Tucker Carlson/Ann Coulter

[Montgomery Burns]

Here's a couple of sites to indicate employment rates that moderateamerican alluded to. I think you'll agree that since Bush took office, the unemployment in the States rose proportionately.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-2...0/chart-p83.htm

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/j...s.cfm#recession

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are not being fair. Bush took office as a recession just started (in the tail end of the Clinton presidency--the dotcom bubble burst), had two major corporate scandals (Remember Enron?), and 9-11 was a major hit on their economy.

Now look at their economy. Even with all those hurricanes (especially Katrina), a rise (for a while) in gas prices (before dropping)--they have a 5% unemployment rate and their last quarter had a whopping 4.3% GDP growth.

[Montgomery Burns]

LOL You sure got that right!

WE have a SURPLUS!

YOU have a DEFICIT!

Neener neener neener!

btw surplus means extra money in da bank -- deficit means no money in da bank.

Now, how many TRILLIONS of dollars is your country in debt?

LOL

And much of it is being financed by China.

"The United States, the world’s leading debtor nation, is now heavily dependent on Chinese capital to underwrite its fast-growing debt."

Source http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update45.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure you want to go there?

Shall I bring up all of Canada's dealing with China?

Just because Canada's MSM is virtually ignoring all of Communist China's acquisitions in Canada (the subject is too close to Liberal Party vulnerabilities to risk reporting it too much), it doesn't mean that political junkies are unaware what is going on.

Sinopec's 40% stake in a $4.5 billion oilsands project.

China Nat'l Offshore Oil Corporation's purchase of 17% stake in MEGEnergy...

...and their buy-out of Calgary-based PetroKazakhstan.

Communist-owned China National Petroleum Corp's $1.4 billion acquisition of the Ecuadorean oil assets of Canada's EnCana Corp.

And from Socialist Saskatchewan:

NDP Premier Calvert going to Bejing looking for Communist investors in Sask oil fields and uranium mines.

Chinese delegation visiting Cameco's uranium mine in Saskatchewan.

[Montgomery Burns]

A Liberal Party member going on Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC, and stomping a George Bush doll with her boot--and then taking a pencil to the doll's eye and stabbing it like a deranged meth addict = Okay.

Liberal Party members referring to Americans as "bastards, morons, and the coalition of the idiots" = Okay.

An American pundit - Tucker Carlson - referring to Canadians as retarded cousins = Bad.

Even though I am Canadian, I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of some of my fellow Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics.

[Montgomery Burns]

American Woman (a great song by Canadian band--The Guess Who):

"Power" isn't necessarily desirable or something to brag about.

It's desirable when dealing with thugs around the world. Power/Force is all they understand.

I'm not proud of the power the U.S. imposes on the world.

Talk to the Eastern Europeans, Central Americans, Iraqis, and Afghanis. I bet they disagree with you.

Canada provides health care to all its citizens,

At a very high, both monetarily (my province spends 44% of its budget on healthcare) and physically painful price. Canadians lack enough MRIs, Catscans, and often have long waiting lists. Private healthcare is officially illegal here--just like Cuba and North Korea (although the govt turns a blind eye to the few private clinics). If, or when, I need an operation, I don't give a damn what it costs; I want it done now--not to be put on a waiting list for a year and a half. Canadians have NO CHOICE when it comes to choosing healthcare. There is no competition and there is no incentive to be efficient when you have no competition. 10% of Canadians don't have a doctor. Haven't you wondered why so many Canadians go to the US to be healed? Our healthcare forces people to suffer for long periods in pain and even kills our citizens. You are playing with people's lives when you have socialist healthcare.

doesn't incarcerate a high percentage of the people for infractions like pot possession

Which is good.

doesn't have the death penalty

Which is bad. I don't like my tax dollars being spent to house scumbags who killed at least 11 children (Clifford Olson). Didn't you find it disgusting when those people were protesting for Tookie to be spared from death, but yet they were silent about the deaths of the 4 people he killed? Reminded me of those people protesting Bush for the Iraq liberation--but couldn't find room in their hateful little hearts to protest against the massmurdering Saddam Hussein.

gives a larger portion of its GNP to charitible causes

Maybe our govt gives more percentage-wise (through forced taxation), but NO ONE gives more - to NGOs and the church - than US people. Perhaps your citizens can afford it easier since your per capita GDP is 27.3% higher than ours.

respects the rights of gays to marry

But not the rights of the traditional family...or the right to put this issue to a referndum so the public can vote on this attempt at social re-engineering. Lucky Americans get to vote on things like that. We don't get to vote because the Canadian left knows that the majority of the public is against changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.

You might find this long post by a female libertarian interesting. At the conclusion, she didn't come out on one side or the other.

As for Blair winning Britain's election, it's true that the majority of Brits were/are against the war in Iraq. I've talked with quite a few about both of our elections beforehand. The common response was that they didn't have a choice; Blair is their liberal and a conservative would only be more supportive of war. So they chose the lesser of two evils, but they haven't been giving him an easy time regarding his support of the war.

Blair was re-elected with a majority govt to a 3rd term after his 2nd term was dominated by foreign policy issues. Blair's party got 356 seats, the Conservatives got 198 seats, and the anti-war Liberal Democrats got 62 seats. Despite the UK's notoriously leftwing media spinning that Blair lost some seats because of his Iraq War stance, he did still get a majority govt, and I believe that the decrease in seats was more due to the voting public's typical desire for "a change" after someone being in power for a long time.

If the UK public was that stridently against liberating the long-suffering Iraqis, they surely would have given Blair the boot.

[Yaro]

Before i post an educated response, and crunch some numbers, does anyone know a good website to find, Personal savings averages for the US?

Here is my response yaro, i found all this material in between business today at work.

You don't even understand what you’re looking at; you didn't go where I told you to go and your misinterpreting the data you did find. This is EXACTLY why I didn't want to bother debating this issue with someone with no education or training on this topic.

I crunched the numbers provided from the bls.gov website provided. Assuming that there is 150 million people living in the United States at working age In November 2005 there was a net 97k change in job force, and a loss of 52k jobs; which results in a net change of 149k unemployed in the USA. Assuming that the NOV 05 rate of 5 percent unemployment is correct then that means that 7.5 million people are unemployed. Now if we take the number of NEW unemployed (149 thousand) that means the true number of unemployed is 5.09%. GASP! I guess I should go withdraw all my money out of the bank. Now if given a formula and/ or a table to track savings over the last 20+years I am sure I can tear that argument apart as well.

They don't even track the data that you THINK your looking at. Now go back read my instructions and compare them to what you have done.

As far as personal savings, I cannot find anything going back to 1989 however if you go to this website ( http://www.marketvector.com/leading-indica...nal-savings.htm ) It will show you since 2003. The table shows a down slope with an increase in the last year.

Sigh, once again a basic economics term that you obviously have no clue how to use or interpret.

US Personal Savings Levels

Do you know what the above chart even means? How it’s arrived at or what its implications are? Do you understand the nature of the current corporate liquidity? How it occurred? How it supported the current issues with lack of corporate savings and how it has related to the under funding of pensions and massive bankruptcies which are only now starting to hit in the US, all of this before the US economy enters a recessionary cycle. How about the relationship between savings and investment and further to that how a sharp decline in investment in the US in particular would be devastating because of so much overseas ownership in the US.

Right now the US has its head above the water in large part due to many Americans owning substantial portions of foreign based operations. This is slowly disappearing.

As far as GDP being a bad indicator, the only thing that people have against it, even though its used by a shit ton of economist around the world is it does not take into account a countries black market. This of course can only really be estimated.

Right, now your going to explain to me what GDP is? Nobody who understands GDP has anything against it, it’s just a statistic, it has severe problems however when used as an indicator social wealth.

US transactions abroad: http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/transnewsrelease.htm

I think we all acknowledge the massive trade deficit the US has.

At the bottom of the page it shows how much of the “pie” we owe china

http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/news/news.cfm?doc_id=4713

This is only relevant to understanding the extent to which China has waged economic war on the US, and how incredibly successful it has been.

However according to this its not like the US is going to keel over and die, if we can make some minor adjustments to standard of living we can cut the deficit in half. So it appears Yaro is partially right, specifically on us owing the “Lions share” of are debt to China.

This article (which I largely agree with BTW) doesn’t say that the US isn’t in huge trouble, what it says is that it may not be as bad as most fear. I agree it probably won’t be as bad as most fear, the market is very well controlled right now, and I imagine at some point things will shift fairly dramatically and we will understand just how far our technology has brought us but things will certainly be a lot worse then your thinking they will be at this point.

[newbie]

double post

[newbie]

A Liberal Party member going on Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC, and stomping a George Bush doll with her boot--and then taking a pencil to the doll's eye and stabbing it like a deranged meth addict = Okay.

Liberal Party members referring to Americans as "bastards, morons, and the coalition of the idiots" = Okay.

An American pundit - Tucker Carlson - referring to Canadians as retarded cousins = Bad.

Even though I am Canadian, I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of some of my fellow Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html

[GostHacked]

Black Dog never ceases to amaze me...

This is funny beause it shows how little you really know. The people of England were overwhelmingly against the Iraq war. In fact, the only country where there was not overwhelming opposition to the war was the U.S. itself, and even then, the population was sharply divided. So while the UK government may be Best Pals with the Bush regime, don't think for a second that it is a popular position.

You must be unaware that Tony Blair was re-elected to a 3rd term, that the Tory Party (also pro-enforcement of int'l law) came in 2nd, and the anti-enforcement of int'l law party (I forget its name) came in a distant 3rd.

You also must be unaware that John Howard was re-elected to a 4th term in Australia.

You also must be unaware that Italy's Silvio Berlusconi was re-elected in May 2005.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And as BlackDog has pointed out, there are alot more reasons for why they won their respected elections. Iraq was not the only thing on the agenda. If they both got elected for the sole reason of Iraq, then both the British and the Australians are complete retards. But I would think there was more to it. I could be just oblivious to the whole thing though.

[GostHacked]

A Liberal Party member going on Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC, and stomping a George Bush doll with her boot--and then taking a pencil to the doll's eye and stabbing it like a deranged meth addict = Okay.

Liberal Party members referring to Americans as "bastards, morons, and the coalition of the idiots" = Okay.

An American pundit - Tucker Carlson - referring to Canadians as retarded cousins = Bad.

Even though I am Canadian, I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of some of my fellow Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh shi ....

... but since it is a pinko commie left wing soviet style state run propaganda machine, Monty here will NOT believe a word on that article.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog never ceases to amaze me...

This is funny beause it shows how little you really know. The people of England were overwhelmingly against the Iraq war. In fact, the only country where there was not overwhelming opposition to the war was the U.S. itself, and even then, the population was sharply divided. So while the UK government may be Best Pals with the Bush regime, don't think for a second that it is a popular position.

You must be unaware that Tony Blair was re-elected to a 3rd term, that the Tory Party (also pro-enforcement of int'l law) came in 2nd, and the anti-enforcement of int'l law party (I forget its name) came in a distant 3rd.

You also must be unaware that John Howard was re-elected to a 4th term in Australia.

You also must be unaware that Italy's Silvio Berlusconi was re-elected in May 2005.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And as BlackDog has pointed out, there are alot more reasons for why they won their respected elections. Iraq was not the only thing on the agenda. If they both got elected for the sole reason of Iraq, then both the British and the Australians are complete retards. But I would think there was more to it. I could be just oblivious to the whole thing though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense. If the people of Italy, Australia, and the UK were "overwhelmingly against the Iraq war", then neither of the 3 would have been re-elected.

Why do I have this feeling that if all 3 were not re-elected--you and Black Dog would have asserted it was because of their stance on the Iraq war....

[Montgomery Burns]

A Liberal Party member going on Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC, and stomping a George Bush doll with her boot--and then taking a pencil to the doll's eye and stabbing it like a deranged meth addict = Okay.

Liberal Party members referring to Americans as "bastards, morons, and the coalition of the idiots" = Okay.

An American pundit - Tucker Carlson - referring to Canadians as retarded cousins = Bad.

Even though I am Canadian, I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of some of my fellow Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you should read the articles before you link to them. There is nothing in that story about her getting expelled for her antics against Bush--although the CBC cleverly words their "news" article to suggest this was the reason.

She was not expelled for her antics against Bush, but for criticizing Martin. I thought everyone knew that. She admitted it herself the very next day.

[Montgomery Burns]

A Liberal Party member going on Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC, and stomping a George Bush doll with her boot--and then taking a pencil to the doll's eye and stabbing it like a deranged meth addict = Okay.

Liberal Party members referring to Americans as "bastards, morons, and the coalition of the idiots" = Okay.

An American pundit - Tucker Carlson - referring to Canadians as retarded cousins = Bad.

Even though I am Canadian, I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of some of my fellow Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh shi ....

... but since it is a pinko commie left wing soviet style state run propaganda machine, Monty here will NOT believe a word on that article.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical blind ideologue who only sees what he wants to see.

My above reply to Newbie applies to you too.

[newbie]

A Liberal Party member going on Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC, and stomping a George Bush doll with her boot--and then taking a pencil to the doll's eye and stabbing it like a deranged meth addict = Okay.

Liberal Party members referring to Americans as "bastards, morons, and the coalition of the idiots" = Okay.

An American pundit - Tucker Carlson - referring to Canadians as retarded cousins = Bad.

Even though I am Canadian, I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of some of my fellow Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you should read the articles before you link to them. There is nothing in that story about her getting expelled for her antics against Bush--although the CBC cleverly words their "news" article to suggest this was the reason.

She was not expelled for her antics against Bush, but for criticizing Martin. I thought everyone knew that. She admitted it herself the very next day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, one last time Monty. Next time READ the article. And try and put 2 and 2 together. Stomps doll, cursing Americans = dismissal.

Martin told reporters that while he has defended the controversial MP's right to express her views frankly, he "cannot, as leader of our party and the government caucus, tolerate behaviour that demeans and disrespects others."

What the hell part of that don't you understand. Sheesh!

[Black Dog]

If the UK public was that stridently against liberating the long-suffering Iraqis, they surely would have given Blair the boot.

Uh...for what alternative? The other pro-war party? Or could it be that elections are seldom decided on a single issue (even as that single issue cost Blair 47 seats and 5 per cent of the vote)?

But then, I'm dealing with someone who's convinced that the last U.S. election (one of the tightest in history) was a landslide, thus I'm not dealing with someone well-versed in reality.

[Guest eureka]

And elections are seldom decided by foreign policy. Something that Kerry should have borne in mind.

[GostHacked]

oh shi ....

... but since it is a pinko commie left wing soviet style state run propaganda machine, Monty here will NOT believe a word on that article.

Typical blind ideologue who only sees what he wants to see.

My above reply to Newbie applies to you too.

I am just using your own words Monty. You cannot pick and choose your articles from CBC to suit your needs. That would be like.... froget it.

There are a couple contries that helped out in the invasion of Iraq and are no longer there. Spain for example is one country that had their govermnet thrown down after the Madrid bombings. That seemed to have an impact and they ousted the Pro Iraq government. That was pretty clear. In this case I would say being involved in the Iraq war had a direct impact on their government not getting reelected.

Again the Iraq war was not the only reason those leaders in GB, US ect won their respected elections. And as Black Dog pointed out, Blair's party lost seats. The war was a factor, but again, not the only one. As for Martin, he did not get voted in soley because he was against the Iraq war.

[Montgomery Burns]

A Liberal Party member going on Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet Style CBC, and stomping a George Bush doll with her boot--and then taking a pencil to the doll's eye and stabbing it like a deranged meth addict = Okay.

Liberal Party members referring to Americans as "bastards, morons, and the coalition of the idiots" = Okay.

An American pundit - Tucker Carlson - referring to Canadians as retarded cousins = Bad.

Even though I am Canadian, I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of some of my fellow Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you should read the articles before you link to them. There is nothing in that story about her getting expelled for her antics against Bush--although the CBC cleverly words their "news" article to suggest this was the reason.

She was not expelled for her antics against Bush, but for criticizing Martin. I thought everyone knew that. She admitted it herself the very next day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, one last time Monty. Next time READ the article. And try and put 2 and 2 together. Stomps doll, cursing Americans = dismissal.

Martin told reporters that while he has defended the controversial MP's right to express her views frankly, he "cannot, as leader of our party and the government caucus, tolerate behaviour that demeans and disrespects others."

What the hell part of that don't you understand. Sheesh!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What the hell is the matter with you? :angry:

Martin was talking about Parrish's remarks about him and the Liberal Party, not about the Bush Doll embarrassment.

Parrish even said so the very next day--did you even bother to read the above link I left for you? Read the link, then print it, then tape it to your fridge door, and your mirror in the bathroom so it can sink into your skull.

Grrrr. It's so damn frustrating debating certain leftists sometimes. No matter what the evidence, they are so blindly partisan that they just ignore anything that proves them wrong and go on their merry way living in their cocoon.

[Montgomery Burns]

If the UK public was that stridently against liberating the long-suffering Iraqis, they surely would have given Blair the boot.

Uh...for what alternative? The other pro-war party? Or could it be that elections are seldom decided on a single issue (even as that single issue cost Blair 47 seats and 5 per cent of the vote)?

But then, I'm dealing with someone who's convinced that the last U.S. election (one of the tightest in history) was a landslide, thus I'm not dealing with someone well-versed in reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Uh...the anti-war Liberal Democrats? Remember them? The ones that came in a distant 3rd place despite the population being, to use your words, "overwhelmingly opposed" to the liberation of Iraq. Do you honestly think that the Iraq war was not an issue to the voters? Blair might have lost a bit of support, but I put taht up the the typical quest for a change that is common when someone has been in power for a long time. And Blair still got a MAJORITY govt.

2) Please don't put words in my mouth. I dare you to find where I said that the last US election was a landslide. It was fairly close but Bush won 286 Electoral Votes and Kerry got 252.

And you are the last person who should be talking about "not dealing with someone well-versed in reality". You still insist that there was no one from Al Qaeda in Iraq before Saddam was overthrown--despite every sane person on the planet being aware of this fact.

[Montgomery Burns]

GostHacked:

You cannot pick and choose your articles from CBC to suit your needs.

Because I busted you with a link from the very site that you claimed showed that Parrish was fired for her Bush-doll-stomping incident?

Gee GH. You're kinda boxing me in here. I can't use a links from the very site you claimed proved your point. I can't use links from Faux News or the Washington Times, and I can't use links from blogs. Are there any sources that I can use that are okay with you?

There are a couple contries that helped out in the invasion of Iraq and are no longer there. Spain for example is one country that had their govermnet thrown down after the Madrid bombings. That seemed to have an impact and they ousted the Pro Iraq government. That was pretty clear. In this case I would say being involved in the Iraq war had a direct impact on their government not getting reelected.

True...and I believe that the Philippines is the other country that you were thinking of. However, the UK, Australia, and Italy govts were all re-elected. You have to admit that it is impressive that the now pacifist Japanese even sent some troops--although I believe they are doing mostly reconstruction work. And what about Poland? Their left-of-centre govt said that it was going to move its troops out of Iraq in 2006. The newly elected right-of-centre govt just announced the other day that it is keeping the 1500 Polish troops in Iraq throughout 2006...although I'm not sure how much of an issue that was in their election.

Did you ever notice that nearly every former Soviet satellite state is in Iraq fighting tyranny and for democracy?

I noticed that.

[moderateamericain]

You know what Yaro, im tired of debating with someone who dismisses every piece of fact i find without bothering to even create a shred of math to prove himself. Your condecending attitude is tiring to say the least. You claim to be some kind of economics wizard thats only Worthy person to debate with is an "ecoomics proffessor". The fact that you back up nothing that you say with anything even close to fact or proof just makes me believe your full of shit. I say your a 18 year old college kid who took a few economics class and comes in here thinking hes god gift to the american economy. If your gonna argue at least do so in a rational manner.

[canuckcat]

.....makes me believe your full of shit....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

stop torturing us with your bad grammar and potty mouth...

[Black Dog]

1) Uh...the anti-war Liberal Democrats? Remember them? The ones that came in a distant 3rd place despite the population being, to use your words, "overwhelmingly opposed" to the liberation of Iraq.

How often to 3rd parties make the kind of gains necessary to top an incumbent party with a large majority over a foreign policy issue? Never happens. Nonetheless, the LD's stil managed to pick up 11 seats and a respectable 22 per cent of the vote (Blair's Labour majority nabbed 35 per cent).

Do you honestly think that the Iraq war was not an issue to the voters?

Sure, but not the only issue.

Blair might have lost a bit of support, but I put taht up the the typical quest for a change that is common when someone has been in power for a long time. And Blair still got a MAJORITY govt.

You can't have it both ways, sunshine. Either the election was all about Iraq (as you seem to believe) or it wasn't. If it was, then Blair's weakend majority is a repudation of his Iraq policy and not, as you say, a natural slide. However, anyone with even basic knowledge of politics knows that single-issue elections are unheard of, especially when that issue is a foreign policy one.

2) Please don't put words in my mouth. I dare you to find where I said that the last US election was a landslide. It was fairly close but Bush won 286 Electoral Votes and Kerry got 252.

Yopu certainly didn't use the term landslide. But you have continously characterized the election as an "overwhelming" victory (your words), despite the margin being one of the tightest in history.

And speaking of putting words in people's mouths...

And you are the last person who should be talking about "not dealing with someone well-versed in reality". You still insist that there was no one from Al Qaeda in Iraq before Saddam was overthrown--despite every sane person on the planet being aware of this fact.

Show me where I said that. I have maintained that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Big difference.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman (a great song by Canadian band--The Guess Who)

It took me a while to realize that song wasn't a compliment.

"Power" isn't necessarily desirable or something to brag about.

It's desirable when dealing with thugs around the world. Power/Force is all they understand.

How would anyone know that? We've never tried anything else. Furthermore, our power doesn't seem to be intimidating them any since the terrorism threat is as great now as it ever was. In fact, since we've used our power on Iraq, I'd say we have even more people worldwide "hating" us.

I'm not proud of the power the U.S. imposes on the world.

Talk to the Eastern Europeans, Central Americans, Iraqis, and Afghanis. I bet they disagree with you.

Disagree with me how? But just because some people in some nations might be impressed by our power doesn't mean it's right. There are plenty of nations in South America, the ME, and around the world who are less than impressed with it. And I noticed you didn't include any developed nations in your list. Evidently you realize that they are less impressed with our power than you apparently are.

The United States should be leading by example, and it seems to me we are doing the exact opposite. Also, there should be balance in the world. One Super Power, that's only too eager to impose its will on everyone else, is not a good thing.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada provides health care to all its citizens,

At a very high, both monetarily (my province spends 44% of its budget on healthcare) and physically painful price. Canadians lack enough MRIs, Catscans, and often have long waiting lists. Private healthcare is officially illegal here--just like Cuba and North Korea (although the govt turns a blind eye to the few private clinics). If, or when, I need an operation, I don't give a damn what it costs; I want it done now--not to be put on a waiting list for a year and a half. Canadians have NO CHOICE when it comes to choosing healthcare. There is no competition and there is no incentive to be efficient when you have no competition. 10% of Canadians don't have a doctor. Haven't you wondered why so many Canadians go to the US to be healed? Our healthcare forces people to suffer for long periods in pain and even kills our citizens. You are playing with people's lives when you have socialist healthcare.

You are playing with people's lives when they have NO healthcare. Close to 16% of Americans don't have healthcare. The fact that Canada has a lower infant mortality rate and a higher life expectancy would indicate that Canada's system is better than ours.

I don't blame you for being upset about the waiting period Canadians experience, but it seems to me that would be a sign of underfunding. From what I understand, it wasn't always like that. But there are waits in the United States, too. Even people with health coverage sometimes go to places like India for operations to avoid waits, while those without coverage go there for the low cost. If you needed an operation that cost thousands and thousands of dollars, and you had no health coverage, believe me, you'd care about the cost. Unless you're quite wealthy. Americans go without preventive care because it's cost prohibitive. You say a lot of Canadians go to the United States to be healed, but a lot of Americans go to Canada because they can't afford healthcare/prescriptions here.

There has to be an answer that works for everyone. It's a matter of making it the high priority that it should be.

[newbie]

The United States should be leading by example, and it seems to me we are doing the exact opposite. Also, there should be balance in the world. One Super Power, that's only too eager to impose its will on everyone else, is not a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks you for your comments. An honest voice from America finally.