Hello Canadians

[kaneda]

""

[Leafless]

Hello Kaneda!

You appear to place emphasis on 'FREEDOM' yet question the efforts of your own government in Iraq, which I hapeen to agree with and also think Canada should be in there also. There are many concerns involving the Iraq situation and is a complicated one to say the least.

Regarding health care I think the main problem in Canada is equipment and procedures are becoming more advanced and in turn place a greater burden on government resources causing problems. The concept is good but I think user fees or a switch over to partial or full privatization is in the future. I think our system could be user abused also.

You probably know freedom has a price and how we judge how free we are is in realitive comparison to the freedom that exist in other countries --on that note I think Canada and the U.S. are well ahead in that area.

But I agree we have a problem with fascist governments in Canada we are to way far left in my estimation.

Maybe our governments should get together and define exactly what democracy is supposed to mean by establishing a common benchmark.

[Boondoggle]

Hello Kaneda!

You appear to place emphasis on 'FREEDOM' yet question the efforts of your own government in Iraq, which I hapeen to agree with and also think Canada should be in there also. There are many concerns involving the Iraq situation and is a complicated one to say the least.

I totally disagree with you on that. The WMD excuse was a pile of crap. Democracy is something people choose not something you force on them. As for Saddam's crimes, most of it happened 15-20 years ago with the knowledge and even assistance of the US and other developed countries. If saving lives is so important, they should have done something about it then, and they should be doing something about Darfur now. Can't blame it on a different administration either because a lot of the people in Bush's administration came from Reagan's administration.

Meanwhile, the Bush administation has gone against the UN Charter, which they are obligated to follow according to Article 6 of the US Constitution, and they've since unleashed a lot of ethnic tension. They now have to face a catch 22: stay in Iraq, and hope it gets better while more people die and the US continues to spend money it doesn't have, or pull out and leave the country to fall into civil war if it's not already there.

It was a wise decision on the part of the Canadian government to side-step that.

I don't mean to sound anti-American, just that I disagree with the US foreign policy towards Iraq.

Regarding health care I think the main problem in Canada is equipment and procedures are becoming more advanced and in turn place a greater burden on government resources causing problems. The concept is good but I think user fees or a switch over to partial or full privatization is in the future. I think our system could be user abused also.

The Canadian system is more inclusive while the US system is faster. However, the US spends about 15% of GDP on it while Canada spends about 9%. Therefore, it stands to reason that Canada could have a quick system like the US that's also universal by increasing the budget.

But I agree we have a problem with fascist governments in Canada we are to way far left in my estimation.

That may be your opinion, but the Liberals are center, and it's the NDP, which hardly dominates the government, that is left. With the Liberals in a minority government, I don't see how you can conclude that the government is far left. Throughout the 90s, however, the Liberals did have a monopoly on the system, and it appears that the US is in that situation now. I don't think the problem is left/right as much as it is political stagnation. The whole left/right thing tends to be a distraction from the issues.

[Montgomery Burns]

I don't know where to start. How about Article 6 in the US Constitution? It says nothing about the UN. The founding fathers were trying to run away from interference in their affairs by foreigners.

There were 23 clauses in the Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq (passed by Congress). Only 2 clauses mentioned WMD. However 12 of the 23 clauses mentioned the broken ceasefire and the 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN resolutions that Saddam ignored or broke. And admit it--if the US went into Darfur, you'd be complaining about that too. Btw, will the UN ever do anything about Darfur? Of course they won't.

The only reason why the Canada, Russia, China, France, and the UN wanted Saddam to remain in power--the only reason they wanted the US to spend billions of dollars yearly (for eternity) to keep Saddam and his sons "bottled up" was because the UN was making billions off the Oil for Food Program; China, Russia, and France supplied Saddam with 82% of its arms (France even build Saddam a nuclear reactor), and Chretien's son-in-law's father is the biggest shareholder in France's TotalFinaElf oil company--a company that had extensive ties with Saddam. And of course, PMPM accepted $1 million of Saddam's money for investment in one of his many companies. Chretien and Martin embarrassed Canadians by putting their insatiable greed over the welfare of human dignity, and the enforcement of legal documents.

Of course, the US spends more money on healthcare and medicine. They invent nearly every medical technology out there. Do you think years and years of R&D is "free"? What about the vast difference in the percentage of MRI machines in Canada versus the US? No matter how many times Canadians say that this is "free", it is not.

And how can you say that the Liberals are centrists? They are in bed with the NDP. They took back corporate taxcuts (which would stimulate the economy) and are going to spend $4.6 billion on a socialist govt-run, unionized worker-controlled national daycare. And money on the farcical Kyoto, which other countries are bailing out of.The continue to engineer social change with their fanatical obsession about changing the 2000 year definition of marriage. Bush gives a speech about democracy, freedom, and the war against terrorism. A couple of days later, Canada shows its priorities; Gay marriage is legal. This despite that I have not seen one--not one!--poll that has ever shown that the public wants to change the 2000 year definition of marriage.

It was deeply embarrassing for Canada, and is another reason why Canada is not repected in the world anymore.

[newbie]

Welcome kaneda. As you can see we have posters at every extreme (some on the fringe). I popped over to your own site and will be spending more time there I think. This forum is getting a little over the top for me. A cursory look at previous threads will validate that point for me.

And dear Monty, to say Canada is not respected in the world, one only has to ask why some Americans are sewing our flag on their luggage.

http://www.canadianmoose.com/souvenirs/

http://www.petalumanet.com/2005/07/12/the-secret-americans/

http://greg.org/archive/2003/02/21/uhoh_canada.html

[BHS]

Welcome kaneda. As you can see we have posters at every extreme (some on the fringe). I popped over to your own site and will be spending more time there I think. This forum is getting a little over the top for me. A cursory look at previous threads will validate that point for me.

And dear Monty, to say Canada is not respected in the world, one only has to ask why some Americans are sewing our flag on their luggage.

http://www.canadianmoose.com/souvenirs/

http://www.petalumanet.com/2005/07/12/the-secret-americans/

http://greg.org/archive/2003/02/21/uhoh_canada.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right, Newbie. Everybody's extreme except you and the people you agree with. It is true that in decades past that Americans sewed the Maple Leaf onto their backpacks, and perhaps some still do. But Canada's reputation in the rest of the world for being "not America" is a fading fact. Don't like it? Tough.

[Black Dog]

You probably know freedom has a price and how we judge how free we are is in realitive comparison to the freedom that exist in other countries --on that note I think Canada and the U.S. are well ahead in that area.

"Freedom isn't free..it costs a buck-oh-five..."

Maybe our governments should get together and define exactly what democracy is supposed to mean by establishing a common benchmark.

I think the notion of governments defining democracy is decidedly, well, undemocratic.

The founding fathers were trying to run away from interference in their affairs by foreigners.

NJon interference is a two-way street. You can't very well "run away" from foreign interference on the one hand and then interfere with foreign nations on the other. You can bet the founding fathers would not have endorsed the Iraq debacle.

The only reason why the Canada, Russia, China, France, and the UN wanted Saddam to remain in power--the only reason they wanted the US to spend billions of dollars yearly (for eternity) to keep Saddam and his sons "bottled up" was because the UN was making billions off the Oil for Food Program; China, Russia, and France supplied Saddam with 82% of its arms (France even build Saddam a nuclear reactor), and Chretien's son-in-law's father is the biggest shareholder in France's TotalFinaElf oil company--a company that had extensive ties with Saddam. And of course, PMPM accepted $1 million of Saddam's money for investment in one of his many companies. Chretien and Martin embarrassed Canadians by putting their insatiable greed over the welfare of human dignity, and the enforcement of legal documents.

No mention of the Oil For Food program should pass without mention of the fact thati ndividuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein, the largest of these recipients being Houston-based Bayoil. It's also worth mentioning that the bulk of Saddam's illicit income came not from the program, but from oil smuggling to Turkey and Jordan, smuggling which the U.S. was charged with preventing, but failed to (and may have ignored).

The continue to engineer social change with their fanatical obsession about changing the 2000 year definition of marriage. Bush gives a speech about democracy, freedom, and the war against terrorism. A couple of days later, Canada shows its priorities; Gay marriage is legal. This despite that I have not seen one--not one!--poll that has ever shown that the public wants to change the 2000 year definition of marriage.

Gay marriage, in addition to being legal now, is also old news. You need to move on.

[BHS]

Gay marriage, in addition to being legal now, is also old news. You need to move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. Political issues are only issues until they're resolved to the satisfaction of the Left. Once that happens, the issue is solved for all times and is off-limits. Abortion isn't an issue, because the Left likes the unregulated status quo. If you disagree, you're just beating a dead horse.

[Black Dog]

Yep. Political issues are only issues until they're resolved to the satisfaction of the Left. Once that happens, the issue is solved for all times and is off-limits. Abortion isn't an issue, because the Left likes the unregulated status quo. If you disagree, you're just beating a dead horse.

And if the tables were turned (say, a ban on gay marriage or illegal abortion), you wouldn't take the same position? Riiiight...

[newbie]

Welcome kaneda. As you can see we have posters at every extreme (some on the fringe). I popped over to your own site and will be spending more time there I think. This forum is getting a little over the top for me. A cursory look at previous threads will validate that point for me.

And dear Monty, to say Canada is not respected in the world, one only has to ask why some Americans are sewing our flag on their luggage.

http://www.canadianmoose.com/souvenirs/

http://www.petalumanet.com/2005/07/12/the-secret-americans/

http://greg.org/archive/2003/02/21/uhoh_canada.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right, Newbie. Everybody's extreme except you and the people you agree with. It is true that in decades past that Americans sewed the Maple Leaf onto their backpacks, and perhaps some still do. But Canada's reputation in the rest of the world for being "not America" is a fading fact. Don't like it? Tough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure what you're talking about there BHS. If you're trying to say we're getting more like the United States, then I'd have to totally disagree with you. I've travelled in Europe with Americans so I know of what I speak. We are highly regarded there unlike the United States. So I'm not sure where you're coming from. As far as extreme opinions on this forum, check the archives.

[Leafless]

Black Dog wrote-" I think the notion of governments defining democracy is decidely,well, undemocratic."

Well so do I Black Dog but how do you explain the fact the Liberals have been destroying participation by Canadians to decide for themselves important matters that affect all Canadians and still get voted back into power by the only process left that one can define as democratic relating to federal politics.

Our system in Canada by having our interest protected by our elected representatives has been destroyed in favour of Party policy thus overiding Canadian democratic concerns.

This IS undemocratic and by what was suggested is democratic reform back to what it should be with more Canadian democratic input by either by way of elected reprsentative or referendums. This would even be made better if the two major countries in North America had the same democratic concerns.

Canada is not a new country and Canadians cannot be ignored the way they have been by a totaltarian style Liberal covernment.

[Boondoggle]

I don't know where to start.  How about Article 6 in the US Constitution?  It says nothing about the UN.  The founding fathers were trying to run away from interference in their affairs by foreigners.

all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land

You may want to read it again. The US not just a signatory to the UN Charter, but was one of the main countries that created it. Given that it was the US that agreed to and even created much of what's in the UN Charter, you cannot call it foreign intererence. If you give your word to something, you either honor it, or your word isn't worth crap.

Now, if they don't like the way the UN is set up, their is a process for that, called reform, that should have been the approach before the war not after. Interestingly enough, the US still doesn't want to abolish the veto, and thus all their so called reform ideas are worthless because the veto is the heart of the problem.

Furthermore, if anything, it is the US that interferes both with its veto in the UN (the record shows that the US uses if far more than any other country since the Soviet Union) and by invading a sovereign state. The UN Charter gave authorization for Desert Storm because a sovereign state was invaded, but when the US does it, it's ok?

There were 23 clauses in the Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq (passed by Congress).  Only 2 clauses mentioned WMD.  However 12 of the 23 clauses mentioned the broken ceasefire and the 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN resolutions that Saddam ignored or broke.  And admit it--if the US went into Darfur, you'd be complaining about that too.  Btw, will the UN ever do anything about Darfur?  Of course they won't.

Who cares what Congress passed? They failed the people they're supposed to represent miserably. The problem with the case of the resolutions that Iraq didn't cooperate with is that it's never put into context - just like nobody ever mentions that Saddam killed a lot of people WITH our help. Iraq was also concerned about security, and while we may think getting rid of the Saddam regime is a good idea, it is not what the resolution called for. The mandate given was to disarm Iraq not to mess around with its security or sovereignty. There's plenty of evidence that the US had the goal of regime change, counter to the UN mandate, all along, and it takes two to tangle.

As for Darfur, you are FLAT OUT ass backwards WRONG. The difference between you and I is that I believe force should be used to save lives not 15-20 years later and saying: oh yeah, this is for what you did back then. You can't do anything for the dead, but you can help those at risk, and that's Darfur. The same applies to Rwanda. They should have supported Dallaire when he told them what was going to happen before it happened. However, nobody had any interest in Rwanda, and the US led the way in blocking any effort to do anything about it. If you doubt that, read up on what Dallaire has to say about it. In an article I read, he said "the UN is small time culpable compared to the US, France, and England - all of which have veto power. Begining to see a trend here?

The only reason why the Canada, Russia, China, France, and the UN wanted Saddam to remain in power--the only reason they wanted the US to spend billions of dollars yearly (for eternity) to keep Saddam and his sons "bottled up" was because the UN was making billions off the Oil for Food Program; China, Russia, and France supplied Saddam with 82% of its arms (France even build Saddam a nuclear reactor), and Chretien's son-in-law's father is the biggest shareholder in France's TotalFinaElf oil company--a company that had extensive ties with Saddam.  And of course, PMPM accepted $1 million of Saddam's money for investment in one of his many companies.  Chretien and Martin embarrassed Canadians by putting their insatiable greed over the welfare of human dignity, and the enforcement of legal documents.

BS

Most of those weapons that you refer to entered Iraq long before the sanctions, and much of it had to do with the Iran-Iraq war.

As for the Oil-for-Food program, you're forgetting the biggest crime of all: why it was needed in the first place. The sanctions had little to no effect on Saddam, but hurt the civilians, and those that put the sanctions in place knew that. The figure for the number of people that died as a result of the sanctions ranges from 500,000-1,500,000. So, take your pick, but those people died slow and miserably, and it was preventable. You can try to say it's all Saddam's fault, but the US and Britain, the main driving force behind sanctions, are culpable in that.

Of course, if you're one of those people that think money is worth more than life, the US and Britain still have some explaining to do:

Yet it is somewhat misleading to portray smuggling as a failure on the part of the UN. In 1990, Security Council Resolution 665 invited member states to interdict the suspected smuggling with their own military forces, leading to the establishment of the Multinational Interception Force patrolling the Persian Gulf. The US Navy provides most of the ships for the force, which has operated under the command of a series of American rear admirals and vice admirals from the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain. None of the members of the Security Council ever intervened to block the well-known smuggling route passing through parts of northern Iraq controlled by US-allied Kurdish militias into Turkey. The US also filed no objection to the oil trade between Iraq and Jordan that took place throughout the history of the sanctions.

On more than 70 occasions when there were obvious price discrepancies, the Office of the Iraq Program did bring them to the attention of the so-called 661 Committee -- composed of all 15 Security Council members -- which reviewed all proposed Oil for Food contracts. In testimony submitted to Congress on April 28, John Ruggie, the assistant secretary-general charged with relations with the US mission, recalled that the committee "approved roughly 36,000 contracts over the life span of the program. Every member had the right to hold up contracts if they detected irregularities, and the US and Britain were by far the most vigilant among them. Yet, as best as I can determine, of those 36,000 contracts not one -- not a single solitary one -- was ever held up by any member on the grounds of pricing."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanct...719scandals.htm

It was the 661 committe, which is the Security Council, that was in control; therefore, you cannot mention who is to blame for the mess without also including the US and Britain. People that do that also have a tendency to blame the UN for Rwanda, which is also wrong.

Most of the countries you refer to wanted sanctions lifted not continued, and thus the Oil-for-Food program would be irrelevant. Considering that the sanctions were in place because of WMD, and as we can see there was no WMD, there was a valid reason for doing so.

On this subject, it is also worth noting that Saddam wanted to switch to Euro. Now, if sanctions were lifted and he did that with no response, and as a result other OPEC countries followed, what impact do you think that would have on the US economy?

Of course, the US spends more money on healthcare and medicine.  They invent nearly every medical technology out there.  Do you think years and years of R&D is "free"?  What about the vast difference in the percentage of MRI machines in Canada versus the US?  No matter how many times Canadians say that this is "free", it is not.

It's all inclusive, and it is free for companies that want to do business here, which is a major competitive edge. Toyota decided to build its new plant in Ontario over several states that wanted it, and they said one of the key factors in the decision was health care, which is a major expense for companies in the US. Your other point is a lame attempt to negate the fact that the 6% of GDP difference in spending has something to do with it.

And how can you say that the Liberals are centrists?  They are in bed with the NDP.  They took back corporate taxcuts (which would stimulate the economy) and are going to spend $4.6 billion on a socialist govt-run, unionized worker-controlled national daycare.  And money on the farcical Kyoto, which other countries are bailing out of.The continue to engineer social change with their fanatical obsession about changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.  Bush gives a speech about democracy, freedom, and the war against terrorism.  A couple of days later, Canada shows its priorities;  Gay marriage is legal.  This despite that I have not seen one--not one!--poll that has ever shown that the public wants to change the 2000 year definition of marriage.

Because they are the center. Paul Martin is more fiscally conservative than George Bush. With Paul Martin, Canada has had 8 years of balanced budgets and federal surplus. When was the last time the US had that? However, they are also pro-universal health care, which one could argue is leaning to the left. Personally, I just think they're good at knowing what most Canadians want and use that to their advantage. They also used the NDP, which they are hardly in bed with, to their advantage to keep their government alive. By your logic, the Conservatives are in bed with a separatist party. However, in reality, the Conservatives, like the Liberals, were simply using that to their advantage.

It was deeply embarrassing for Canada, and is another reason why Canada is not repected in the world anymore.

No, deeply embarassing for you. You're not in a position to speak for others, and how the hell do you know what people around the world think of Canada?

[BHS]

Yep. Political issues are only issues until they're resolved to the satisfaction of the Left. Once that happens, the issue is solved for all times and is off-limits. Abortion isn't an issue, because the Left likes the unregulated status quo. If you disagree, you're just beating a dead horse.

And if the tables were turned (say, a ban on gay marriage or illegal abortion), you wouldn't take the same position? Riiiight...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I'm in favour of gay marriage and indifferent to the legality of abortion (though I'm opposed to it on moral grounds in most cases). But that's beside the point, which is that a topic of current controversy can't be ruled out of bounds just because the status quo was imposed by a court decision striking down a law, or because of a recently passed law that hasn't even weathered a change of government.

[BHS]

Not sure what you're talking about there BHS. If you're trying to say we're getting more like the United States, then I'd have to totally disagree with you. I've travelled in Europe with Americans so I know of what I speak. We are highly regarded there unlike the United States. So I'm not sure where you're coming from. As far as extreme opinions on this forum, check the archives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did your American friends stitch the Maple Leaf onto their clothing? Did they openly proclaim their American citizenship or did they hide it? Did they carry greenbacks or Euros? I don't doubt that Americans are more disliked than ever in Europe, but that's not my point. We are progressing toward a unified North America identity. The world is becoming indifferent to the minor nuances that we feel makes us special and seperate us from the Americans.

As for digging into the archives for extreme positions, I've already read the bulk of your posts. Thanks.

[err]

But I agree we have a problem with fascist governments in Canada we are to way far left in my estimation.

A facist government is an extreme right-wing government with little tolerance for "lefty" things like "organized labour"... You'll have to get it together, or change your handle to "Clueless" from "leafless"

[err]

Did your American friends stitch the Maple Leaf onto their clothing? Did they openly proclaim their American citizenship or did they hide it? Did they carry greenbacks or Euros? I don't doubt that Americans are more disliked than ever in Europe, but that's not my point.

Canadians are very popular in Europe (and worldwide) for the very reasons that you condemn this country. It has long been known that tourists with maple-leaf flags on their luggage are better recieved than those with "Dont mess with Texas" logos....

We are progressing toward a unified North America identity. The world is becoming indifferent to the minor nuances that we feel makes us special and seperate us from the Americans.

Let's hope you're as wrong on this as you are on so many other topics...

[Pearson]

I don't doubt that Americans are more disliked than ever in Europe, but that's not my point.

Canadians are very popular in Europe (and worldwide) for the very reasons that you condemn this country.

One other myth Canadians like to deceive themselves with... in fact, this might fall into the same legendary category as Americans being trained from birth to worship the red, white, and blue as a religious icon; and American kids being taught to begin chanting from an age old enough to speak - "THE USA IS THE BEST!"...is the well-ingrained belief of virtually all Canadians that Americans are universally despised when travelliing outside of the country, while Canadians are looked upon as some sort of master race, "Look Amma, a Canadian. Ooohhh, can I just stand next to him, maybe he'll let me touch his maple leaf"

Then what do you make of this article from the BBC (must have been some real soul-searching the day this was published) that out of 25 countries assessed by global tourism boards that Americans are tied for the very best, most-liked, most-courteous, etc... tourists in the world (tied for number one with Japanese and Germans).

Guess where Canadians were on the list?

Number two? No. Three? No. Four? Guess again. Fifteenth? Nope. 20th? Keep going. Dead last? You mean tied with the Russians? BINGO! (see paragraph 11)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2137729.stm

And I note that this was published just prior to the Iraq War, so in a sense these feelings are untainted by political views on the war and probably more accurately reflect the world's real feelings for American tourists.

And note if you read the comments on the story (given by clicking on the link to the side, essentially all comments are favourable about American tourists until you start reading comments from Canadians - which are almost the only negatitive comments about Americans on the whole site. Further confirming my belief that hatred of Americans is brainwashed into Canadians. Why? THat is a whole nother thread.

Once the war is finally over maybe you should start sewing American flags to your luggage.

[redhead_pt]

Lol, a childish rebuttal, perhaps, but I wonder how many ill-mannered Yanks have tainted our perceived courtesy whilst masquerading as Canadians! In all honesty, the majority of Americans I have met have been well-mannered and agreeable while travelling through Vancouver. I think it is likely due to political disdain that Americans get most of their bad rap. At the same time, if people have voted for the political party, then are they not to blame for it's actions?

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

No mention of the Oil For Food program should pass without mention of the fact thati ndividuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein, the largest of these recipients being Houston-based Bayoil.

The only two Americans I see on the list are Shaker Al-Khafaji, the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates, and Samir Vincent, an Iraqi-born American citizen who gave $400,000 to far-left icon Scott "the pedo" Ritter to make a pro-Saddam movie.

However I see many many other individuals and countries (The Russian state itself received 1,366,000,000 barrels) on the list.

[Yodeler]

Further confirming my belief that hatred of Americans is brainwashed into Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody brainwashed anybody!

When my neighbor, Mr. Jones's, fortunes started changing I didn't want to admit it at first and was angry .... but once I realized that his pulling away from me was an undeniable fact (a Rolls-Royce in his driveway etc.) my insane jealousy & hatred stopped.

The same insane jealousy & hatred is now felt by most Canadians that are becoming more and more suspicious of the fact that Americans are richer and richer than us with each passing year.

The sooner we realize that this is not just suspicion but certainity, the sooner our jealousy & hatred of Americans will stop!!

How do I know this? La Rochefoucald told me so! He said:

"Jealousy feeds upon suspicion, and it turns into fury or it ends as soon as we pass from suspicion to certainity."

[err]

Further confirming my belief that hatred of Americans is brainwashed into Canadians.  Why? 

I, like most Canadians, like the American people that I know... I've spent a lot of time in the USA and found most of the people I've met to be very nice, welcoming, etc....

I also share many Canadians' negative feelings about the Bush administration. Just because we don't like the administration doesn't mean that we don't like Americans.... And conversely, just because the like the citizens, doesn't mean that we have to like the administration....

[Montgomery Burns]

Newbie:

And dear Monty, to say Canada is not respected in the world, one only has to ask why some Americans are sewing our flag on their luggage.

I think that is a myth. If not, then it is just self-loathing American leftists.

And why pretend to be a Canadian, why not some other nationality? What do you expect people to say?

"Hey look. He's Canadian. I'll bet he has a really cool winter parka."

[Montgomery Burns]

Pearson:

Further confirming my belief that hatred of Americans is brainwashed into Canadians.

Canadians are forced to pay $1 billion a year to the state-run CBC to be brainwashed in America Hatred.

And now they want state-run daycare, they want our children at a younger age...

[Montgomery Burns]

Boondoggle:

As for Darfur, you are FLAT OUT ass backwards WRONG. The difference between you and I is that I believe force should be used to save lives not 15-20 years later and saying: oh yeah, this is for what you did back then. You can't do anything for the dead, but you can help those at risk, and that's Darfur.

Reuters: US blocks U.N. briefing on atrocities in Sudan

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton blocked a U.N. envoy on Monday from briefing the Security Council on grave human rights violations in Sudan's Darfur region, saying the council had to act against atrocities and not just talk about them. 

"How many officials from the secretariat does it take to give a briefing?" he said, noting the council had just concluded a briefing on Darfur from Hedi Annabi, the assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping operations.

Less talk, more action!

The Security Council met for a briefing on the latest developments in Darfur after rebels in the western Sudanese region abducted a number of African Union peacekeeping troops and killed some of them.

Kofi's stern response to this?

The incident prompted Annan to warn in Geneva on Monday that a surge of violence in the region may force the world body to suspend some aid to Darfur.

There ya go. Punish the victims. The UN has become a toothless irrelevant body.

[err]

Pearson:

Further confirming my belief that hatred of Americans is brainwashed into Canadians.

Canadians are forced to pay $1 billion a year to the state-run CBC to be brainwashed in America Hatred.

And now they want state-run daycare, they want our children at a younger age...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The CBC is an outstanding organization. Just because it was never an extreme right-wing station, doesn't make it extreme left wing.... And brainwashing... have you been spending a lot of time ordering from Mark Emery's web site ????