the Democratic Party as we know it.

The Republicans will get all the fiscal conservatives and in addition all the holy rollers too.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are going elitist, snob and school-marm. (Sort of like the NDP).

Sadly, Michael Moore is simply wrong about the whole thing. Andrew Cohen (Bush led, America followed...) wrote (in the NP) a fascinating analysis of the election results based on CNN's detailed polling. It's well worth reading whatever your political opinion. The article compares Kerry's support with Gore in 2000.

In any case, it should be rather obvious that one does not get 51% of the vote without having fairly broad support.

[caesar]

If these Americans don't feel democracy was done when Bush was elected with 51% of the vote, how happy are they going to be in Canada? This is a country where El Presidente Chretien was given near-autocratic power 3 times over 11 years without once getting over 41% of votes.

We have more parties than the USA; it will not often happen that ANY prime minister gets over 50%. At least we have the leader of the opposition there in the house with an important job of questioning the ruling party and trying to keep thintgs honest and the public informed.

I don't think they are leaving because they don't think the election was valid; they wish to leave as they do not like the path the USA is taking.

[maplesyrup]

There is one reason why bush won - most people did not see a difference of any consequence between Bush & Kerry.

Similiar to Canada's PM Martin & Harper.

We should begin to start using the new terminology though - Jesusland and the United States of Canada.

Although we bitch about the involvement of church and state do we really believe that they have not been intertwined since Day One? It is just a bit more blatant now. how many of Canada's prime ministers have beeen Roman Catholic? no wonder we are in a mess on both sides of the current border!

[kimmy]

There is one reason why bush won - most people did not see a difference of any consequence between Bush & Kerry.

That is pure fiction!

People *did* see huge differences between them. In fact they thought the differences were much bigger than they actually are.

Moving towards more liberal values will not get a Democrat into the White House, because liberal values have been soundly rejected by the voters in the states you're referring to as Jesusland.

Have another look at the US electoral map, and which states are red and which are blue. (The Onion.com electoral map labelled the blue states "Hate Guns" and the red states "Hate Fags". there is probably some amount of truth in this flippant breakdown.)

Choosing a more liberal candidate is not going to increase the number of electoral votes available in blue states. It is not going to decrease the amount of electoral votes available in red states. And running a more liberal candidate is not going to turn "Hate Fags" states into "Hate Guns" states.

A major problem for the Democrats is that some of their core constituencies are now divided. Black and hispanic voters used to lean heavily towards the Democrats. Polling indicates that those voters were almost evenly split during the past election. Why? Because of "values issues". A larger proportion of black and hispanic voters are highly religious... and they were left with a dilemna: how could they vote for the party that was traditionally the party of minority empowerment, when that party is advancing views that are opposed to their religious views? The Republicans were successfully able to use "values issues" to drive a wedge between the Democrats and some of their traditional support.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Wrong once again. Both political parties in the US represent material interests.

`Moral values'not behind Bush win

Look again at those Ohio voters who preferred Bush, despite high unemployment. You will find they are traditional materialists and rather than seeing their votes as running against their own economic self-interest, they actually bought into Bush's claim that tax cuts and deficit spending are good for their own pocketbooks and good for the economy. Of course, this may not really be in their self-interest any more than the war in Iraq is necessarily in their self-interest.

[kimmy]

Wrong once again. Both political parties in the US represent material interests.

`Moral values'not behind Bush win

Look again at those Ohio voters who preferred Bush, despite high unemployment. You will find they are traditional materialists and rather than seeing their votes as running against their own economic self-interest, they actually bought into Bush's claim that tax cuts and deficit spending are good for their own pocketbooks and good for the economy. Of course, this may not really be in their self-interest any more than the war in Iraq is necessarily in their self-interest.

Debating over the definition of what qualifies as "moral" doesn't refute anything I wrote.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Both the Democratic Party and the Republician Party policies represent the weathy in society. Both Bush & Kerry, their presidential candidates, supported the War in Iraq. If you check carefully there is no basic difference.

[maplesyrup]

Bush doggers have PEST

If US citizens are considering moving to Canada now, what will it be like if Bush institutes the draft. I would imagine it will be bumper-to-bumper one way traffic heading North. My how times have changed. Before you know the US is going to be complaining about the brain drain leaving the US. /530

[Montgomery Burns]

That's all Canada needs. More leftwing moonbats.