'Fortress America'

[Shakeyhands]

Now this is a great idea without the idiocy of a BMD type idea...

Among the recommendations:

Expand the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) to include maritime security.

Create a tri-national threat intelligence centre and jointly train officers from the three countries.

Develop a strategy to protect North American energy supplies and common conservation measures.

Establish a North American investment fund to help Mexico's economy.

Expand scholarship and exchange programs and a network for North American studies.

Make next week's three-country summit an annual event and establish a North American advisory council to monitor progress on decisions.

I'm sure our friends on the right will say that this is us further enjoying the defense umbrella of the US but I see it as being treated as though we are actually free thinking people that have a common bond with the rest of the continent and also a s a people (call it what you will) that is concerned not only for our neighbour but not willing to do whatever it takes to turn a profit, I see this as a chance to overhaul NAFTA and even things out for Canada and Mexico.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968793972154

[Fortunata]

It won't happen.

[anticlimates]

It won't happen.

Thank f'in God.

I think we're going to have to defend ourselves from America at some point in the future. The sense of entitlment and their need for resources is eventually going to drive them to invade us.

We need to increase funding for defense....but I think also arm the population. I'm getting a gun. It's ironic that fear of America is driving me to it.

When American soldiers are strutting up and down our streets, I'll be popping them one by one with my handgun.

[I Miss Trudeau]

We need to increase funding for defense....but I think also arm the population.

Naw. Just cut all of our troops and equipment and build a ton of nukes.

[B. Max]

It won't happen.

Thank f'in God.

I think we're going to have to defend ourselves from America at some point in the future. The sense of entitlment and their need for resources is eventually going to drive them to invade us.

We need to increase funding for defense....but I think also arm the population. I'm getting a gun. It's ironic that fear of America is driving me to it.

When American soldiers are strutting up and down our streets, I'll be popping them one by one with my handgun.

About a week ago callers to the adler show out of winnipeg were pleading with the shows american guest for the US to invade canada and give us a regime change. Some who said they would gladly join the americans in any such effort. You could be the one finding youself popped off.

[caesar]

About a week ago callers to the adler show out of winnipeg were pleading with the shows american guest for the US to invade canada and give us a regime change. Some who said they would gladly join the americans in any such effort. You could be the one finding youself popped off.

If there is any truth in this; sick American wannabee residents of Canada. They should be ashamed of themselves. Disgusting.

[caesar]

I'm sure our friends on the right will say that this is us further enjoying the defense umbrella of the US

What defense umbrella?????? This arrogant aggressive American government which ignores International law and acts like a school yard bully is endangering us; not defending us. It is American actions that is bringing danger of terrorist attacks to North America.

[Argus]

I think we're going to have to defend ourselves from America at some point in the future.

How sad for you anti-Americans then, that you and yours have gutted the military, and ridiculed and jeered at every concept of military service or obligation to the point that Canada is becoming almost knee-jerk pacifist in its public sentiment and policy.

Defend ourselves from the Americans? And who would you be referring to? Not you, surely. Nor those thugs in uniform you on the Left so disdain.

And with what weapons and equipment? The ones you refused to buy because they were useless wastes of money, money which could be better spent on welfare and the environment and multicultural awareness festivals?

We need to increase funding for defense....but I think also arm the population. I'm getting a gun.

When the Left has been desperately trying to disarm the population for the last several decades? I hope you get your gun properly registered there, boy. Of course, assuming the registry worked that would just make it that much easier for those evil Americans to locate those with guns and come and take them away.

PS, does anyone else think AC is the reincarnation of MS?

[I Miss Trudeau]

About a week ago callers to the adler show out of winnipeg were pleading with the shows american guest for the US to invade canada and give us a regime change.

Blathering buffoons attract blathering buffoons. No news there.

[B. Max]

About a week ago callers to the adler show out of winnipeg were pleading with the shows american guest for the US to invade canada and give us a regime change.

Blathering buffoons attract blathering buffoons. No news there.

Nothing of importance contributed there, as usual. I'm not surprised that people would want a regime change and actually a change of course from that which the commie trudeau and his toady followers set the country on.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Nothing of importance contributed there, as usual.

This constitutes a contribution of importance?

About a week ago callers to the adler show out of winnipeg were pleading with the shows american guest for the US to invade canada and give us a regime change. Some who said they would gladly join the americans in any such effort. You could be the one finding youself popped off.

The callers to a show like Adler's spouting off like that is about as predictable as the response you'd find to gun control at an NRA convention. Its like saying "The callers on the pro-life station I listen to don't like abortion!" Well, uhh, so what?

I actually listen to both Rutherford and Adler virtually every day at work, largely because I get sick of hearing the same songs over and over on music stations. Both Rutherford and Adler have very polarized callers, largely because those who call in with an opinion that differs from the host find themselves attacked after every word (especially on Rutherford, he won't even let people finish a sentence!), and then disconnected if they make a point that the host doesn't feel able to refute, or at least mock.

Case in point:

Shortly after 630 ched started airing the Adler show in Edmonton, the topic was the war in Iraq. Caller after caller called in saying that the war was all about the war or terrorism and liberation for the Iraqi people. At least 10 callers. Then one calle called in to say that he believed the invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with oil.

Adler went absolutely nuts. Literally screaming into his microphone. WHERES YOUR PROOF?! WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES?! He grilled the poor caller (incidentally, a 17 year old high school student - way to encourage the youth of our nation to become politicall involved. Agree or disagree, at least try to be civil and rational).

However, he never asked a single proponent of the war to substantiate his or her claims. Never asked for their sources. Never. Not once.

Which brings me back to my point, expanded upon now, that

Blathering buffoons attract blathering buffoons. No news there.

[B. Max]

Nothing of importance contributed there, as usual.

This constitutes a contribution of importance?

About a week ago callers to the adler show out of winnipeg were pleading with the shows american guest for the US to invade canada and give us a regime change. Some who said they would gladly join the americans in any such effort. You could be the one finding youself popped off.

The callers to a show like Adler's spouting off like that is about as predictable as the response you'd find to gun control at an NRA convention. Its like saying "The callers on the pro-life station I listen to don't like abortion!" Well, uhh, so what?

I actually listen to both Rutherford and Adler virtually every day at work, largely because I get sick of hearing the same songs over and over on music stations. Both Rutherford and Adler have very polarized callers, largely because those who call in with an opinion that differs from the host find themselves attacked after every word (especially on Rutherford, he won't even let people finish a sentence!), and then disconnected if they make a point that the host doesn't feel able to refute, or at least mock.

Case in point:

Shortly after 630 ched started airing the Adler show in Edmonton, the topic was the war in Iraq. Caller after caller called in saying that the war was all about the war or terrorism and liberation for the Iraqi people. At least 10 callers. Then one calle called in to say that he believed the invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with oil.

Adler went absolutely nuts. Literally screaming into his microphone. WHERES YOUR PROOF?! WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES?! He grilled the poor caller (incidentally, a 17 year old high school student - way to encourage the youth of our nation to become politicall involved. Agree or disagree, at least try to be civil and rational).

However, he never asked a single proponent of the war to substantiate his or her claims. Never asked for their sources. Never. Not once.

Which brings me back to my point, expanded upon now, that

Blathering buffoons attract blathering buffoons. No news there.

Most likely that is what the caller learned in our socialist brainwashing institutions they call schools. Who was the caller, you. I wouldn't be surprised.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Most likely that is what the caller learned in our socialist brainwashing institutions they call schools. Who was the caller, you. I wouldn't be surprised.

You know what? Thank you! You made my point far better than I ever could.

[B. Max]

Most likely that is what the caller learned in our socialist brainwashing institutions they call schools. Who was the caller, you. I wouldn't be surprised.

You know what? Thank you! You made my point far better than I ever could.

Looks like i was right.

[ft.niagara]

I'm getting a gun.  It's ironic that fear of America is driving me to it.

When American soldiers are strutting up and down our streets, I'll be popping them one by one with my handgun.

What a joke. Mr. anticlimates to save the day, and Mighty Mouse is on the way. As usual. a very delusional posting. Rest assured though, there are very good medications these days for such problems.

[moderateamericain]

It won't happen.

Thank f'in God.

I think we're going to have to defend ourselves from America at some point in the future. The sense of entitlment and their need for resources is eventually going to drive them to invade us.

We need to increase funding for defense....but I think also arm the population. I'm getting a gun. It's ironic that fear of America is driving me to it.

When American soldiers are strutting up and down our streets, I'll be popping them one by one with my handgun.

wow you lost all credibility with me you ever had, not that you could care, but ill basically be skipping past 90 percent of your post now. As far as creating are own mini european union, maybe if the mexican government wasnt practically run by the cartels.

[caesar]

As far as creating are own mini european union, maybe if the mexican government wasnt practically run by the cartels.

Or the USA run by a tyrant. hmmm

[Argus]

As far as creating are own mini european union, maybe if the mexican government wasnt practically run by the cartels.

Or the USA run by a tyrant. hmmm

What part of "elected by popular vote" do you not understand? Bush is no more a tyrant than Martin or Chretien. And freedoms in the US are better guaranteed than similar freedoms in Canada.

[I Miss Trudeau]

What part of "elected by popular vote" do you not understand?

Do you seriously mean to suggest that one cannot be a tyrant if elected by popular vote?

Sounds a lot like another poster's argument that you're unable to lie unless you are in power.

And freedoms in the US are better guaranteed than similar freedoms in Canada.

Perhaps in theory, but certainly not in practice. Or have you not heard of the thousands of people, some of them American citizens, being detained illegally?

[Hawk]

Do you seriously mean to suggest that one cannot be a tyrant if elected by popular vote? 

Sounds a lot like another poster's argument that you're unable to lie unless you are in power. 

Your right, I guess you learned alot from the Liberal reign of terror in Canada... eh?

Perhaps in theory, but certainly not in practice. Or have you not heard of the thousands of people, some of them American citizens, being detained illegally?

Which ones, the ones in area 41 or the ones in secret deaths camps run by Republican KKK members?

[Argus]

And freedoms in the US are better guaranteed than similar freedoms in Canada.

Perhaps in theory, but certainly not in practice. Or have you not heard of the thousands of people, some of them American citizens, being detained illegally?

"Thousands" of people, eh? Let's see a reasonably respectable cite to back that up. I want names, and not the names of people who are detained because they are in the US illegally and are fighting deportation or extradiation.

[Guest eureka]

Freedoms in the USA are not protected as well as in Canada either in theory or in pratise. They have nevr been protestd as well since the birth of either country. I thought I had been through that one on enough threads in the past and no one ever took up the challenge of rebutting my information.

[Argus]

Freedoms in the USA are not protected as well as in Canada either in theory or in pratise. They have nevr been protestd as well since the birth of either country. I thought I had been through that one on enough threads in the past and no one ever took up the challenge of rebutting my information.

Considering we've only had a real constitution for about twenty years, and that the one we do have has an escape clause I'd have to disagree. We also have a Supreme Court which is the sole interpreter of that constitution, but unlike in the US there are no checks and balances in the appointment of the members of that court.

There is also much less distance between our political leadership and our security and police services than is the case in the US. Witness the BDC scandal, where, when Francois Beaudoin started being disagreeable in the matter of loans to Jean Chretien's business partner he found himself being repeatedly raided and harrassed by the RCMP. If we had the same system as in the US the government could not just appoint a toadying suckup like Zackardelli to the job of RCMP Commissioner, because he would have to go before an all-party panel for vetting.

No, I can't think of any way at all in which our freedom is better protected in Canada than in the US. No doubt you will enlighten me with specific examples.

[caesar]

I wish I could find the report from the USA Congress complaining that Canada was "Too democratic and had too many rights"

[Guest eureka]

If we have "only had a real Constitution for about twenty years," what did we have prior to that? We had the same enabling document and the same statutes that form the package that is a Constitution. Nothing changed other than an attempt to codify the Rights that were already inherent: Rights that the Americans gave up when they created a Constitution that did not include those carried over from their British heritage.

Specifically, the American Bill of Rights did not apply to state laws or individuals. Most of the Bill of Rights did not become "nationalised" until the twentieth century. A couple of articles are still effective against only federal law. The notorious Fifth Amendment is still not fully effective against States.

Freedom of Speech received its first application to the States only in 1927, and then only partial. Voting Rights were not fully extended to Blacks until 1965. McCarthyism showed how weak the protection for Freedom of Expression was and still is since nothing in law prevents another such age.

The American Supreme Court has always been stacked for political purposes. Every Court has been termed either a liberal Court or a Conservative Court according to the political loyalties and persuasion of its majority members. There are no checks and balances in the appointment of members who are there on any President's whim. A confirmation proces that cannot prevent the appointment unless a scandal that is so public that the President cannot maintain his choice is brought to light is the only check.

In Canada, we have a Constitution, dated 1867, that imports all the British freedoms. The Petition of Right of 1628 is part of our Constitution as is the Bill of Rights of 1689. Every step along the road to democracy in Britain is part of our Constitution. Whereas, in America, they began all over again and created a Constitution based on 17th. century ideas that was already archaic when written.

America has been struggling painfully ever since to bring its Constitution into modernity. They have largely succeeded but still have some way to go - witness the struggles to keep the Church out of government and such atrocities as the Patriot Act.

The Canadian Supreme Court has never been allied to a presidency or a political culture. It is appointed not by the Prime Minister, but by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Attorneys General of the Provinces and with the Bar Association. Every appointment since the first Court has had no taint of political affiliation.

For the BDC, what about Whitewater or a raft of others? The Security services in the US are certainly not at a greater distance than in Canada. Not that it matters very much. In the US, they are subject to political influence and many officials are elected or appointed for political reasons. In Canada, they are arms length branches of authority.