Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:28 am
Bingham, "Anti-American" is an apt description for many people in the world. You should embrace it if that's the way you feel. I won't lie to you, I am anti-Canadian a lot of the time. For instance, I don't like Jim Carey much. Also, and more importantly, I think that Canada, like most of the free world, has for too long relied on the U.S. to bear the burden of protecting it. It sits back knowing that we wouldn't let anything happen to it, but jumps all over us when one of our pilots kills a couple of its guys by mistake. I mean, Canada's anti-death penalty and pro-rehabilitation of criminals, unless the "criminals" happen to be U.S. servicemen who accidentally bomb a Canadian position in the fog of war.
Back to anti-Americanism, there are plenty of people who reflexifly blame the U.S. (or western civilization in general) for a lot of shit that's not our fault. What's more, many of these same people will act like inaction on the part of the U.S. (e.g. Liberia) is the equivalent of the Holocaust. I mean make up your mind: Do you want us to fix the world or not? You're entitled to your opinion, but when it is uniformly contrary to the position and interests of the U.S. I think that you are by definition anti-American (The McCarthyite reference you were going for was Un-American, which has a different conotation for me all together). Many people are anti-American - they hate the U.S.
And another thing, in the McCarthy era which was the right side? The Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Joseph Stalin side? I'm not a big fan of Tailgunner Joe, but I think too many leftwingers these days rely on McCarthy as a boogeyman. (And yes, I am Ann Coulter.) Why don't you address the anti-American comment head on? Explain why you're not anti-American if it bothers you so much.
Lastly, I don't think we need any Canadaians voting in a U.S. presidential poll if we want anything like accurate results.
Back to anti-Americanism, there are plenty of people who reflexifly blame the U.S. (or western civilization in general) for a lot of shit that's not our fault. What's more, many of these same people will act like inaction on the part of the U.S. (e.g. Liberia) is the equivalent of the Holocaust. I mean make up your mind: Do you want us to fix the world or not? You're entitled to your opinion, but when it is uniformly contrary to the position and interests of the U.S. I think that you are by definition anti-American (The McCarthyite reference you were going for was Un-American, which has a different conotation for me all together). Many people are anti-American - they hate the U.S.
And another thing, in the McCarthy era which was the right side? The Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Joseph Stalin side? I'm not a big fan of Tailgunner Joe, but I think too many leftwingers these days rely on McCarthy as a boogeyman. (And yes, I am Ann Coulter.) Why don't you address the anti-American comment head on? Explain why you're not anti-American if it bothers you so much.
Lastly, I don't think we need any Canadaians voting in a U.S. presidential poll if we want anything like accurate results.
Sun Aug 03, 2003 9:05 am
Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum
Also, and more importantly, I think that Canada, like most of the free world, has for too long relied on the U.S. to bear the burden of protecting it. It sits back knowing that we wouldn't let anything happen to it, but jumps all over us when one of our pilots kills a couple of its guys by mistake. I mean, Canada's anti-death penalty and pro-rehabilitation of criminals, unless the "criminals" happen to be U.S. servicemen who accidentally bomb a Canadian position in the fog of war.
Who exactly is the US protecting Canada from? Canada has never relied on US protection since no one has ever been "after" us.
And Canada never wanted anything overt to happen to the US pilots involved in the friendly fire incident. We just hoped that some sort of reprimand would be in order, not jail time. It would have been a bit better than the whole did happen, aka jack squat.
Sun Aug 03, 2003 9:52 am
Maybe Canada needs a reprimand for allowing terrorists to waltz into their country for easy access to the United States? Canada isn't a target because it is a tool utilized by the terrorists.
Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:05 am
Originally posted by Cpl. Bingham
Who exactly is the US protecting Canada from? Canada has never relied on US protection since no one has ever been "after" us.
Uh, there was this big dust-up called "the Cold War". Had it not been for the US, Canada would just be another Soviet satellite. (not an orbiting space satellite, for you geniuses out there)
Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:35 am
Face and Folic Acid, haven't you learned by now you can't have logical discussions with Liberals? They must always resort to name calling and emotional outbursts. I am quite capable of writing a long dissertation, but for what?
Personally, I would vote for the U.S. Constitution candidate, but realizing what a national disaster it would be with the modern current crop of Democrats, I'll vote for Bush. I am thoroughly disgusted with his caving on certain foundational issues however.
If Gore were president, we'd probably be apologizing to the terrorists, and offer them some new government program or sensitivity training. Clinton did absolutely nothing except bomb an aspirin factory. Bush did what Clinton didn't have the guts to do.
Bush's biggest downfall is compromising with Liberals so they couldn't use it as a campaign issue. This may be good for politics, but not for the future of our country. To be truthful, there's only about 30% on the Republican side I fully support, and about 5% on the Democratic side. The rest are big spending leaches.
And for the economically ignorant, tax cuts "for the rich" (a favorite Liberal cliche) do not create deficits. Government entitlements (spending) do, pure and simple. Liberals derive their power by making as many of the electorate as possible reliant on them. We have a whole generation so dummed down from our public educational system, it's no wonder a majority of students graduating from high school can't identify the vice president, the three branches of government, and don't have even a basic understanding of economics.
Alexander Tyler, an 18th century historian and economist, wrote in 1787:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Now the rewriting of history concerning Reagan's taxcuts has the public believing the deficits in the 1980's were caused by Reagan's taxcuts. But like most things, Liberals don't understand the economy is dynamic. The FACTS are, revenues to the Treasury doubled; the problem was, Federal spending tripled.
Publk edukashun in amerika, get sum!
Personally, I would vote for the U.S. Constitution candidate, but realizing what a national disaster it would be with the modern current crop of Democrats, I'll vote for Bush. I am thoroughly disgusted with his caving on certain foundational issues however.
If Gore were president, we'd probably be apologizing to the terrorists, and offer them some new government program or sensitivity training. Clinton did absolutely nothing except bomb an aspirin factory. Bush did what Clinton didn't have the guts to do.
Bush's biggest downfall is compromising with Liberals so they couldn't use it as a campaign issue. This may be good for politics, but not for the future of our country. To be truthful, there's only about 30% on the Republican side I fully support, and about 5% on the Democratic side. The rest are big spending leaches.
And for the economically ignorant, tax cuts "for the rich" (a favorite Liberal cliche) do not create deficits. Government entitlements (spending) do, pure and simple. Liberals derive their power by making as many of the electorate as possible reliant on them. We have a whole generation so dummed down from our public educational system, it's no wonder a majority of students graduating from high school can't identify the vice president, the three branches of government, and don't have even a basic understanding of economics.
Alexander Tyler, an 18th century historian and economist, wrote in 1787:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Now the rewriting of history concerning Reagan's taxcuts has the public believing the deficits in the 1980's were caused by Reagan's taxcuts. But like most things, Liberals don't understand the economy is dynamic. The FACTS are, revenues to the Treasury doubled; the problem was, Federal spending tripled.
Publk edukashun in amerika, get sum!
Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:11 pm
Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
Uh, there was this big dust-up called "the Cold War". Had it not been for the US, Canada would just be another Soviet satellite. (not an orbiting space satellite, for you geniuses out there)
Another sputnik...
J/K
Yeah...
Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:23 am
Originally posted by RCglider
Face and Folic Acid, haven't you learned by now you can't have logical discussions with Liberals? They must always resort to name calling and emotional outbursts. I am quite capable of writing a long dissertation, but for what?
Personally, I would vote for the U.S. Constitution candidate, but realizing what a national disaster it would be with the modern current crop of Democrats, I'll vote for Bush. I am thoroughly disgusted with his caving on certain foundational issues however.
If Gore were president, we'd probably be apologizing to the terrorists, and offer them some new government program or sensitivity training. Clinton did absolutely nothing except bomb an aspirin factory. Bush did what Clinton didn't have the guts to do.
Bush's biggest downfall is compromising with Liberals so they couldn't use it as a campaign issue. This may be good for politics, but not for the future of our country. To be truthful, there's only about 30% on the Republican side I fully support, and about 5% on the Democratic side. The rest are big spending leaches.
And for the economically ignorant, tax cuts "for the rich" (a favorite Liberal cliche) do not create deficits. Government entitlements (spending) do, pure and simple. Liberals derive their power by making as many of the electorate as possible reliant on them. We have a whole generation so dummed down from our public educational system, it's no wonder a majority of students graduating from high school can't identify the vice president, the three branches of government, and don't have even a basic understanding of economics.
Alexander Tyler, an 18th century historian and economist, wrote in 1787:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Now the rewriting of history concerning Reagan's taxcuts has the public believing the deficits in the 1980's were caused by Reagan's taxcuts. But like most things, Liberals don't understand the economy is dynamic. The FACTS are, revenues to the Treasury doubled; the problem was, Federal spending tripled.
Publk edukashun in amerika, get sum!
Well put!
Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:59 am
OK edited out any responsive discussion. This is my new post.
The answer to this should be... how can I decide until I know who he will be running against.? Also, he still has a good share of his term to either succeed or fail.
If you voted yes or no.... then you are part of the problem in the US. People vote based around their party beliefs based on outside affiliation. Unions, farmers, professionals, military etc etc.
The yes's would vote for him if he did lie and invaded a country for personal gain.
The no's wouldn't vote for him if he saved the US from major disaster.
People talk economy when they dont understand how it works. They talk about Iraq like they have some top secret knowledge. They make ridiculous statements when they have no facts to support (like there isn't actaully any voting in the US). That person is like a wanna be Jim Jones or David Koresh.
Respect others..... there are no true answers.. no absolutes.... only values.
Ahhhh its late..... shouldnt even have posted at all.... nevermind... maybe I will delete before I go to sleep.
The answer to this should be... how can I decide until I know who he will be running against.? Also, he still has a good share of his term to either succeed or fail.
If you voted yes or no.... then you are part of the problem in the US. People vote based around their party beliefs based on outside affiliation. Unions, farmers, professionals, military etc etc.
The yes's would vote for him if he did lie and invaded a country for personal gain.
The no's wouldn't vote for him if he saved the US from major disaster.
People talk economy when they dont understand how it works. They talk about Iraq like they have some top secret knowledge. They make ridiculous statements when they have no facts to support (like there isn't actaully any voting in the US). That person is like a wanna be Jim Jones or David Koresh.
Respect others..... there are no true answers.. no absolutes.... only values.
Ahhhh its late..... shouldnt even have posted at all.... nevermind... maybe I will delete before I go to sleep.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:43 am
Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum
Bingham, "Anti-American" is an apt description for many people in the world. You should embrace it if that's the way you feel. I won't lie to you, I am anti-Canadian a lot of the time. For instance, I don't like Jim Carey much. Also, and more importantly, I think that Canada, like most of the free world, has for too long relied on the U.S. to bear the burden of protecting it. It sits back knowing that we wouldn't let anything happen to it, but jumps all over us when one of our pilots kills a couple of its guys by mistake. I mean, Canada's anti-death penalty and pro-rehabilitation of criminals, unless the "criminals" happen to be U.S. servicemen who accidentally bomb a Canadian position in the fog of war.
Back to anti-Americanism, there are plenty of people who reflexifly blame the U.S. (or western civilization in general) for a lot of shit that's not our fault. What's more, many of these same people will act like inaction on the part of the U.S. (e.g. Liberia) is the equivalent of the Holocaust. I mean make up your mind: Do you want us to fix the world or not? You're entitled to your opinion, but when it is uniformly contrary to the position and interests of the U.S. I think that you are by definition anti-American (The McCarthyite reference you were going for was Un-American, which has a different conotation for me all together). Many people are anti-American - they hate the U.S.
And another thing, in the McCarthy era which was the right side? The Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Joseph Stalin side? I'm not a big fan of Tailgunner Joe, but I think too many leftwingers these days rely on McCarthy as a boogeyman. (And yes, I am Ann Coulter.) Why don't you address the anti-American comment head on? Explain why you're not anti-American if it bothers you so much.
Lastly, I don't think we need any Canadaians voting in a U.S. presidential poll if we want anything like accurate results.
Get your facts straight. Canadian soldiers were killed by American soldiers. Are we suppose to just accept this? Oh it happens, oh well. That's bullshit. If and when that happens, there needs to be a full investigation, and a courtmartial if needed. That's all Canada wanted. Nothing more.
If Canadian troops killed Americans, without saying so much as 'sorry', would you be upset?
So you think Canada relies too much on US defense eh?
First of all, Canada will never be a super power. We have 1/10 the US population, how big is our army suppose to be anyway? We get by with what we have, although it could use a little more spending, it works.
In Canada, we value things such as HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, you know, stuff like that. I think I'd rather see our money SPENT ON HEALTH CARE SO EVERYONE WHO NEEDS IT GETS IT. What's more important? People in a country laying on the street dying because they can't afford a health bill, or the government spending BILLIONS on a stupid missile defense shield that hasn't been proven?
Instead of critisizing other countries because they can't support a HUGE military (just so you know, the entire Canadian budget is what the US spends on their military each year) how about you look at your own government spending, tax defecits, and ways the money can help YOUR people so EVERYONE can get equal health benefits.
you have to sit back and prioritize. is the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on an oversized military worth it? Do you actually need a nuclear weapons supply which could totally destroy the earth? (the US has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet 100 times according to a TV show on the discovery channel)
The world doesn't expect the US to keep the peace everywhere. The U.N. can help with that. Haven't heard of Canadian Peace Keepers? That's one of the main roles of our military. We keep the peace in other countries.
Sorry, I am REALLY REALLY sorry that our Canadian army, supported by 30 million people, can't hold a candle to YOUR army, supported by 285 million people. Tell me, just tell me, how big of an army do you think we need? You seem to have all the answers. Just tell us.
Oh, and one more thing. The United States hyped up it's justification of war against Iraq. If another country did what the US did, there would be consequences. The fact that the US started the war, doesn't give YOU the right to critisize other countries for not being able to support the US in it.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:30 am
Originally posted by Face
Maybe Canada needs a reprimand for allowing terrorists to waltz into their country for easy access to the United States? Canada isn't a target because it is a tool utilized by the terrorists.
hahahahahahahaha you actually believe that Canada isnt' a target because it's a tool utilized by terrorists?
don't talk about reprimanding Canada, how about reprimanding the US for going to war on accusations that can't be proven?
Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:11 am
Originally posted by Face
WHY????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Because whining, crying LIBERALS will be in an uproar and all of the rest of the weak in the world will be claiming that the US is trying to take over the world. Whiny, wussy, mamby-pamby people PREVENT us from helping others all over the world. We do as much as we can.
That is WHY.
Buy two clues, maybe one will be closer to the bullseye than your complete nonsense.
Bush: All terrorist acts will be met with in force, no matter who does them to who.
The nest day: more West Bank suicide attacks.
Bush: Um, well, maybe not ALL terrorist acts........
Yeah, the 'Liberals' sure stopped Buch cold there.
People like you make me sick. You are so blind that you think that only one way is correct. Not just correct in political beliefs, but in what their beloived politcal party has done,. is doing and will do. They are always right, when something is odd, it must be the other sides fault.
You, sir, are the largest problem in the US: Uninformed.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:15 am
Originally posted by Face
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH 'war on terror' dogma??????????????
I guess the WTC DIDNT get bombed in 1993?
I guess 2 US embassies in Africa DIDNT get bombed?
I guess the USS Cole DIDNT get bombed?
I guess the WTC DIDNT get destroyed?
Are we all on the same planet here?
BTW, the terrorists planned the 9/11 attacks for YEARS. Bush was in office 9 months. WOW WHAT A REVELATION!!!....Osama Bin Asshole planned that attack during the CLINTON YEARS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This whole post reeks of ignorance. It also shows how young you are.
The fact that Bush cut the national secutiry funds in half before 9-11 means nothing, huh?
The fact Clinton wanted to go into Iraq but Republican controlled Congress turned him down means nothing, huh?
Or, simple common sense: the president of th eUS holds no overall authority over any operation of the US. So, pointing your finger at the President, and not every single other politician in DC shows how clueless you are.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:19 am
Originally posted by Face
Then just what would convince you of something "anti-American"?? getting nuked?
I am sick of people saying "OMFG you can't say THAT is anti-American!!!" What does it take? If something is against America, it is anti-American.
And yes, someone my be allowed to speak out against American in America, but that is STILL anti-American. We just allow it. Don't sugar coat it. It is anti-American.
We allow it, but I have a BIG FU to those who think that way. It is my RIGHT to say FU as much as it is someone;s right to be anti-American in America. The freedom of speech goes for both sides.
Each post shows how ignorant you are. I would stop if I was you.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:21 am
Originally posted by Face
Maybe Canada needs a reprimand for allowing terrorists to waltz into their country for easy access to the United States? Canada isn't a target because it is a tool utilized by the terrorists.
There's that ignorance again.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:25 am
Originally posted by RCglider
Now the rewriting of history concerning Reagan's taxcuts has the public believing the deficits in the 1980's were caused by Reagan's taxcuts. But like most things, Liberals don't understand the economy is dynamic. The FACTS are, revenues to the Treasury doubled; the problem was, Federal spending tripled.
Um, like you said, revenues to the Treasury doubled, Federal Spending tripled. Somehow, you do not see how the tax cuts were the problem?
It's called the revenue only doubled BECAUSE taxes were cut. If taxes were not cut, the revenue would have been closer to what the Federal government was (over)spending.
How blind do you have to be not to see that?