I left nutty bush for scary Harper ?

[Argus]

Nice to see a conservative that can read.

Now if only you guys had a liberal who could write.

[Drea]

I do know the difference between a good American and a bad American

Good American = Democrat

Bad American = Republican

It's really a shame that they don't have a party for those who bend toward the middle though.

Black or white

with us or against us

terrorist lover or saddam hater...

socialist or capitalist

the USA is divided (and by proxy the rest of the world) into two camps. Thanks a friggin lot, George, for forcing people into one camp or the other and dividing your country in two.

Once GW is out of office I am sure that President Hilary will do her best to mend our relationship.

[tml12]

I do know the difference between a good American and a bad American

Good American = Democrat

Bad American = Republican

It's really a shame that they don't have a party for those who bend toward the middle though.

Black or white

with us or against us

terrorist lover or saddam hater...

socialist or capitalist

the USA is divided (and by proxy the rest of the world) into two camps. Thanks a friggin lot, George, for forcing people into one camp or the other and dividing your country in two.

Once GW is out of office I am sure that President Hilary will do her best to mend our relationship.

Those represent your values, but I am glad you acknolwledge that our relationship with the Americans means something

[Montgomery Burns]

Where has the left said they hate all Americans?

edited: And where have I said (a Liberal) I hated all Americans.

I already asked days ago for someone to provide proof of anyone stating they hate Americans.

Still Waiting.

You've got to be kidding.

Chretien’s nephew, Raymond Chretien--Canada's former ambassador to Washington, told a Liberal audience that the Liberal govt prefered Al Gore to win the election rather than Bush.

In 2004, a few Liberal senators and 2 Liberal cabinet ministers publicly endorsed John Kerry over Bush, and went around wearing John Kerry campaign buttons.

Chretien's communications director, Francine Ducros, publicly called Bush a “moron.” She was never reprimanded for it.

Herb Dhaliwal claimed that Bush was a “failed statesman.” No reprimand.

Carolyn Parrish screamed out “Americans! I hate the bastards.” No reprimand.

Parrish also called the Bush administration a “coalition of idiots” regarding its fight to liberate Iraq. No reprimand.

Parrish then went on the state-run, taxpayer-funded CBC TV and stamped on a Bush doll. No reprimand.

Only when Parrish criticized PMPM, did he admonish her and kick her out of the Liberal caucus.

Sure, they didn't say they hate all Americans, only the majority of them.

And many Canadian liberals chuckled at our govt's embarrassing antics (it's just "humor").

But boy oh boy, they sure got upset when some pundit on a cable channel that few watch, called Canadians "our retarded cousins".

[Montgomery Burns]

USA Liberal:

Most americans aren't conservative

Bullspit! America is a centre-right country. If Perot hadn't split the right in 1992 (he took about 1/3 of Bush Sr's votes), Clinton would have never won (Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in '92) and it might have been 7 consecutive victories for the Republicans in the White House.

And if the Dems don't purge their party of leftwing extremists like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, they haven't got a hope in hell in 2008--no matter how hard the MSM campaigns for them.

[Riverwind]

And if the Dems don't purge their party of leftwing extremists like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, they haven't got a hope in hell in 2008--no matter how hard the MSM campaigns for them.

That is why the NDP is so useful in Canadian politics: it gives a place for the left extremists to go where they can do little harm. Now, if we can just find a place for the right wing extremists....

[Montgomery Burns]

Nice to see taking things out of context isn't limited to the Liberals.

Finally an admision by a Liberal,that Liberals do take things out of context

Ouch. Busted!!

[betsy]

And that echoes my point. They have no idea of what the change they are going to get with the Conservatives will be. They are going to get chump change in return for selling out the nation and its social values.

So far, all we hear (and that includes you) is what the Liberals want us to hear and believe. How can you possibly say with certainty that we are going to get chump change in return for selling out the nation and its social values if we go for the Conservatives? We have not even tried Harper yet.

See, here's where the difference is between you and I.

Your "boogeyman" is still just a figment of your imagination. My boogeyman is already here! They've been in power for 12 years.

I can say with certainty...and with honest conviction....that we all got chump changed by the Liberals in return because of those who persisted in selling out the nation.

C'mon Eureka. I know deep in your heart you want a change too. Take the plunge....and be assured in the knowledge that if ever the Conservatives do the same old crooked Liberal-trick, we, as voters, can as easily replace them.

[Montgomery Burns]

Betsy:

Your "boogeyman" is still just a figment of your imagination. My boogeyman is already here! They've been in power for 12 years.

She summed it up in 3 short sentences.

Impressive.

[Guest eureka]

It is not difficult to tell, betsy. All that is required is enough education to read and listen. Just enough practise in using reason to follow what Harper has promised.

You have been through all the arguments about his social programme. And, though all the arguments against Harper's proposals are made by most of the nation's economists - even Right Wing economists who are not part of the campaign itself, you choose to keep your head deeply in the sand.

Therefore, you are hopelessly lost. Just like Argus.

[USA_Liberal]

USA Liberal:

Most americans aren't conservative

Bullspit! America is a centre-right country. If Perot hadn't split the right in 1992 (he took about 1/3 of Bush Sr's votes), Clinton would have never won (Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in '92) and it might have been 7 consecutive victories for the Republicans in the White House.

And if the Dems don't purge their party of leftwing extremists like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, they haven't got a hope in hell in 2008--no matter how hard the MSM campaigns for them.

you seem to be confusing right wing conservatives with republicans. there are many republican congressman and senators who aren't conservative ! america is a center very slightly left leaning country. those election numbers are nice but they don't tell you anything about changing demographics and it doesn't account for the eligible thousands who don't turn up to vote. what you have to understand is that in the american republican system, we elect a president only and not an entire cabinet, instead of electing a whole government in canada. Americans are dumber than canadians in many ways (i can say that without bias, i am both). People pay a lot more attention to propaganda, and any kind of scare mongering such as the "war on terror" works. this trend is slowly going to change as more and more hispanics move into middle america. if you look at the numbers in texas, it is slowly changing. in the last 2 presidential elections, there has been a slow move away from the conservatives. Orange county california has long been (and had been one of the last) republican strongholds. Increase in hispanic population enabled congresswoman loretta sanchez to kick out right wing Dornan. Republicans acknowledge that they might have lost Orange County for good.

America very much votes based on racial lines. whites make up 70% of america, and slightly higher than 55% vote republican, african americans unanimously vote democrat, hispanics (except cubans) vote democrat. asian vote is split. hispanics have displaced blacks as the largest minority group. Democrats already own new york and california. the only other state with huge electoral college is texas and as i stated, that number is changing. when texas falls, as more and more mexicans move into the state, the republicans will fall-for good, but that won't happen at least for the next 2 decades.

[Hicksey]

"I do hope you realize how we on the right feel about Martin's promise to improve relationship with the Americans."

Why is it always Canada's responsibility to "manage" the relationship? What about the role of the US in this relationship? Are they NOT responsible for how they treat us?

Like the abused wife, Canada says "It's ok that I'm all beat up -- it's my fault, I should not have provoked him -- my relative said he was a "moron" and my other relative said "I hate that bastard" and yet another relative stomped on a effigy of him on national television -- no wonder he beat the shit out of me, can you blame him?"

The US needs to apologize to Canada IMO. Apologize for importing their violence, their guns, their chemical drugs... apologize for softwood lumber, mad cow, blaming us for the power outage... apologize for the likes of Tucker, O'Reilly and Carlson...

*They should be on bended knee kissing our beaver butts!

*They = those who support the republican regime.

You may have seen the post on our inability to deploy even six aircraft to Afghanistan for six months. (we probably have a couple of privately owned airlines that could do better). This is a NATO commitment remember. Perhaps if we could pull our weight on international issues, instead of just talking about them and bashing the Americans because they can and do, they might would pay more attention and give us a little more respect. Nobody likes a mouthy neighbor who is all talk and no action.

We're a fairweather friend to the Americans with the Liberals in power. They lick their finger and see which way the political winds are blowing before offering aid.

Guess being allies and neighbors doesn't count for much.

[betsy]

It is not difficult to tell, betsy. All that is required is enough education to read and listen. Just enough practise in using reason to follow what Harper has promised.

You have been through all the arguments about his social programme. And, though all the arguments against Harper's proposals are made by most of the nation's economists - even Right Wing economists who are not part of the campaign itself, you choose to keep your head deeply in the sand.

Therefore, you are hopelessly lost. Just like Argus.

Boy, with what the Liberals had done...that enough so-called education to read and listen...and that just enough practice in using that so-called reason...is not even required to tell that we've been victimized!

Can't you hear what the people are saying? Can't you see how they are reacting? They're saying, "we've been mugged by a bunch of thugs!"

Oh do yourself a favor and quit reasoning like a typical Liberal.

Your reasoning is somehow off-key....no matter how hard I try to twist it around like a cube. It does not compute.

Tell me, just who is really choosing to keep her/his head buried deeply in the sand?

[scribblet]

It is not difficult to tell, betsy. All that is required is enough education to read and listen. Just enough practise in using reason to follow what Harper has promised.

You have been through all the arguments about his social programme. And, though all the arguments against Harper's proposals are made by most of the nation's economists - even Right Wing economists who are not part of the campaign itself, you choose to keep your head deeply in the sand.

Therefore, you are hopelessly lost. Just like Argus.

Boy, with what the Liberals had done...that enough so-called education to read and listen...and that just enough practice in using that so-called reason...is not even required to tell that we've been victimized!

Can't you hear what the people are saying? Can't you see how they are reacting? They're saying, "we've been mugged by a bunch of thugs!"

Oh do yourself a favor and quit reasoning like a typical Liberal.

Your reasoning is somehow off-key....no matter how hard I try to twist it around like a cube. It does not compute.

Tell me, just who is really choosing to keep her/his head buried deeply in the sand?

It doesn't take much reason to figure out that Canadians are being 'liberally scammed' and that social programs (other than EI and old age) are a provincial responsibility. Maybe someone could take their head out of the sand and enlighten us as to where Harper has said he reduce funding for social programs, and which ones he would get rid of. Funny can't find that anywhere in any policy.

[Hicksey]

USA Liberal:

Most americans aren't conservative

Bullspit! America is a centre-right country. If Perot hadn't split the right in 1992 (he took about 1/3 of Bush Sr's votes), Clinton would have never won (Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in '92) and it might have been 7 consecutive victories for the Republicans in the White House.

And if the Dems don't purge their party of leftwing extremists like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, they haven't got a hope in hell in 2008--no matter how hard the MSM campaigns for them.

you seem to be confusing right wing conservatives with republicans. there are many republican congressman and senators who aren't conservative ! america is a center very slightly left leaning country. those election numbers are nice but they don't tell you anything about changing demographics and it doesn't account for the eligible thousands who don't turn up to vote. what you have to understand is that in the american republican system, we elect a president only and not an entire cabinet, instead of electing a whole government in canada. Americans are dumber than canadians in many ways (i can say that without bias, i am both). People pay a lot more attention to propaganda, and any kind of scare mongering such as the "war on terror" works. this trend is slowly going to change as more and more hispanics move into middle america. if you look at the numbers in texas, it is slowly changing. in the last 2 presidential elections, there has been a slow move away from the conservatives. Orange county california has long been (and had been one of the last) republican strongholds. Increase in hispanic population enabled congresswoman loretta sanchez to kick out right wing Dornan. Republicans acknowledge that they might have lost Orange County for good.

America very much votes based on racial lines. whites make up 70% of america, and slightly higher than 55% vote republican, african americans unanimously vote democrat, hispanics (except cubans) vote democrat. asian vote is split. hispanics have displaced blacks as the largest minority group. Democrats already own new york and california. the only other state with huge electoral college is texas and as i stated, that number is changing. when texas falls, as more and more mexicans move into the state, the republicans will fall-for good, but that won't happen at least for the next 2 decades.

What's closer to reality is this: the urban centres vote liberal and the rest votes conservative with some notable exceptions in the far northeast. The states along the coastlines vote predominately liberal and the heartland predominately conservative.

[tml12]

USA Liberal:

Most americans aren't conservative

Bullspit! America is a centre-right country. If Perot hadn't split the right in 1992 (he took about 1/3 of Bush Sr's votes), Clinton would have never won (Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in '92) and it might have been 7 consecutive victories for the Republicans in the White House.

And if the Dems don't purge their party of leftwing extremists like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, they haven't got a hope in hell in 2008--no matter how hard the MSM campaigns for them.

you seem to be confusing right wing conservatives with republicans. there are many republican congressman and senators who aren't conservative ! america is a center very slightly left leaning country. those election numbers are nice but they don't tell you anything about changing demographics and it doesn't account for the eligible thousands who don't turn up to vote. what you have to understand is that in the american republican system, we elect a president only and not an entire cabinet, instead of electing a whole government in canada. Americans are dumber than canadians in many ways (i can say that without bias, i am both). People pay a lot more attention to propaganda, and any kind of scare mongering such as the "war on terror" works. this trend is slowly going to change as more and more hispanics move into middle america. if you look at the numbers in texas, it is slowly changing. in the last 2 presidential elections, there has been a slow move away from the conservatives. Orange county california has long been (and had been one of the last) republican strongholds. Increase in hispanic population enabled congresswoman loretta sanchez to kick out right wing Dornan. Republicans acknowledge that they might have lost Orange County for good.

America very much votes based on racial lines. whites make up 70% of america, and slightly higher than 55% vote republican, african americans unanimously vote democrat, hispanics (except cubans) vote democrat. asian vote is split. hispanics have displaced blacks as the largest minority group. Democrats already own new york and california. the only other state with huge electoral college is texas and as i stated, that number is changing. when texas falls, as more and more mexicans move into the state, the republicans will fall-for good, but that won't happen at least for the next 2 decades.

What's closer to reality is this: the urban centres vote liberal and the rest votes conservative with some notable exceptions in the far northeast. The states along the coastlines vote predominately liberal and the heartland predominately conservative.

And that is true here in Canada. The urban areas are almost always to the left of the rural areas.

Canada's urban population carries the weight of the country, whereas Middle America carries a lot of the weight in the States. For these reasons, Canada elects more leftist governments than the Americans.

I think this does not mean, however, that more Canadians are liberal and more Americans are conservative, rather just that the respective "minority" groups in each country have a harder time being heard.

[Guest eureka]

It doesn't take much reason to figure out that Canadians are being 'liberally scammed' and that social programs (other than EI and old age) are a provincial responsibility. Maybe someone could take their head out of the sand and enlighten us as to where Harper has said he reduce funding for social programs, and which ones he would get rid of. Funny can't find that anywhere in any policy. rolleyes.gif

Then you have to read the policy and follow the implications.

Harper has proposed to devolve federal powers to the Provinces.

The major power is the spending power.

Harper has promised to turn that power over to the provinces.

The Provinces have played fast and loose with social programmes for generations.

Most of our social programmes have been federal iniatives.

Provincial control of the programmes will mean an unequal mishmash across Canada.

A Harper led federal government will no longer have the wherewital to fund programmes.

Some provinces will have their social programmes curtailed because they cannot afford them.

Some provinces will happily destroy what programmes they do have. The Right Wing led as did Harris and Klein.

Social programmes will seesaw upwards and downwards in the provinces with every change of the political winds.

That cannot happen with National Programmes since they srae established by agreements with all the provinces to set and equalize standards.

[kimmy]

Social programmes will seesaw upwards and downwards in the provinces with every change of the political winds.

That cannot happen with National Programmes since they srae established by agreements with all the provinces to set and equalize standards.

But these are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Provinces pay for them, yet depend on the federal government for the funding due to federal powers of taxation. The biggest cuts in our history were implimented by provincial governments whose hands had been forced by finance minister Martin's measures.

Paul Martin's efforts on the "national programs" front have hardly been confidence-inspiring. On healthcare we saw his "national program" consisted of little more than getting the premiers together to shake down the government for cash that was given out with virtually no strings attached anyway. On daycare we've seen Ken Dryden make meet individually with a couple of his provincial counterparts to fork over cash with again no guarantee of any results.

To me it seems as though the only difference between what you say Harper plans to do and what Martin has already done is that Martin's process involves a photo-op and an adversarial process where the premiers have to shake down the feds for more cash before they can go impliment their own policies in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

-k

[Spike22]

Is there a DORK removal button within the forum.

A. why did you move to Canada?

B. do you have any idea of what you are talking about

C. go to OZ and like the scarecrow get a brain

Yikes no wonder this world is nuts.

I am so afraid I am sure Harper alone can have us all in lederhosen goosestepping in downtown Ottawa... hahaha this is retarded.

I must now releive my bladder from too much laughter.

[Harare]

Is there a DORK removal button within the forum.

A. why did you move to Canada?

B. do you have any idea of what you are talking about

C. go to OZ and like the scarecrow get a brain

Yikes no wonder this world is nuts.

I am so afraid I am sure Harper alone can have us all in lederhosen goosestepping in downtown Ottawa... hahaha this is retarded.

I must now releive my bladder from too much laughter.

Lib USA could always move to Cuba, I hear that over there the COns never get a chance to get in power.