I believed USA was the country of freedom...
but it seems now that USA is the country of loose of freedom... more and more and more...
How can you support this stupidity ?!
No government has the right to tell to people what they must do... remember that USA is a democracy
So impose yourself to government and stop accuse people to not be blind as you are.
Re:blame canada!
by
uncoveror
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In the states, freedom and liberty are buzzwords. They don't mean anything. We are less free in the U.S. than in any other industrialized nation, yet we think we have special privileges because our masters tell us we do. Americans are sheep. Is it hard to emigrate to Canada?
-- The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Re:blame canada!
by
Karpe
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They are not only buzzwords. They have been used too long as propaganda during the cold war era by the government (Let's see, what can we use to justify that we are right and they are wrong? Freedom!) to justify an economic and politic event.
Population was led to believe that soviets were monsters because they didn't have the freedom that americans had, but most americans couldn't even figure out what freedom really meant. The funny thing is that the same people (Rumsfeld et al.) is trying to convince americans that the terrorists attack the USA because of freedom, and then what they do? Remove some freedoms from the people! Makes a lot of sense, only in the politics logic.
Re:blame canada!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
> We are less free in the U.S. than in any other > industrialized nation
Do you really believe that? How is the man keeping YOU down?
Re:blame canada!
by
enjo13
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Your an idiot.. It's not hard to emigrate, have fun.
I've actually lived abroad, and while I enjoyed my time (Australia and Italy) overseas.. I do know that most of the rest of the industrialized world has more or less the same amount of freedom that I do right now.
We all have our faults, the U.S. included (and you may not beleive it, but Canada as well). Yet we, as a people, ARE free. We can live where we want, say (most anything) we want, and live the life we want to live. Sure, we have our problems, and we as a people have long been working to fight through them. We (along with the rest of the world) are constantly evolving and trying to find the balanace between outright freedom and the order we need to continue to live the lives we do.
Am I always happy with the U.S. ? Nope.. yet I recognize that we as a people really are a free. If your to blinded by your 'enlightened nature' and your very large chip that resides on your shoulder to see it, well then I hope you spend a few years somewhere else so that you can see exactly how wrong you really are.
-- Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Re:blame canada!
by
maxpublic
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yet another argument that goes along the lines of 'things are still pretty good, so don't complain'.
I will continue to complain so long as the Constitution of these United States is violated. I will settle for nothing less than full compliance with the Constitution. Arguments to the contrary are irrelevant; if you want to change the Constitution in order to legally install your repressive state, then do so - the mechanism is there, and it's been done numerous times in the past.
But until you pass that amendment, you *will* abide by the Constitution whether you like it or not. And if you or the government violates the supreme law of the land, you can bet your ass that I and others like me will stand up and cry 'foul!'.
Our Founding Fathers would expect no less.
Max
-- My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:blame canada!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...and I suppose you get offended when the rest of the planet calls Americans ignorant?
Re:blame canada!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We can own guns and play violent video games. Unlike, *cough* Australia. All I can say is that the government will never shut me up, no matter the cost.
Correction, Our Framers would expect no less. Remember California says "Founding Fathers" is not politically correct.
Re:blame canada!
by
MagikSlinger
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Please, before moving to Canada, can I ask you all to please register to vote and actually *vote*!?
Register for the primaries too and vote against the encumbants who support the PATRIOT act (I & II), the Iraqi misadventure and other pieces of legislation you love to hate. Remember, a lot of Democrats also voted for the above.
Considering America's low participation in its own democracy, you shouldn't be surprised the American government is acting against its citizens' own best interests.
-- The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
US - Land of the Free
Canada - Land of the Too Free
I get this warm, fuzzy feeling about our leadership when they start admonishing other countries for placing too much importance on trivial things like civil liberties.
-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:blame canada!
by
esobofh
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
There is a latin saying that goes, "The corruption of the best is the worst". When taking a global perspective, our situation in the U.S. is trivial. We still enjoy more freedoms and opportunities than most of the world, and the occasional restriction of liberties is pale in comparison to most other countries with totalitarian, restrictive governments.
And yet, it is the fact that our country is so great that any restriction on our way of life seems so terrible and unjust. Let's face it, the US, with it's long lasting Constitutional protection of person freedom, is one of the best things to ever happen to human society, and ANY stain or tarnish on that ideal, no matter how trivial, is far worse than if some other country with lower ideals began subjugating its citizens it was already repressing.
Personally, I can't stand to see us slip slowly into that kind of mentality. The worst regimes in our modern history didn't pop up overnight, but were created gradually due to a series of small steps that removed power from the people they governed.
Islamists believe that it's ok for an unelected, unvetted imam to pass death sentences and for his followers to carry them out worldwide including the US and Canada. These people are walking/talking civil liberties violations and unfit for entrance into the US or any other civilized place.
One of the fundamental jobs of a government is to stop people from violating your civil rights. If Canada is doing a bad job in protecting everybody's civil liberties by letting these people operate in Canada and thus in the NAFTA free travel zone to the US, the US has every right to complain.
Please vote: [ ] Mr. Righty Corporate Sellout (Industry) [ ] Mr. Lefty Corporate Sellout (Media) [ ] Throw Away Vote (WTF did you register in the first place?)
Re:blame canada!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
well the us is a democracy. but what are you saying?
you are electing a president all four years. does the president ask you if he wants to start a war?
did you, as US citizien have ANY possibility to say NO, even if more than 50% of the people disagreed with a war?
see that it is a democracy, but an indirect.
I know it can be better that a president can take a decision really fast, but it's ONE persons decision.
there are some countries with an direct democracy: e.g. switzerland. every one has the right to vote on federal decisions. every one has the right to bring a votation to the citiczens by collecting 100'000 signatures. then everyone will vote on that. it takes time. but you have to say something.
sheesh, I was only making a vague reference to Robin Williams and South Park. Next time I'll spell it out. I really love Canada and would love to immigrate. I think the Canadians like to be picked on, at least the ones with a sense of humor ehh?
At least I avoided the whole first post sheengains by not making a big deal of my feat.
Are you kidding me? Is an Islamist a real word? When did this happen? If you're talking about Salman Rushdie, that was:
condemned by lots of Muslims worldwide
A Shia issue (ie the Shia Ayatollah of Iran) and not related to the 80-90% of Muslims who aren't Shia
An issue of libel and slander. Rushdie insulted major parts of his religion without any factual basis, and refused to apologize. It was slander, and they set the punishment
Well put. Before America gets significantly better, we need a better election method, otherwise we'll end up with the two-party bullshit we have now.
However, the grandparent post wasn't completely off. It advises voting in primaries; that is, you can vote for which Mr. Righty or Mr. Lefty will be in the final election. Maybe they're all corporate sellouts, but some to a lesser degree than others.
How can you call yourself an American, talking like that? The government wants to trash the Constitution, so you must be some Nazi-commie-pinko-fag-(insert more knee-jerk propagandist titles here)-terrorist to complain! Damn Unamerican and unpatriotic if you ask me. Can't have people calling for the Constitution to be upheld. That'd mean people might actually have to read it first!
Guards, arrest that man!
"Move along, nothing to see here. Hust getting rid of an agitator. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that justifies our actions is that most Americans couldn't care less what the government does, as long as they don't have to pay more taxes.
-- This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
What I find funny is that now whenever someone tries to speak out against someone's Constitutional rights being violated, they're labelled as 'traitors' or 'liberal idiots'. Violating the Constitution seems to be a favorite government pastime these days.
-- This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
>> Considering America's low participation in its own democracy, you shouldn't be surprised the American government is acting against its citizens' own best interests.
Why is there so little participation? I think it's for two major reasons:
1. The politicians could care less what individual people think (in most cases). Whatever constituent pays them the most money gets their way, no matter how detrimental their way might be to the world.
2. George Bush is president. Al Gore got the most popular votes. If our government was a real democracy (as we claim it is), Gore would be president now. The fact that we have an electoral college is like saying the average person is too stupid to pick a good president. In fact, I've seen a few people online who have said exactly that. Somehow they seem to think that "stupid people shouldn't be able to elect a leader of their choice" is a good part of a democracy.
-- This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
So then I assume that you fully support my second amendment right bear arms and you do not believe in any percieved right to privacy.
Re:blame canada!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wrong. It was libel (at best, if a bunch of muslim clerics were on the "jury"), and most of his material is far more enlightening that that fucking pile of wifebeating clitoris chopping sharia garbage bullshit the Koran and all the collected analects of the twisted rooted in paganism cult that is Islam, the most offensive of world religions.
Ah, yes, and to you, it seems logical that "libel" carries a death sentence. Proof of your inability to become civilized. You need to be incarcerted, in the very center of where your religion is in power, and you would come running back to the westernworld for things like, clean food, water, medicine, and education, a real job (unless you become an Oil Sheik which is a birthright along with most ameneities in the Islamic world).
"I will continue to complain so long as the Constitution of these United States is violated."
Damn right, Max, so shall I. And violating the Constitution seems to be the last non-partisan effort that we can count on.
I think that that is the best possible political system... voting on every single decision will ensure that the majority agrees, and not just the president and those around him..
the problem is... not everyone is interested in politics, therefore eventually only the minority will vote...
Re:blame canada!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry. I am sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.
I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.
I am sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defence I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, MUCH better than yours.
I am sorry that we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it. It's Very Nice!
I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel Your Pain.
I'm sorry about waffling on Iraq. I mean you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.
And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.
Thank you.
Re:blame canada!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey, it was marked as libel by lots of people, secular and religious, all over the world, Muslim and otherwise. You are practically ready to worhip The Satanic Verses and elevate it above all else, though you haven't even read it. And I didn't say it deserved a death penalty, I'm not a Shia.
Considering there is an average of 3 of us per square kilometer, you could conceivably kill off an entire family with a nuclear warhead:-)
Re:blame canada!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If it was so fake, untrie and truly libel, why would a bunch of people get all riled up about a work of fiction?
I mean, lets see, it starts with two men surviving a fall from an exploding airplane.
Interesting how a work of fiction is so fuckin interesting to these cultist fuckers.
Insultin someone in a work of fiction cannot be defined in as libel, especailly here in a free society.
I do believe that in order to be libel, the piece in question has to be passed off as truth.
Oh yeah, MR100PERCENT, I wanted to say something about Muhammed: He raped little boys, and he was the agent of Satan, I know this to be true. How do you like that,you cultist misguided fucker?
They ['liberty' and 'freedom'] are not only buzzwords. They have been used too long as propaganda during the cold war era by the government...Population was led to believe that soviets were monsters because they didn't have the freedom that americans had, but most americans couldn't even figure out what freedom really meant.
True, but you should note that as part of the effort to potray themselves as better during the cold war, Western governments did institute freedoms and better conditions for the population (eg. shorter working hours, social welfare etc etc.) Now that the cold war has been won, it's back to business as usual. Working hours go up, and liberties become more abstract (ie negative) or are simply abrogated, well at least in the Anglosphere, Europe is still lagging behind on that front. This was so even before Sept 11.
-- Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Screw you, America
by
WolfeCanada
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Oh give me a break......the US does not hold jurisdiction over Canada, and they can keep their grubby fingers out of my country, thank you very much. If I want to smoke pot in my own country, if that right has been 'allowed' by my own government, what gives the US the right to interfere in the sovereignity of Canada? F*CK OFF!!
-- "If it's stupid and it works....it's not stupid."
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Does Canada have any oil ressources?
Re:Screw you, America
by
jilles
·
· Score: 2, Funny
No the us have long ago 'liberated' alaska.
--
Jilles
Re:Screw you, America
by
gilroy
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Blockquoth the poster:
the US does not hold jurisdiction over Canada
Not yet, anyway. But just wait until we finish off Syria and North Korea and a few other small countries. After all, if Iraq looked easy, imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....
Sad to say, this scenario is no longer really beyond the imaginable. Sometimes my own government makes me ill. No, wait, let me say "the government of my own country" -- there is no way I'll lay claim to this cowboy administration.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Jason1729
·
· Score: 4, Informative
We have vast oil resources in Western Canada. It is exported to the US very cheaply, and here in Eastern Canada, we import oil from the Middle East at much higher prices.
They put out a huge ad in the NY Times earlier this year just to let everyone know that they were the US' largest supplier of oil. Apparently not many people know.
-Tim
Re:Screw you, America
by
91degrees
·
· Score: 5, Funny
imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....
I dunno... General Hull tried this in 1812, and got his ass whipped.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
We have vast oil resources in Western Canada. It is exported to the US very cheaply, and here in Eastern Canada, we import oil from the Middle East at much higher prices.
We also grow large quantities of wheat in Western Canada. However, we are forced to ship it to Eastern Canada first (Canadian Wheat Board). Then we get to buy it back at higher prices. If a farmer tries to circumvent this procedure they are thrown in jail.
Not yet, anyway. But just wait until we finish off Syria and North Korea and a few other small countries. After all, if Iraq looked easy, imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....What makes you think that the US-Canadian border won't be defended by that time. Assuming the US hasn't exhausted it's military might by fighting wars all over the planet and hasn't made the mistake of attacking some "small country" capable of either defending itself or launching a counter attack.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Moofie
·
· Score: 5, Informative
If by "liberated" you mean "purchased for cash money from the people who owned it at the time who were not Canadians", then yes, your sentence is true.
If by "liberated" you wish to draw spurious parallels between the purchase of Alaska and the deposing of Saddam, you're an idiot.
-- Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Screw you, America
by
Jason1729
·
· Score: 1, Informative
You only ship the amount you don't use there (that you might want to export elsewhere). What do you mean you buy it back from higher prices? from who? We don't want or get any of you wheat anyway, Ontario produces plenty for our own use and to export to other provinces.
You're on shaky ground to begin with with agriculture as an example. Most farming in Canada is subsidized by the federal goverment, and most of that money comes from Ontario.
What is this hatred you Westerners have against being a part of Canada? My comment was that you give cheap oil to a foreign country instead of your fellow countrymen, and your response is that you are forced to sell your surplus wheat within your own country instead of outside as if that were a bad thing.
But just wait until we finish off Syria and North Korea and a few other small countries. After all, if Iraq looked easy, imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....
Careful, there are castles up there with Frenchmen that are not afraid to taunt you -perhaps a second time- or catapult stuff (probably farm animals).
Re:Screw you, America
by
rikkards
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
It's because of the Canadian government bending over for a minority that is smaller now than other minorities because the English handed the French their ass on a platter over a hundred years ago and felt bad about it. Mod me if you have to but it is true
What makes you think that the US-Canadian border won't be defended by that time.
History. The US v Canada: Round three? Round four?
Anyway, read up the last time the US tried to go to war with canada
The Great Pig War. Bullets were actually fired, though less than during the Indian Attack on Seattle. Hmm, come to think of it, both events had the same number of casualties --- no people.
Wind under Thy Wings
Amber
--
Suppose you did.
Suppose you did not.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're a fucking retard.
All those people kissing our troops must be white.
I guess Slobadan Milosavec (sp?) was the colored, opressed person and all the Muslims he was butchering must have been secretly 'white'.
Stop opening your mouth, you are reality-challenged.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No...mostly Canadians. There were a few thousand British troops here in 1812, but ten times that in a militia made up of the general citizenry. This militia was what made up the primary defence at the time.
Funny how you Yanks always pretend to be so ignorant of this fact, as if you're trying to find an excuse for your own shortcomings. Fact is, you LOST! Pure and simple.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Pig+Hogger
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
We also grow large quantities of wheat in Western Canada. However, we are forced to ship it to Eastern Canada first (Canadian Wheat Board). Then we get to buy it back at higher prices. If a farmer tries to circumvent this procedure they are thrown in jail.
Good! Those farmers are just a bunch of rednecks anyways.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Near Fort McMurray is the Alberta Tar Sands, which produce 25% of North Americas crude oil as I recollect. So yes, we have oil resources.
I'd never join the military, but if anyone (USA included) was invading my country, I'd pick up a gun and defend it. I wonder how many other Canadians feel the same way? Probably more than the USA has soldiers. Not to mention the assistance we'd have from other countries (without having us to bully them).
I'd never join the military, but if anyone (USA included) was invading my country, I'd pick up a gun and defend it.
Assuming, of course, your government hasn't stolen them all... AFAIK, the Canadian government's not bad in that respect, though not to the extent of the US - but if the UK were ever invaded, we're screwed. (After the UK's version of Columbine, Dunblane, the jerks jerked their knees and banned guns. Never mind that the existing gun laws would have banned the culprit from having guns anyway, but for corrupt law enforcement, the answer to law failing is always making more law! Duh.)
To anyone who chimes in with the claim about individuals with individual weapons not being able to resist an invasion, I suggest they go to Chechnya for a while. Or Afghanistan in the 1980s, after the Soviet invasion. An organised army can be squashed by a bigger or better-equipped army - an armed population can't, short of genocide on a larger scale than Germany's in WWII.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"But just wait until we finish off Syria and North Korea and a few other small countries. After all, if Iraq looked easy, imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be...."
For this reason alone, I really hope that North Korea can put together a nuclear missile capable of reaching Washington DC. Does anyone else have the guts to put an end to the US' idiocy?
Umm, didn't the Canadian government already take away your gun rights? I know the Australian gov't did, but I thought that it was the same in Canada.
If they did, how exactly would you be able to defend your country from any invader?
Re:Screw you, America
by
JahToasted
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Alaska, no, but they did "liberate" the Alaskan panhandle from Canada. And then too, Britain was the US's bitch.
Re:Screw you, America
by
kalli6
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Actually Canada supplies the US with a large quantity of their oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canada is not now, nor ever has been, a member of OPEC.
and your response is that you are forced to sell your surplus wheat within your own country instead of outside as if that were a bad thing
Because compared to Western Canada, eastern canada IS another country. Eastern Canadians have the arrorgant and ignorant belief that they are the the center of the world (Toronto being called 'the center of the universe', Ottawa referring to it as 'Central Canada') and the rest of Canada is frontier land that is there to be exploited. If Eastern Canadians had a clue what the rest of the country was like besides their own little self-centered corner of it, they would know that policies like bilingualism the gun registry are wrong.
The (un)fortunate truth that most Ottawanians don't realize, is that once you get a few hours outside of Ottawa, say past Sudbury, Ottawa becomes very insignificant in the hearts and minds of the people.
oh god.. once again the spouting of Canada's only claim to fame. Geeze, Canada, you sound like some bitter old kook trying to relive your life's one and only success over and over.... what have you done lately?
So try this one on for size... long after all of the NHL leaves Canada, hockey will be playing in Dallas, LA, Pheonix, etc.
Other then the above constant reteric, canada is not half bad.
-- "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's all about establishing a precedent. Like always, start with the small guys that don't have the cash to defend them self....;-)
Re:Screw you, America
by
Mathness
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Me Hulk, me smash puny humans. Me bend boom sticks, makes Hulk angry.
Not yet, anyway. But just wait until we finish off Syria and North Korea and a few other small countries. After all, if Iraq looked easy, imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....
When was the last time that one democracy invaded another? Pacifist types ought to consider the kinds of countries they defend through their demands of inaction.
Sad to say, this scenario is no longer really beyond the imaginable. Sometimes my own government makes me ill. No, wait, let me say "the government of my own country" -- there is no way I'll lay claim to this cowboy administration.
You will have the opportunity to get rid of that G.W. in less than 1.5 years. Strangely, your people didn't take the opportunity to get rid of the Republican-majority government during your recent opportunity. Maybe you just don't like democracy.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Imagine how trivial it would be for freedom fighters (ahem) to penetrate the US across an undefended border.
Canada is the US's number one oil source, followed distantly by Saudi Arabia. It's also a OPEC nation.
Are you kidding, trolling, or just insane? Canada is not, and has never been, an OPEC nation.
The eleven OPEC countries are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq (perhaps not for long under U.S. rule), Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.
Though, at the time they were trying to fight both the Canadains, and the British (mainly the british).
They also fought the aboriginal 'Canadians', of whom they were particularly terrified because of 'savage' practices.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When you say Eastern Canada I take it you feel Canada goes no further east than Ont/Que.? I constantly hear how friendly we are here on the East Coast, and I am insulted that you called us arrogant! However, since I am sure this was just an oversight, I'll let it go.
Oh, and please don't start with the welfare and EI that is collected here. That's just the less ambitious of us. Some of us work 40-120 hours a week.
Yes, but its stuck in sand up in Albeta...not as easy to get to as drilling a hole and letting it flow. You have to get it out of the sand, wich is a hassle.
But Alberta, from what I hear, would be happy to be "liberated" by the US, so go right ahead : )
--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Screw you, America
by
jbr439
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Western Canadian oil is sold (to everyone, even the US) at the world price. AFAIK the cost of transporting said oil to US is, again, market driven. Oil imported from the Middle East (and everywhere else) is bought at the world price. AFAIK, Middle East oil transportation costs are not artificially high; once again, a market driven cost.
So, please explain how it is the Western Canadian oil "is exported to the US very cheaply", whereas we "import oil from the Middle East at much higher prices".
I do hope that there is a rationale explanation and that we are not witnessing yet another example of Eastern Canada thinking it is entitled to Western Canada's resources at whatever pittance it is willing to pay. Shades of Trudeau and the NEP.
Jim Robinson Vancouver, BC Canada
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's never a good idea to screw with the market. Whenever the government gets involved directly with economic forces, they are always robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Archie+Steel
·
· Score: 1
The anglos didn't "bend over" for the French because they felt bad about 1759...the fact is, unless they wanted a full-scale rebellion on their hands, they needed to accomodate the large francophone population. They didn't want another Ireland on their hands.
That didn't prevent a mob of angry anglo-montrealers to burn down Canada's first parliament while it was in session (what a wonderful expression of the democratic spirit) to protest against justified reparations payments to farmers whose livelihoods had be wrongfully destroyed during the repression of the 1837-1839 uprising. Perhaps if you actually tried to learn Canada's history instead of spouting off derogatory half-truths and bigoted innuendos (a minority smaller than other minorities?) then you'd have some credibility on this issue.
--
Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canada is #1 exporter of oil to the states: http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fot w246.shtm l
While I wouldn't mind a regime change here in Canada, please let us do it ourselves democratically rather than bombing us into the stone age and putting some pro-american leader in charge and calling it liberation.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, the Alberta oil fields are the largest deposit in the world. But I think you are trying to suggest that Canada is dependant on the US, which of course is true in a mutual way. You may be surprised just how dependant on Canada the US is, and your oil example is perfect (as has already been suggested Alberta oil is one of the main sources of oil imported to the US). There is no doubt that trade is mutually important, but that does not give the US a moral right to demand we change our laws to suit their disgusting agenda.
I'd say the US/Canadian border of the Nineteenth Century was far from undefended.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That might have been funny if it wasn't such an ignorant comment. Canada has lots of oil; it is the the country from which the US imports the highest percentage of its oil (18% of US oil imports are from Canada, Saudi Arabia is second at 15%).
Re:Screw you, America
by
stew-a-cide
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Notice that is for CRUDE oil.
The US likes to import Middle East crude (unprocessed) oil because it can process it itself (value added). Canada, not being a third-world country, much prefers to do the rifining itself and ship the end product to the US.
This is why you won't see George Bush or any of his set suggest the US make an effort to buy more stable Canadian oil: the oil refiners along the coasts (especially on South-East coast) would go ballistic.
There's more oil in Canada than all of the Middle East combined. Most of it, however, is in the tar sands and expensive to recover (there's still a profit to be made by effecient opperators, but it's not like the Middle East where you just stick a hole in the ground and oil comes rushing out).
Still, even without counting natural gas, Canada is the US's largest fuel supplier. Lets also not forget about hydro-electricity imported into the US from Canada.
Yes, Canada produces more oil than it consumes, but because of several agreements made with the US, we must export it to them.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I forgot to mention that Alaska was never part of Canada. It was Russian territory, never British or French. You must've failed American history when you were in high school.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canada has a commanding 19% share of the USA's total import considerations, according to the CIA. Not just oil (I suspect that Iraq and Saudi Arabia would be higher for oil imports alone), but for all imported stuff.
Canada 19%, Mexico 11.5%, Japan 11.1%, China 8.9%, Germany 5.2%, UK, Taiwan (2001)
They've actually just made some breakthroughs in pre-processing the oil in those areas, so that the stuff can actually be used. I think Alberta is planning to double or triple its BPD production within the next two years or something. I forget the exact stats.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This from the country that:
--is still sore from their LOSS in Vietnam? --is still sore over Pearl Harbor --has the southern half of the country under the impression that they WON the Civil War --was late for both world wars --still has an axe to grind with their former colonial masters.
YOU get a life!
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Amen.
Posted annonymously so I could mod you up.
Re:Screw you, America
by
MagikSlinger
·
· Score: 1
I dunno... General Hull tried this in 1812, and got his ass whipped.
Yeah, but we don't have Tecumsah this time around...
-- The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
We don't have any "rights" to have guns for the sake of having guns, but rifles can be had for hunting purposes (licensed of course). A hand gun can't be had here unless you're a cop or in the military (or something else that would make one necessary). I'm sure that in the unlikely event that Canada was ever invaded our government wouldn't have a big problem arming those who were willing to defend, (and aren't nuts) seeing as we have no military to speak of.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> what have you done lately?
Been consistently noted as one of the very best - usually *the* best - place to live in the world.
We don't mention burning down the US's White House in 1812 for chest-thumping bragging - that's just how the Americans we're poking fun at see it. We mention beating the US in 1812 because it's funny in a modern context - our military is now solely for peacekeeping - and because we like to laugh. And because we're secure enough in who we are that we're happy to laugh at ourselves. That some Americans aren't secure enough in themselves makes jesting with them even funnier.
As the saying goes: "if you can't laugh at yourself, I will."
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The wheat board is in place to protect the farmers in a bad year. It might screw them over in a good year, but that's the risk you take. It's like insurance. It seems like a waste of money, until something happens (and if nothing ever happens it was a waste of money)
Excellent recall. It was called the war of 1812. It started with Maddison invading Ontario to "liberate" the "opressed" Canadians. They didn't wanted to be liberated, and responded by invading. Canadian forces pushed the invading Americans back into the USA. At the battle of Bladensburg the American forces defending Washington were routed in complete disarray, and the Canadians burned the Whitehouse and the Capitol region to the ground.
-- ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then you have heard wrong. I live in Alberta and we're no more fans of the American ego than anywhere else in Canada.
It's tough being the one truly profitable province in the country, as all the others tend to have their hands out at the same time as criticising us for being unpatriotic. If 'unpatriotic' means being unwilling to bankroll a central Canada that couldn't care less about our interests out west, maybe it's the right term to use after all.
Re:Screw you, America
by
dbrutus
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Relaxing border controls via NAFTA was always predicated on the understanding that each country would control things enough that bad things did not come over the border (like terrorists and diseases).
If Canada doesn't hold up its end of the bargain, the US can either ask it to shape up or we all go back to the pre-NAFTA regime. Obviously, speaking is a lot better than treaty withdrawal. The consequences of border inspections and visa requirements are likely to be far more severe for Canada. All those ambulances that dump emergency patients in US border hospitals could no longer rush across the border without delay. People would die in significant quantities.
Let's all not go there. I don't like terrorist deaths nor would I like increased Canadian healthcare mortality.
Especially with stuff like in that report. "Too concerened with liberties" indeed...
For historical perspective, the reason that Hitler gave for invading Czechoslovakia and Poland was that they were too lax, and were allowing terrorists to sneak into Germany. Thus, it was necessary for Fatherland Security to annex them and secure Germany's boarders. Those who opposed were labeled as unpatriotic.
Also, when the Germans passed the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.' (The Enabling Act) in 1933, it was only supposed to last for 4 years. It was called that because no true patriot would vote against something with THAT name. And it had been written up FAR in advance of the events that caused them to table it...
So yes, it is quite understandable to be afraid when a neighboring country starts to accuse you of being to lax on terrorism, and allowing terrorists accross the boarder. Especially one so concerned with Homeland Security.
In 1812, the military balance of power was nothing like it is today. I'm in favor of a republic, not an empire but tweaking the US' nose about long ago military failure just pisses everybody off and makes the imperialist's position stronger.
Actually, most of those balkan muslims are light-skinned local people who were slammed into their religion by their islamic colonial masters centuries before when the Ottoman empire was still around.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Re: Does Canada have any oil resources...
- Off shore projects in the atlantic that I don't know too much about. - Oilsands projects -- see syncrude.com and suncor.com for examples.
Um, are you aware how many sick canadians get shuttled over the border because your healthcare system kept them waiting in line until they were critically ill? These people depend on no border controls to stay alive.
The US depends on Canada to keep enough crazies out that it's not an attractive base for people who want to kill us and use that same no-controls system to get around any defense we put up on our other entry points. Fanatics who want to kill you and me because we don't want to live as 2nd class citizens to muslims do not have any right to access the US even if they're coming through a 3rd country like Canada.
Is this what you're fighting to preserve?
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thank you for providing facts that have nothing to do with the current conversation.
You may now go home to the idiot box that you came from.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When you say Eastern Canada I take it you feel Canada goes no further east than Ont/Que.?
When a Westerner says Eastern Canada, he means Ontario and Quebec. The coast is called Atlantic Canada.
I'm not disagreeing with you in any way, however learning more about Canada's history is sketchy in the current education system. Do you know that not a single textbook in a Franco-Ontarian school (no, we're not deplaced Quebecois) will tell you who won that war? I didn't find out until I left high school and went to an Anglo college. Similarly, when I was in grade 10 Canadian History, English textbooks said that Riel was a traitor - French textbooks said he was a hero.
Any materials by which you learn your history will be skewed according to one perspective or another. It's unfortunate, but it's true. As someone who works for the Historical Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I work closely with the people who publish our department's historical publications. We try our best to be impartial and to present the facts accurately, but often, the only materials we have available on which to base our conclusions are interviews with people. How objective can those be?
You will have the opportunity to get rid of that G.W. in less than 1.5 years. Strangely, your people didn't take the opportunity to get rid of the Republican-majority government during your recent opportunity. Maybe you just don't like democracy.
Oh, I'd say we like democracy alright, its just the democrats we don't like. Unforch, the republicans are turning out to be just as crooked, so we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
I think the difference is that the democrats seem to think that the rich are an endless resource to be exploited, and the republicans seem to think that only the rich should get any richer.
Neither in the long run will achieve a working balance.
Laws passed by primarily democratic congresses have reduced the incentive for companies to put any of their profits back into R&D since all the tax incentives that existed in the 1930-40's that got us out of the "great depression" have been nibbled away to nothing today, the republicrats thinking they are just a tax escapement haven.
Similarly, laws passed by republican congresses have been the worst at protecting the have's interests (Sen. Disney being a prime example) and the quarterly bottom line.
We are in bad need of a political party that can look 10 to 50 years down the log and take corrective action to revive, not stifle in endless litigation, that which has the ability to improve this nations productivity and maintain or improve the balance of trade situation. Innovation is what got us where we are, and now we've apparently allowed the patent office to patent the word so no one else can use it. Thats a bit smelly, usually steaming if fresh enough, and found on the ground behind well fed males of the bovine specie. Be carefull where you walk if you're not an old Iowa farm boy (I am).
As it is, we're exporting america, one huge money transfer at a time, to china everytime we buy clothing from the likes of Walmart et all. It wouldn't be so bad if, when I went after another pair of blue jeans, I could actually find a quality, american made product even if it did carry a slightly premium pricetag. Sadly we've already admitted we have lost the war because there aren't any that can carry both the claim of quality, and american made.
As for the canadian readers, how many of you that live more than an hour west of Ottowa, have actually turned in your guns? I think thats a good question for a poll.
The human condition, and its want for personal freedom, tells me that compliance with that edict, out in the real farm & back country, where you might have to shoot a wolf attacking you cattle, or more probably a badger in the henhouse, not to mention a little meat for the larder from time to time is probably not more than 1%.
IMNSHO, you canadians, the ones I've talked to on the cb radio when skip was king 25 years ago, are most certainly not so stupid as to allow yourselves to be self destructed by some goody two shoes a thousand miles away.
Are there any readers out there with a phone line who'd care to admit they are free men instead of slaves to the eastern wannabe dictators? Let us do that poll, right here and now folks!
Stand up anon, and testify, naming only the province you live in to protect the (chuckle) 'guilty':-)
As to our american problems, I have faith we will figure them out in due time. It will happen when enough people are hungry and willing to restore balance with votes, and if need be, blood. The second amendment was the founding fathers insurance that the ultimate power of the people would remain in the hands of the people. I just hope we are still 'governing' ourselves when we do, and that it is not hindsight because we've been totally enslaved by the apathy of the average voter in the meantime.
At my age, its probably a surer bet that I won't live to see it, but I can hope for my great-grandchildren, and I can, and do, vote.
Recently its sure seems like it has been a choice of the lessor of two evils though...
I doubt that our Canada invasion plans are any further up to date than our plans to invade the UK (ie probably a century old at least and worthless). The problem isn't invading Canada but preserving the economic benefits of NAFTA including the low/no border controls.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
actually, Canada does have the world's largest oil resources. they're just too expensive to extract from tar sands.
> After all, if Iraq looked easy, > imagine how trivial invading across > an undefended border would be....
You have a hard enough time keeping terrorists who look different from you out of your country... How do you think you'll stop pissed off people who are run of the mill caucasians?
We could be standing right beside you and you wouldn't know.;)
BOO!
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Coming from a guy calling himself "Moofie," I would have figured you'd have a fucking sense of humour. Guess not.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Archie+Steel
·
· Score: 1
You're right, of course. History is too often written by the victors. I agree with you that school textbooks are not the ideal place to learn about history - one is much better served in this regard by reading from a variety of sources. There are some events that are more clear-cut than others, though. The burning of the Montreal parliament is one of those - there is ample historical material, from a variety of sources, to be able to reconstitute the events.
The case of Louis Riel - like the man himself - is much more complex. I guess he was both a traitor and a hero, a brillant leader and a loony. Again, one is best informed by reading up on a variety of sources on the subject.
--
Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
when a westerner says eastern canada everyone rolls thier eyes and feels sorry for the numbskull albertan that's somehow transplanted redneck values into canada. I'm just stunned at how all these jokers in the prairies get all skittish and stir crazy, thinking they're entitled to more then everyone else, or they'll dream up some notion of separating from the rest of canada, just like the quebec separatists they seem to hate so much. I know people out in the couv and in BC. for some reason they're not a bunch of kooks, I wonder what happens in the plains..
s/Canadians/British/ There was no country of Canada during the War of 1812 let alone a Canada with a military. America fought the British Empire over a British colony. Oh, and the capitol burning was in retaliation to TRULY burning Toronto to the ground. The British forces only burned down government buildings in DC.
But the northern alberta tar sands have more oil in them than the whole middle east combined.
It just harder to get to because its deeper and through bedrock. Doesnt mean its not gettable, just means it will take a bit more time and money.
Because of it tho, alberta is nearly a tax free province.
They have a fixed rate 10% income tax, for any income (There are no tax brackets). There is no provincial sales tax.
Im sure they would get rid of gst also if they could, but thats a federal thing.
--
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
THis just comes across as the US gov't trying to control other countries...and continuing to make in roads into taking the freedom from Canadians, much the way they have taken freedoms from their own citizens.
I mean really people, lets look at this Decrim issue. ITs gonna change jail time to a fine for under an oz. of pot. You still cant legaly grow it, have it, sell it or buy it. There wont be more drug use, or more drugs going to the US. There might be less leaving the country. Who knows.
And whats with this crap about drug use going up? POt only leads to hard stuff if you want to take or try it...or are stupid. Who doesnt know the hardfull effects of shooting heroin, smokeing crack? In countries that have decrimed, or just look the other way...the many of whom have needle exchanges and otehr such places, drug use has gone down.
And if you want to argue that drugs support gangs and that...well yes they do..because they are illegal. If I had the option of buying from a store or a gang member...or hell any non-gov't sactioned dealer, Id buy from the gov't. Why? cuz they will tax the shit out of it, the price would still be less then it is now, but all the tax money is gonna go to health care (in canada atlest) road imporvment, drug programs (for the still legal kind, or just good out addiction to prescriptions)
A Canadian comedian once said that the US could never defeat Canada in a war, mainly because they have no idea where our cities are...
Sadly enough, this may be the only reason we remain a distinct and separate country from the US:P
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Try siberia. Canada didn't want it.
Moron...
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
seeing as we have no military to speak of.
No Military?...someone has some explaining to do!:)
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canada, not being a third-world country, much prefers to do the rifining itself and ship the end product to the US.
Ahh, yes, that's why all other natural resources (especially lumber) is shipped as is. I'm surprised we don't ship crude.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A hand gun can't be had here unless you're a cop or in the military (or something else that would make one necessary).
Are you talking about Canada? You can have as many handguns as you like here.
After all, if Iraq looked easy, imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....
Well they'll cross the border, freeze their ass, and go back south. Besides, Canada can't be defended, but if you invade, you also have a huge territory to defend.
It Canada trying to get itself invaded ? You know how Gee Dub feels about "repressive regimes" that just "happen" to sit on a fuck-ton of oil.
-- Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Canada most certainly did want the Alaskan panhandle. It belonged to Canada. The problem was the US wanted it too.
To be fair, the US thought they had purchased it, but the maps used in the negotiations between Russia and the US were incorrect: the maps predated the treaties in effect at the time. They showed more land belonging to Alaska than was correct.
Theodore Roosevelt threatened to send in Marines if the US claims to Alaska were not met. This after a compromise solution caused the western states to become extremely vocal in their displeasure.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So you're saying that the U.S. has a long and storied history of trying to liberate countries by destroying everything in sight?
Don't be making us mad, otherwise we'll start calling canadian bacon FREEDOM bacon! That'll teach you to mess with the U S of A. Oh, and that Gordon Lightfoot song "Canadian Railroad Trilogy" will be called "LIBERTY Railroad Trilogy." So there!
-- I am so smart! I am so smart! S-M-R-T! I mean S-M-A-R-T!
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"slammed into their religion"? What do you mean by that? Islam never had any mass forced conversions.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is that all you do? Just go around blaming Muslims? You tell me where I can find a Muslim who wants to force everyone to be 2nd class citizens. Bin Laden definately didn't mention that in any of his speeches, and I've read most of them. Get real, terrorists didnt attack us because of our freedoms, they were mad that we are still unconditionally supporting Israel, as well as dictatorships in the middle east (most notably the Saudi government)
They put out a huge ad in the NY Times earlier this year just to let everyone know that they were the US' largest supplier of oil.
The US's largest supplier of oil BY FAR is the US. We produce about 39% of our oil domestically. Our largest oil importer is Saudi Arabia. They provide about 17% of our oil imports, or about 10% of our total oil needs. Canada only provides us with about 8% of our oil.
And it had been written up FAR in advance of the events that caused them to table it...
As was much of USAPATRIOT. But it never got anywhere until 9/11 hysteria provided an opportunity to get away with everything the congress had always wanted to and more. Everything from preferential contracts to free signs to giant subsidies for various industries got lumped in with all the other disparate laws making up the act, all passed in the name of "Homeland Security" and patriotism.:P
This scenario may be imaginable, but not very likely. The UN didn't jump in to help the US with Iraq, just like they wouldn't help them invade Canada, but they would help us defend ourselves. The US may have a powerful army, but I doubt it could take on the remaining United Nations....you guys would get France of course. They would be no help to us.
Canada, with 1,700 billion barrels, has one of the largest resources of oil sands and heavy oil in the world. The bulk of Canada's resources are classified as oil sands, with no commercial inflow to a well at reservoir conditions. In contrast heavy oil, which forms a smaller portion of Canada's resources, has primary production.
-- "The difference between meat and fish is that if you beat your fish it dies"
It's not a problem to have them at all. Though you do have ot be a member of a gun club and can only transport the gun to and from said club. Hmmmm, memory says that you have to keep the gun locked in a cabinet at home, also trigger-locked, ammunition stored in a separate locked cabinet. I, as a Canadian gun owner have no complaints at all with the system as it is here. Note also that every gun in the country (legal ones that is) is registered and tracked in a database.
-- "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality."
-- Dalai Lama
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thing about Canada is that it's bigger than America, and it's on top. If we were in prison America would be our bitch.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you really think so? Go read some books about living in Ottoman Empire (as a christian).
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That has little to do with the way the Canadian system is set up as with the severe underfunding that it has been subjected to by all the right wing governments in recent years. These people would just as soon see the whole system privatized, turning it into a clone of the even more fucked up American system, in which FULLY ONE THIRD of the population has no access to healthcare at all--never figured why in the world you guys think that is somehow more effective--so that some of their friends in the private healthcare industry can line their pockets at the expense of the suffering of ordinary people. If our healthcare system had the proper funding that it needed, there would be lo lineups, no waiting. Even with the funding levels it has now, I'd far rather wait in line than be a part of that one third!
Okay, assholes... you wanna screw the U.S., COME ON DOWN! We've got something for your sorry asses.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ahh, yes, that's why all other natural resources (especially lumber) is shipped as is. I'm surprised we don't ship crude.
Pay attention dumbass! Unprocessed Alberta oil is a BIG pain in the ass to refine. I would explain the process in detail but I was higher than a kite when I was watching that Discovery channel documentary so I can't recall too much. Basically we're the only ones set up to refine OUR crude oil (and why would anyone else want to do it anyway) which unlike middle east oil, takes some work to clean up.
There is fuck all to do to lumber, the hardest thing is dealing with the tree hugger retards who would rather see a whole industry shut down and half a million human beings out of work than see a few trees felled for the betterment of mankind.
Hmmm, just how would you "refine" lumber anyway? Most of it is used for construction, would you have us ship nothing but prefabbed houses to our southern neighbours? "From now on, all houses shipped out of Canada will be no wider than 14 feet in order to comply with Interstate highway regulations."
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And that's your problem, buying from terrorist-supporting nations like Iraq instead of your friends and in fact yourselves.
With the exception of Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein was the worst butcher in all of human history (two million corpses don't lie!) and the base of his power was his $18 billion oil industry, mostly from American money.
Also, I take issue with your figures, which you made up on the spot.
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You are an ignorant cunt.
If a terrorist wants to enter the U.S. from Canada (OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY FOR THAT MATTER) he or she will have to deal with AMERICAN CUSTOMS and AMERICAN OFFICIALS. Ironically, most if not all of the terror-related-US-Canada-border-crossing news is generated by people trying to enter Canada from the US with explosives and such. Those people were of course detected by CANADIAN CUSTOMS OFFICIALS. Maybe you need to train your border people a little better.
For the record, Canadian ambulances don't dump too many patients off in "US border hospitals" because nobody here can afford to stay in care in another country, especially one where a person has to pay $5-10k per day of treatment, if not more. It just does not happen, PERIOD, and you're a fucking retard to say that it does.
NAFTA is a joke, because the US government can't respect it (they don't have too much of a choice because our dollar is so low that we can own you pricewise on just about anything we produce, and the US gov't recognizes this and erects tarriffs to counteract it and protect US citizens, I wish our gov't had the balls to stand up for us like that.)
You know, the more I reread your post the stupider you sound. Just do everybody a favor and shut the fuck up!
When the White Rose field is opened and combined with the current Hibernia and Terra Nova oil fields, Newfoundland will produce 1/2 of all light crude in Canada. Despite this, along with the Maritime provinces we have the highest gas prices in Canada. For Newfoundland this is perhaps due to the fact that we don't refine the fuel ourselves; it is processed in New Brunswick.
So the fuel is shipped off the island for refining (despite the fact that we own a refinery, though run-down) and then we pay to ship more in. My bets are on the source being the Middle East:-)
Re:Screw you, America
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Cowboy administration. You sound quite a bit like a certain Iraqi I saw on television every morning during the war...
One should say that there were a few more events around the 1812 war than you suggest. Further Canada was basically a "drop zone" to get rid of incompetent generals so as to not affect the real war back in Europe with France. America was partially being opportunistic. Further, according to some, a lot of the war was due to opportunistic businessmen on both sides of the border. As soon as they started losing money instead of winning it the war ended. (OK, somewhat biased from reading a rather noted Canadian history of the war)
In either case once the war with France was over the US knew it had to be careful. That lasted until after the civil war when some hawks suggested just finishing things by invading Canada. It was doubtful it would ever have happened, but that worry was one of the reasons Canada got partial independence in 1867.
I've not lived in Canada for some time. However I was under the assumption that Ontario and Alberta were the few "positive provinces." The Atlantic provinces and Quebec were drains (i.e. more money is transferred to them than is collected)
I think the reason Albertans get upset is because there is less Provincial control and there is a constant appeasement of Quebec. (i.e. how many Prime Ministers have had ridings in Quebec or are French?)
I'd agree that Alberta often goes to extremes. There is a strong movement in the province that reminds me of radical Republicans in the US. (I've even met Albertans who feared the UN and "black helicopters.") There is a distinct difference in culture. I don't think this is the majority of Alberta anymore than I think the majority of Quebecois are "Francaphone above all else" radicals.
Still, I am fairly sympathetic to Albertan concerns. It does seem, especailly since Trudeau, that Canada has become more an more federalized without the checks and balances that offset the "will of the majority." So local people have less say at times. This allows some, such as Nova Scotia (my own original home) to really take advantage of the rest of the country. I can understand Alberta, with its different culture, getting upset at this. I can even understand Quebec getting upset. The difference is that Quebec is often given more autonomy than the other provinces seem to be.
Actually the middle east strongly wishes to sell the US processed oil but the US has strongly sought to avoid this. (Well more US companies since they get money from all those refineries across the nation). Some have even criticized US policy towards the middle east in this regard. i.e. there is a double standard relative to Canada.
Certainly the tar sands do require expensive processing to get even the oil out. But that is a slightly different situation from the more common oil wells that also dot Alberta. Further the tar sands, despite increasing technology, still require fairly high prices to be cost effective. But you made that point. I'd just say that oil that isn't cost effective to sell really isn't a oil supply.
I personally think that by the time the tar sands could compete with Saudi or Iraqi oil the US will have largely shifted to hydrogen for transportation and alternative energy for initial production (to refine the hydrogen).
Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
inkswamp
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"Bush says invading Canada only way to free citizenry."
"Bush administration expresses concern about Canada's weapons of mass destruction."
-- --Rick
"If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
lovebyte
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Canada's weapons of mass destruction.
I agree. Canadians must answer their unleashing of Celine Dion on the free world.
--
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
cperciva
·
· Score: 1
"Bush administration expresses concern about Canada's weapons of mass destruction."
The crazy thing is, Canada is far more capable of producing nuclear weapons than Iraq ever was. Canada has lots of highly trained nuclear scientists and has large reserves of uranium. But Canada decided early on that it didn't want to get involved in the nuclear arms race.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Some+Guy
·
· Score: 1
They actually had a nuke program before the US politely asked them to stop.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
borgdows
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Moreover, Celine Dion is from Quebec!! She's a secret weapon of the French to invade North America!!
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
ArcticCelt
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Completely wrong. Canada used to have nuclear weapons but realised that the nuclear arm race was an insane business. In 1978, Canada Prime Minister Trudeau stated, at the U.N., that Canada was the "the first nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons. USA never asked Canada to stop. In fact USA was very pissed off because Canada did not continue to build more weapons with them.
--
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
lovebyte
·
· Score: 1
And Bryan Adams? Is he a secret British weapon?
--
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
rf0
·
· Score: 1
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
fenix+down
·
· Score: 1
No, no, not French, Freedom.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
fr0dicus
·
· Score: 1
Are these 'mature' folk in the US not allowed to run for political office / appear on TV / go on holidays abroad? All I see are gab happy gung ho idiots who think being environmentally friendly is farting in private.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ROTFL!!! That's a good one!
AFAIK, the USA is the only nation ever to threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear attack. I wouldn't call that "mature and civilized" by any stretch of their definitions.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh yeah, you can carpet bomb Quebec.
Please?
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We've apologised repeatly about Celine Dion and Corey Hart.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
VanillaCoke420
·
· Score: 1
The only nation that ever carried it out, too. Twice... (Yes, I was sarcastic; saying what I said, and to actually mean it, shouldn't be possible:-) )
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canada used to have nuclear weapons but realised that the nuclear arm race was an insane business
Bull. Canada never had nuclear weapons. There were American weapons & bombers stationed in Canada, but there never were Canadian nuclear bombs.
Of course, Canada has the capability, since it has a large nuclear industry, many uranium mines and many bright scientists & engineers (who haven't yet gone south to make more money).
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Larsing
·
· Score: 1
Who didn't? Even Sweden* had a nuclear wepons program! Then we decided we were pacifists and canned it...
* For those of you not familiar with this bizare, self proclaimed world conscience; An itzi, bitzi, teeny, weeny, socialist monarchy (don't ask me how that works, please!? I'm trying to figure out myself...) in the sub-arctic parts of northern Europe, whos main exports are: Guns, cars and toilet paper.;-)
-- Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Bake
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention that it's the only nation ever to actually USE nuclear weapons against another nation.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Pxtl
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, well if we have to apologize for Celine Dion, that means you have to apologize for Britney, Christina, the Backstreet Boys, NSync, and every other pop group for the last two decades. That shit is painful.
And for the record, I'm a little more embarrassed by Shatner then Celine. Besides, we already made good for Celine - we gave you Pamela.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
lovebyte
·
· Score: 1
I am no USian so I do not have to apologise for "Britney, Christina, the Backstreet Boys, NSync et al.". Every country in the the western world has to apologise for someone though.
--
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
prinzip
·
· Score: 1
> who haven't yet gone south to make more money
To after, come back north when they saw the crazy people of this war backed country!
-- Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity!
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Kwikymart
·
· Score: 1
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Happy+go+Lucky
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
"Bush says invading Canada only way to free citizenry."
Damn right. Any nation where people are raised to speak French SHOULD get the Rome-and-Carthage treatment.
(Speaking of which...anybody notice France is a third-world hole with nuclear weapons? We need to do something about Chirac. If the man were any more of a menace to civilization, he'd be a Green, Democrat, or ChiCom.)
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Bendy+Chief
·
· Score: 1
As a Canuck, I feel obligated to inform you that although I was taught French in the first six years of my schooling, I exercised my willpower as a descendant of the Saxons and forgot it all.
I now speak German and Japanese but not a word of French.:)
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
That's right.
Canadian scientists worked on the Manhattan Project. The uranium for the Manhattan Project came from Canada. Most of the uranium enrichment was done at Chalk River, Ontario, using a process invented by someone from my home town of Winnipeg. We had the ability to create nuclear weapons right from the beginning.
Our nuclear stockpile was aimed at russian bombers crossing the pole. Our fighter/intercepters were equipped with "Genie" nuclear air-to-air missiles, or as the pilots called them, "Little Buckets of Sunshine". We also had the "Bomarc" ground-to-air missile.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity!
Hey, do enough fucking and you make a lot of little virgins.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
SurgeonGeneral
·
· Score: 1
Point of interest: Diefenbaker also refused to equip Canada with nuclear weapons. Canadian history buffs will recall the Bomark missle crisis, which revolved around the fact that the Chief would not attach nuclear warheads to the bomark missles the Liberal gov. had bought from the states. He felt they were unwarrented. I agree.
-- --
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Marc+Desrochers
·
· Score: 1
Living In Quebec Mmyself, and not being particularly thrilled about what the QC gov has stood for in the past, and not being too fond of French, speaking both has yet to lead me to negative results. Speaking multiple languages can only improve one's situation. Although I have to admit, I hated every single second of French class. You are lucky it was only 6 years, it is 11 years for us in QC.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Sylver+Dragon
·
· Score: 1
Only if you promise to bomb DC while congress is in session, we'd be a hell of a lot better off down here without the aristorcats...er, congresscritters who are running the show. Oh, and if you catch Ashcroft and Bush we'll give you a few bonus points.
Not that I would advocate violence against anybody, but lets just say that I would make a point of talking through any minutes of silence we were supposed to observe for the "losses".
-- Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canada supplied the Pt. for that first bomb at chalk river labs in Ontario.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Almost-Retired
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention that it's the only nation ever to actually USE nuclear weapons against another nation.
Yes, there is no argueing that is true. And, however true it is is up for debate, but its since been read that Harry had a couple of think tanks work on the results of using it, or finishing it with boots on the ground.
The balance sheet came back overwhelmingly in favor of using it because it would actually cut the casualties on both sides by 75%, or more.
It also leaves a very permanent mark on history, at least until the goody two shoe types succeed in re-writing it, to remind those who would use them to make what to them is nothing more than a means to an end, about the real destructive power then unleashed against themselves.
Understand that today, the first one to use them, us included, will make the user a percieved legal target for the rest of the world to unload theirs on.
There is one other unknown in the equation, and thats how much maintainance has been done on the stockpiles of these things to keep them assuredly functional. How many of them would be having working half-life problems and might just go pfffft if they were pulled out of the bunkers and means to fit them to modern delivery methods worked out?
Personally I have no idea, and haven't even tried to study up on the effects of this deterioration, but I know it does exist.
-- Cheers, Gene
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey moderators, I wasn't actually serious, so how can it be flamebait? I was sarcastic. Now, if I actually meant it, ofcourse it WOULD be flamebait, because no one can say such a thing and actually mean it. You know that.
Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Somebody please tell this to the residents of North Bay, Ontario and La Macaza, Quebec, both of whom hosted RCAF bases for nuclear tipped BOMARCs. Remember those? They were the American built pieces of shit that Dief killed off the Arrow for. Drive up Hwy 11 North out of North Bay for about 10 min, and you can still see the old site.
I've heard it explained many times, that the reason why America is targeted by terrorists is that "certain elements" are simply jealous of our outstanding quality of life. They want to destroy what they can't build for themselves.
If you're right about Canada -- what, with all the pot smoking, low crime rates, free healthcare, and civil liberties -- I would expect Canada to rise to the top of the terrorists' hit list. So, maybe instead of trying to get the damned Canadians to cooperate with us, we should simply launch an advertising campaign in the Islamic world explaining that Canada is the more logical target for their anti-western fringe element.
Uh, 50% income tax? Maybe 30% on a healthy salary... the highest is around 43% above ~$100,000 CAD.
And round here, these things aren't enforced nearly as much. House is worth $1,000,000, paying property tax for $300,000? Nobody cares to hear about it. And you're certainly not getting thrown in JAIL for dodging taxes.
-- "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
Normally to one who have less civil liberties are the ones who retaliate, so please can you reinstate some right to the US citizens before they decide to attack Canada.;)
--
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
though, ironically, if i had a great deal of money(i mean, like, shitloads) and wanted total freedom(for myself), i would go to the russia instead of usa, because then i could buy out both the mob and the goverment with less AND get away with _anything_(including such pearls as murder, torture & etc). or i could just stay here where nobody needs bodyguards, everybody attends to public(as opposite to private) schools, tuition to universities is 170$ per year(no it's not canada)..
thumb rule for inter-country political/ethnic terrorism would be "don't mess with us, we don't mess with you". freaking out about it doesn't help at all anyways, it happens all the time. you can't get it all out by extending police authority, the terrorists always have an advantage because they don't play by the rules (you don't become one if you can achieve what you are wishing by playing by the rules). in europe bombings happen every so often(sometimes, even with a valid political agenda), of course you can feel bad about them but that doesn't mean you must freak out. the amount of freaking out about the wtc is just way too much (as is the eye per eye tactic, if everybody followed that there would be only blind men on earth, yeah, i did take that from somewhere).
is this no anon-box thingy also part of war against T?
-- world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Sorry to piss on your little parrade, but after income, sales, property, luxery, and the slew of other taxes here in the U.S., the average middle class American spends about 55% of their income in taxes.
(Funny, why does my AC option keep disappearing?)
-- Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
In Canada you also pay a %15 proviencal tax or global sales tax in addition to the national one.
My old man paid %50 of his income on just the national Canadian tax and nothing else.
I chose the conservative states. Yes our services our cut but I want more of my paycheck every month. This is my priority when comparing the two. Also less unemployment is another benefit. Corporations are taxed too much in Canada so they hire less and lay people off quicker.
Let me explain this a little. It is not the US standard of living alone which attracts terrorism, it is what it does to sustain that quality of life. The US cares about civil liberties (at least nominally) within its own shores, but those from other countries are not afforded the same rights (wasn't someone shipped to an american court rather than camp X-Ray due to their being a US citizen, the non americans were illegally imprisoned with the rest of them). It effects politics all over the world for good and bad.
It's size and cultural power has another interesting implication. The pervasiveness of american culture and media (cinema, McDonalds, nike trainers.... maybe I mean corporate american culture and media) means that everyone in the world not in the US has knowledge of at least two cultures, that of US corporatism and their own, and when one is seen to be overpowering the other it leads to conflict. The american stereotype as ignorant and insular is in no small part influenced by the fact that by and large most americans only see one culture, their own.
Americans with an interest in the civil liberties of all people, not just those americans with the power and money to defend their own (and to take those of others), many of whom I'm sure read slashdot should fight terrorism in their own way. By making America the state it was founded to be, by scrutinising businessmen, politicians (and anyone else in a position of power and influence) by using the power of their wallet, their vote and whatever else it takes to make america a state and a symbol that is not viewed by the rest of the world with contempt. It's not about what they cannot do, but what they see America (as a symbol for the global economic system?) doing to them.
A perception of america as a greedy, self interested, intefering, imperialist power is what attracts terrorism. To fight terrorism america should look within.
My marginal tax rate last year was 43%. My average tax rate was about 31%. The latter really isn't that high, and I can live with it. Sure, it's about 6% higher for the same wage than when I was living in the US, but I feel like I get better value for money. My quality of life seems better north of the border.
Oh, 43% the marginal tax rate isn't the hightest. There's another one above it (49%????) - I don't fall in to it though. But talking of the high rate like that is a bit misleading as your average tax rate is always lower due to the nature of the progressive tax system.
Uh, 50% income tax? Maybe 30% on a healthy salary... the highest is around 43% above ~$100,000 CAD.
My income tax is consistently around 22% of my income, and I make CA$80K+. Of course, I max out RRSP contributions. There's a higher quality of life for residents of Canada in general and a higher standard of living for those who make up to about $60K (the lower 4/5 of the population) compared to the USA. Some Americans would say that they don't like the winter cold, but (a) the US seems to have had the worse winter this year, and (b) I can't stand the heat of summer, and there is less of it in Canada. Oh, and, of course, we have things like privacy and rights.
So, maybe instead of trying to get the damned Canadians to cooperate with us, we should simply launch an advertising campaign in the Islamic world explaining that Canada is the more logical target for their anti-western fringe element.
They haven't been brainwashed for the past 40 years into hating Canadians, so your propaganda will have a lot of catching up to do. The irony, of course, is that they don't really hate Americans; they actually hate their own repressive governments. That hatred has merely been redirected by their state media in the self-interests of their governments. The U.S. has tolerated this practice far too long, to the point that it has put other western nations in danger.
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Of course, don't forget about the fact that nearly everything we buy is taxed at 15%, affecting the overall EFFECTIVE tax rate.
The pervasiveness of american culture and media (cinema, McDonalds, nike trainers.... maybe I mean corporate american culture and media) means that everyone in the world not in the US has knowledge of at least two cultures, that of US corporatism and their own, and when one is seen to be overpowering the other it leads to conflict.
Let's take the lefty propoganda down a notch. There is no "culture of US corporatism" stomping around evilly destroying foreign victims. How about we apply a much simpler theory that doesn't require a bunch of convoluted motives?
Because we have the freedom to pursue whatever business we like, Americans have gotten very good at supplying what people want. In other words, people have a much easier time satisifying desires [1] in the U.S. than in, say, Saudi Arabia. It seems like simple logic to me that any human being would naturally gravitate toward systems that bring greater satisfaction. There, no complex motives required, just basic human behavior.
Now if you want to talk about motives, the likely reason there is a reaction against choosing the American way of life is that there are people (i.e., dictators, zealots) benefiting from the status quo who don't want to see that go away. Joe Saudi might say what the cleric tells him to say vis a vis the U.S., but he does so while wearing a GAP shirt and Sketchers on his feet.
[1] Desires means, for example, praying how you like or reading a book of your choice as much as it means eating a Big Mac and watching X2.
-- Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
My old man paid %50 of his income on just the national Canadian tax and nothing else.
Wow, that's a lot. What's the "national Canadian tax" anyway? Are you talking about just the federal income tax? Or are you combining federal and provincial taxes? Are you counting property tax? Anyway, there's something wrong there. Last year, my federal income tax was about 23% of my income, and I didn't even max out my RRSP. I only had a few hundred dollars of student loan interest to claim, and I have no kids.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit. Can I see some numbers? I'm trying to figure out how anyone could be on the hook for 50% of their gross. Did he gross something on the order of $250,000? Was it mostly capital gains income? Is he retired? I can't figure out how a tax bill could be that high.
The only thing I envy about the US tax system is that mortgage interest is tax-deductible. THAT would be sweet.
horse pucky. We're not shoving this culture thing down their throats. People around the world are buying it of their own free will. THAT is what pisses off the fringe and why they try and take us on.
I've heard it explained many times, that the reason why America is targeted by terrorists is that "certain elements" are simply jealous of our outstanding quality of life. They want to destroy what they can't build for themselves.
Which is of course mostly nonsense - they american troops out of their countries. Seems the best way to protect homeland security is to remove your soldiers from their homelands.
-- If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ha.. you have to be kidding , right ? Canada is a stop for people who cannot get in US - pure and simple.
There is no "culture of US corporatism".... Americans have gotten very good at supplying what people want. In other words, people have a much easier time satisifying desires [1] in the U.S. than in, say, Saudi Arabia.
[1] Desires means, for example, praying how you like or reading a book of your choice as much as it means eating a Big Mac and watching X2.
How does this fit in:
DMCA
Ahhh.... they don't desire that in Saudi Arabia yet.
the reason why America is targeted by terrorists is that "certain elements" are simply jealous of our outstanding quality of life.
Thats because (Surprise!) thats not the real reason the terrorists hate us. They hate us frot he same reason the canadian wrote this article. Because we try to interfere in other countries buisness very aggressively. Second reason is that we support israel, which is anathema in the arab world. The israeli army uses US abrams tanks, US apache helicopters, and US f-15 fighters. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Israel uses them to kill palestinians (justified or not). Ultimately the terrorists want us to change our foriegn policy: stop selling arms to israel, stop supporting israel, pull US forces out of the region. Canada may support israel, but its not a canadian tank that palestinians see rolling down the street, and its not a canadian army invading iraq.
ops!!!!
wrong!!!
they don't hate Americans... so far so good
but they hate your government for supporting their own repressive regimes
then maybe they hate your cultural influence
look at your past.... look at the indians and what you did to their culture they fear you could do the same to them
terrorism is a direct result of their powerlessness
there is no way they could defend them self by normal military means
there is no way they could defend them self against your money
they feel abused.... and they feel abused by you
your government should better think about other ways to change their opinion about yourself then military force
because the use of force will not change their opinion
the relatives of every person your army kills are potentional terrorists
if you want to some liberty there will never be a way to stop terrorism as you can see in israel
i think if you look at israel and palestina this is a "good" preview to where bush policy will lead you
--
stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What it comes down to is that if you want the quality of life available in Canada, you have to be willing to pay for it. The problem with Canada's right wing is that they want to maintain the health system, but they want their taxes lowered. They argue that they're best suited to determining how their own money is spent -- which is fine. They can spend it on getting health care for themselves.
a) It's Goods and Services Tax, not "global sales tax".
b) GST is 7%, not 15%.
c) GST is a supplementary sales tax, like many of the states have... it is not an income tax.
d) There is no "national Canadian tax". There is a federal income tax, and a provincial income tax... just like many of the states have (province=state, in case you didn't know).
e) Your grammar, spelling, and grasp of basic economic theory seem to validate your comment about your services being cut... so I guess one point for you.
-- Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What's the "national Canadian tax" anyway?
I think it must be related to the "global sales tax".
If you think it's any one reason then you are sadly mistaken. Not all people think alike. There's a plethora of reason they do not like the US. It's impossible to say that all terrorists/people hate the US because...
Because every one of them has thier own reasons. You could go through and attempt to appease every one of them, but you'll just create a million more in the process. There is no cure yet, because as long as there is hate, someone is going to hate you.
Actually, how can you tell? When rich American businesses go into a country to compete with fledling local businesses, is there really a fair competition at play? People have to choose between supporting an immature native industry or choosing a mature foreign industry. By the time the native industry could have built up, it has already been marginalized by the foreign industry. Beyond that, there is the issue of American's prostelizing their culture around the world. We have tried to impose American styles of government on countries for decades. The only time it has worked satisfactorily was with Japan. Every other time (ahem, Vietnam...) it has failed miserably. Apart from all of that is the fact that we just plain butt-in to stuff that's really none of your business. We supported the Shah in Iran, we gave weapons to the Muhajideen in Afghanistan, we gave weapons to Saddam against Iran, the list just goes on. The funny thing is that all of these intrusions have come back to bite us in the ass, and we still haven't learnt a lesson. The Shah in Iran fell, and now the conservative theocracy in the country hates the US. The Muhajideen in Afghanistan became the Taliban, and used our weapons to take over the country. And we know how the Saddam thing went. The thing is, that all of this would go away relatively quickly after we stopped interfering. The people in the Middle East and in other places are really too busy with their own problems to keep rallying against a non-active issue. For example, the British empire systematically f*cked over a huge number of countries. Their reign of terror ended only about 50 years ago. Yet, today, you don't see a whole lot of terrorists from the Middle East, or malcontents from Africa and India attacking British targets.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Canada actually has a lower base tax rate than the US on average.
However, Canada lacks the one major tax deduction that US citizens get that makes our taxes in practice so much lower; mortgage interest. That's right, I can pay $70,000/year in mortgage interest and deduct it straight off my federal income tax lowering my taxes to a paltry 20% a year from over 40%.
You really can't beat that with a stick.
-- The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
True enough. But the US is a convient target because of the current global popularity of American pop culture. We're in the spotlight and that puts a target on our backs.
I read an article recently regarding the impact of allowing people to deduct their mortgate interest. Basically, the result is that house prices just rise accordingly and in the end everyone is still in the same house and their net cost at the end of the year is the same.
Basically it serves as a feelgood measure to allow the government to provide a tax incentive (always helps popularity) and also receive an interest free loan until they provide your refund at the end of the year:)
The people of Afghanistan were never really given the free choice to go into either a movie theatre that played films from Hollywood or a movie theatre that played films produced by the Taliban Film Industry.
Whoops! I don't recall the United State ever being them not being given a choice.
It is not the US standard of living alone which attracts terrorism,
If it were this simple then there would be a lot more places being subject to terrorism.
it is what it does to sustain that quality of life.
Quite likely more the quality of life of US based corporate interests, rather than the average US citizen.
The US cares about civil liberties (at least nominally) within its own shores, but those from other countries are not afforded the same rights (wasn't someone shipped to an american court rather than camp X-Ray due to their being a US citizen, the non americans were illegally imprisoned with the rest of them)
US authorities have arrested US citizens and tossed them in jail without any sign of a trial. e.g. the Intel employee who is supposedly a witness to something or other. The sequel to "US PATRIOT" allows arbitary stripping of US citizens of their citizenship. Which would put them in an even worst situation than the people kidnapped and taken to Cuba.
Americans with an interest in the civil liberties of all people, not just those americans with the power and money to defend their own (and to take those of others), many of whom I'm sure read slashdot should fight terrorism in their own way.
Hopefully some of them might survive to see things through.
By making America the state it was founded to be, by scrutinising businessmen, politicians (and anyone else in a position of power and influence)
There is a disinction between a politican being a "leader" (somehow above the populace) and being a "public servant"
by using the power of their wallet, their vote and whatever else it takes to make america a state and a symbol that is not viewed by the rest of the world with contempt.
What people around the world especially don't like is hypocracy. The principles on which the US was founded and the US constitution are a matter of public record. Yet people around the world see the US government behaving (sometimes even towards its own citizens) in ways totally against these principles.
A perception of america as a greedy, self interested, intefering, imperialist power is what attracts terrorism.
Consider the situation in Iraq. The US hand picking which Iraqis will be in any new Iraqi government. This is the way imperial powers have operated for thousands of years.
Uh, 50% income tax? Maybe 30% on a healthy salary... the highest is around 43% above ~$100,000 CAD.
You're all slaves to your communist taxing ideals in Canada. I moved to the U.S. to get away from that shit in Britain. Here a man can go out, work, pay minimal taxes, then bring home the majority of his wage!
I mean, look at me. As a married man in California, I hardly pay any state and federal taxes. I am free from the yoke of high taxation. Granted, there's this weird medicare tax, the social security payments, the health insurance, the dental insurance, the eye care program and the minimal 401K payments.
But even with all of those things, only 43% of my paycheck disappears before I ever see it. Now compare that to the insane 43% you... have to... uh... pay in Canada. Oh, shit!
You mean I pay just as much by the time all the things that aren't officially labeled as taxes get taken out, yet I still have to live in a country which takes all of that away from me the moment I can't pay?
Funny how most Americans, when talking about how much freedom they get from taxation, miss how they will take that money from you. They're just better at dressing it up as non-optional optional payments, rather than taxes.
Good thing I moved here for my wife and the weather then, not the wonderful liberal taxes. The beer still sucks though. *grins*
The irony, of course, is that they don't really hate Americans; they actually hate their own repressive governments.
You mean, the repressive governments that we Americans have funded, and often helped take power in the first place? Yes, I can see how I, too, would hate a foreign power that supported, or even installed, the regime that oppresses me.
Max
-- My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This effect has not been observed in Canada. The housing boom and bust was dictated by inflation around here.
Because we have the freedom to pursue whatever business we like, Americans have gotten very good at supplying what people want...
Unfortunately, Americans have gotten even better at buying new laws that force people to take whatever is most profitable for the seller, regardless of the quality or price of the merchandise.
People may disagree with our culture or business practices but that is no justification for violence. My wife may bitch at me endlessly (she doesn't) but that doesn't give me the right beat her. (Yes, yes you can argue all you want that we are the violent ones. Prove it before the UN, they'll listen. And there is a difference between the violence of the criminal and the violence of the police officer.)
Our culture and businesses don't enter your country without your government's approval. If you don't like it DEAL WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT. Don't come over here and start f*king with me.
As another poster pointed out, the U.S. mortgage interest deduction has the side effect of inflating the market value of homes. So in the end, after inflation is factored in, we're no better off in the U.S., because the houses cost so much more -- because the deduction makes them worth more.
It's all about perception. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Show me any country or religion that lives up to its ideals. Ideals are a goal; a telos. Something that calls you to be better than you are.
Another thing about the GST. It replaced the 7% manufacturers tax. Effectively this allows our businesses to export products to other countries cheaper. In conjunction w/ free trade, this is why the Canadian economy is still doing relatively well, despite the US economic situation.
Unfortunatly most people hate Brian Mulroney for this, not understanding the benefits the liberals are now enjoying came from his government.
The average home price in the United States is about $205,000. The average house price in Canada is about $187,000.
Unless the quality of Canadian homes being sold today are on average much nicer than in the US (possible, but not probable), something is wrong with that logic. My net income after buying a home rose compared to when I rented even though my mortgage payments are significantly higher than my old rent payments.
The benefit of deducting mortgage interest is of course, increased home ownership at a yonger age which lowers the dependency on the government when in retirement.
-- The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
I've heard it explained many times, that the reason why America is targeted by terrorists is that "certain elements" are simply jealous of our outstanding quality of life.
that is what the US propaganda machine spews out.
but maybe you should consider the other explanation: It is because "certain elements" came back home after a hard day's work only to find their house destroyed, their family dead, and a piece of shrapnell with the words "Made in the U.S.A." stuck in their departed mother's forehead.
Whenever a terrorist bombs you, remember that you bombed them first. Its like a fight between a couple of 7 year olds who both want to be the last one to hit the other, but with bombs.
Canada doesn't bomb anybody, and so we don't get bombed back. Its the Canadian Way.
Though I do not doubt that the United States has funded and helped many repressive countries in the middle east, I do doubt that it is the primary or even a major factor in the groundswell of public rancor there.
Unless you are speaking of countries like Israel, which oppresses the Palestinian people. (whether justifiably or not.. that is a different issue)
I doubt that the USA's past or current support for Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia is a major reason for the anger. We may not like the oppressive and fundamentalist turn of some of these countries, but it more likely the fundamentalism of these countries that turns many of their peoples against us.
> look at your past.... look at the indians and what you did to their culture
That can't be remotely applied to anything unless we were invading a country to live in. Not to mention that there's a considerable time & culture difference between now & WAY WAY back then.
> because the use of force will not change their opinion
No, and the lack of force will not change it either, it'll just make the U.S. more of a target
> the relatives of every person your army kills are potentional terrorists
And people who have never had anyone they know die are potential terrorists.
> i think if you look at israel and palestina this is a "good" preview to where bush policy will lead you
Israel & the Palestinians are so fucked that it hardly compares to US/Canada in any way.
christ, Man, look at a fucking grammar checker. There wasn't one completely correct sentence in that whole post.
When rich American businesses go into a country to compete with fledling local businesses, is there really a fair competition at play? People have to choose between supporting an immature native industry or choosing a mature foreign industry. By the time the native industry could have built up, it has already been marginalized by the foreign industry.
Consider that if the local industry can compete or the government attempts to pass legislation to protect their local industry then the US is quite likely to impose some sort of tarrifs or trade sanctions. In the worst case senario a CIA backed "popular uprising".
We have tried to impose American styles of government on countries for decades.
Actually it's more "American friendly" than "American style. e.g. the Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution is very similar to the US Constitution. Many of the differences being relevent to the difference between a consitutional monarchy and a federal republic.
Every other time (ahem, Vietnam...) it has failed miserably.
IIRC Ho Chi Minh drafted a declaration of independence and constitution modeled on those of the US.
We supported the Shah in Iran, we gave weapons to the Muhajideen in Afghanistan, we gave weapons to Saddam against Iran, the list just goes on. The funny thing is that all of these intrusions have come back to bite us in the ass, and we still haven't learnt a lesson. The Shah in Iran fell, and now the conservative theocracy in the country hates the US. The Muhajideen in Afghanistan became the Taliban, and used our weapons to take over the country.
Others of them became Al Quada, making use of the terrorism techniques taught by the CIA.
And we know how the Saddam thing went.
There's actually a specific term to describe this "blowback" The other way in which the US interferes in the region is unconditional military and financial support of Israel, even at a time when the money could probably be better spent in the US itself. Were Israel to lose its powerful patron and have to negotiate with the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians the result might well be less dead people in that part of the world. Even the ability to make money from all the potential religious tourists who stay away now because they don't want to get shot at or blown up.
The thing is, that all of this would go away relatively quickly after we stopped interfering. The people in the Middle East and in other places are really too busy with their own problems to keep rallying against a non-active issue.
They might have fewer problems or more easily sortable problems. Depending which problems are directly or indirectly the results of foreign interfering.
> Which is of course mostly nonsense - they ["want", I assume] american troops out of their countries.
If that was the case, then countries who had no American troops in them would have no problem with us. What, they still hate us? You must be wrong (maybe not entirely wrong, but definitely not complete).
You're ignoring Germany and most of Post WWII Europe. We "haven't learned that lesson" because we learned, with alot of blood, the lesson of non-intervention. WWI & WWII are still more costlier in terms of lives lost that most of these smaller conficts put together. We can't let these things go because you never know which one is going to escalate into full world war. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Terrorism is a problem, but it beats having a world war every now and then.
> Sorry, it's all factual. You do not live in the world's #1 country. You're around #10 or so.
Gee, you were probably (I can't prove it) factual until you said that. Factually, there is no #1 country, there is no #10 country, there is no worst country.
"... the reason why America is targeted by terrorists is that "certain elements" are simply jealous of our outstanding quality of life. They want to destroy what they can't build for themselves. "
No.
They hate America because of American foreign policy. Hell, America has troops near Mecca - you've all seen that video on CNN of what happens when 50 US soldiers go near a mosque, imagine what happens when we build airbases and station troops in and around the absolute holiest site in the Islamic faith.
The WWII situation tends to cloud people's perspective on foreign affairs. The situation in WWI/II was very different. Germany at the time was a highly industrialized nation and a world power. It was (and still is) the population and economic center of Europe. None of the nations in which we have intervened (not even Iraq) could be placed on a comparable scale. For the situation in Iraq to escalate to anything more than a regional conflict would require a powerful country like the UK, France, Germany, or China to get involved. Further, the alliances in place today are vastly different. Europe is no longer divided. Despite all the harsh words traded between the US and it's allies in Europe, if a country like Iraq and its allies (of which it has very few) were to wage war, the opposition would be impossible to overcome.
PS> I always find it rather funny how people keep bringing up the US in WWI/WWII. In WWI, we came in at the tail end of the war. For example, for every 100 artillery shells fired by the French of British, the US fired 6. Europe sacrified a great deal in WWI. The French (which many Americans today are fond of deriding) lost 27% of their population between ages 18 and 27, and 10% of their population overall. These "cowards" all died defending their homeland. Moreover, this war was actually fought in their homeland. WWI decimated European infrastructure. The land was literally (physically) torn up after the war. War hasn't actually seen American shores since bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, and even then, how can we compare an attack on a navel base thousands of miles away to the bombing of London? WWII was another war in which the US takes more credit than is due to it. A large part of the US involvement was in the Pacific. The Russians turned Hitler back in Stalingrad all by himself, and the British managed to prevent being overrun by Hitler's forces and keep a bridge to the mainland intact. The fact that US was able to come in and make the final push to topple Germany is a great credit, but saying stuff like "we saved Europe from Germany" (which I've heard far too often of late) minimizes the contribution of the European resistance, doesn't take into account the handicap Europe started with after having lost so much just 20 years before in WWI, and badly distorts the actual progression of the war.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Thats because (Surprise!) thats not the real reason the terrorists hate us. They hate us frot he same reason the canadian wrote this article. Because we try to interfere in other countries buisness very aggressively.
And the fact that we are a Christian, democratic nation. If we were a Islamic, theocratic nation, we could interfere all we wanted, and it would be okay.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Israel uses them to kill palestinians (justified or not).
That has little to nothing to do with it. Ever since Israel was created, large parts of the Arab world have wanted to destroy it. They just don't like the concept of a Jewish state on their land, no matter what it's doing.
Well, ideally, yes, it would. But then we have no government, and what would the foreigners complain about then? That we have no laws to keep us in check: repeat vicious cycle.
Well, at least he's not renting out the Lincoln Bedroom.
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Touché...
Car tax, tax on tobacco and alchohol, taxes on stuff like phone bills (I know almost a third of mind is), taxes on dividends and envestment earnings, food tax (eating out)... and probably many more. Also, municipal services (garbage, water, sometimes electric) can be considered a tax. But those are small fry. *thinks*
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"The israeli army uses US abrams tanks, US apache helicopters, and US f-15 fighters."
between 20 and 30 percent of Israel's military budget is paid for by America (about 2 billion dollars yearly), so they are using weapons that American's have made and also paid for.
Arabs don't hate us because we are Americans, they hate us because we are their enemy.
> a) It's Goods and Services Tax, not "global sales tax". Maybe it's a joke - a parody of the acronym. Whether it is a GOOD joke is an exercise for the humor-laden.
> d) There is no "national Canadian tax". There is a federal income tax, Federal, national, same damned thing in this case.
> Your grammar, spelling, and grasp of basic economic theory seem to validate your comment about your services being cut... so I guess one point for you. If you are going to cut on him because he accidentally said "our" again instead of "are," I suggest you look at these:
> a) It's Goods and Services Tax, not "global sales tax". Assuming that is a complete sentence, the period should go inside of the quotation marks. That, of course, is assuming it is a complete sentence, which it is not, instead of a part of a list, which does not have a period at the end.
> b) GST is 7%, not 15%. Same here, as well as every other item.
> d) There is no "national Canadian tax". Again, period inside the quotes.
> There is a federal income tax, and a provincial income tax There is no need for a comma there at all.
Your grammar, spelling, and lack of a grasp of the English language seem to validate the assumption that you are a pompous jerk. As for the details, the only ones that you got right are "a," obviously, and "b" and "c," on which I must assume you are correct, as I have no knowledge of Canadian Tax code. As for your rebuttal meaning anything, (c) he never claimed that GST was an income tax, just that he paid it, which, I assume, is true. Item "d" appears to be nothing more than a nitpick on choice of words. "National Canadian Tax" == "Federal Income Tax," except for the words used. He also mentioned the provincial income tax as being separate from Federal (or National, in his words) taxes, so you are wasting your breath. Item "e" deserves no response, since it is flamebait, but I'm a flamefighter and it's the only thing that enticed me to respond to your sporadic idiocy.
culture schmulture. People aren't attacking the USA because they hate the GAP. For christ/allah's sake, that's ridiculous. Don't you think it's more likely to be about the US soldiers who've been deployed in these arab countries for years to protect US oil supplies???... i mean heck, that IS what those saudi arabian terrorists said they were upset about... You the ones... they flew those planes into the world trade centre..
You seem to be forgetting one of the major elements as to why Canada isn't hated by many countries. We have no 'real' military. We've never really started any major wars, nor have we trained terrorists or sold them boatloads of weapons/supplies. Canada also never 'elected' any governments for any other countries. Which really gives them no reason to bomb us. We haven't really done any wrong to them, except allow them into the country as refugees.
War hasn't actually seen American shores since bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, and even then, how can we compare an attack on a navel base thousands of miles away to the bombing of London?
Calling Pearl Harbor in 1941 "American shores" is stretching the definition considerably in the first place. The British equivalent would be some Royal Naval installation in some remote part of the British empire.
The Russians turned Hitler back in Stalingrad all by himself, and the British managed to prevent being overrun by Hitler's forces and keep a bridge to the mainland intact. The fact that US was able to come in and make the final push to topple Germany is a great credit, but saying stuff like "we saved Europe from Germany" (which I've heard far too often of late) minimizes the contribution of the European resistance
Remember also that Canada was involved in the war long before the US and Canadian soldiers took part in Operation Overlord.
Thats because (Surprise!) thats not the real reason the terrorists hate us. They hate us frot he same reason the canadian wrote this article. Because we try to interfere in other countries buisness very aggressively.
This isn't just something the US has done in the past, it's been a continuing part of US foreign policy for a long time, with Iraq just the latest episode.
Second reason is that we support israel, which is anathema in the arab world.
But probably not for the popularly believed religious reasons. More that the Israelis are mostly European and that many of them are aggressive.
The israeli army uses US abrams tanks, US apache helicopters, and US f-15 fighters. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Israel uses them to kill palestinians (justified or not).
Also Israel frequently flys warplanes over Lebanon and continues to occupy parts of Syria and Lebanon. Thus that's two more groups of Arabs who have every reason not to like Israel.
Canada may support israel, but its not a canadian tank that palestinians see rolling down the street
Nor does Canada give vast amounts of money to Israel, effectivly bailing out the Israeli economy.
and its not a canadian army invading iraq.
Most likely after Afghanistan Canadians didn't want to get shot at by Americans again.
Ever since Israel was created, large parts of the Arab world have wanted to destroy it. They just don't like the concept of a Jewish state on their land, no matter what it's doing.
How many people do you think would want an aggressive, expansionist state, made up of people who a different part of the world, imposed on them by colonial powers? How do you think the average American would react if the UN declared that half of Florida was a Tibetan state? As for the Jewish issue there have been Jews in Arab populations since before these people called themselves "Arabs" on the whole far better treated and integrated than in many parts of Christian Europe. Most notably Spain...
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
between 20 and 30 percent of Israel's military budget is paid for by America (about 2 billion dollars yearly), so they are using weapons that American's have made and also paid for.
Possibly far more, once you look into the accounting tricks involved.
Exactly. If the 50 Billion that was spent on the Iraq war was used to subsidize fuel cells, solar and other energy til it reached volumes of usage where economies of scale could kick in, then all the Oil Supported Terrorism would collapse pretty quickly. And not just in Iraq but all over the Mideast.
Of course, American dominated Oil Multinationals wouldn't like that very much. But it would give you more "bang" for your buck in the fight against Terrorism. It would also help clean up the environment and curb Global Warming.
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Let me preface my response by saying that yes, I am an American.
It effects politics all over the world for good and bad.
Too true.
Americans with an interest in the civil liberties of all people, not just those americans with the power and money to defend their own (and to take those of others), many of whom I'm sure read slashdot should fight terrorism in their own way.
I am interested in the civil liberties of all people, but how am I supposed to "fight terrorism"?
By making America the state it was founded to be
I wish I could.
by scrutinising businessmen, politicians (and anyone else in a position of power and influence)
I have scrutinized just about everyone in power in this country, and I have found them severely lacking in qualities that are conducive to equality, justice and liberty.
by using the power of their wallet
Done, but it doesn't seem to make a difference.
their vote
Done, but again, it doesn't seem to make a difference.
and whatever else it takes
Like what? Violence? Because boycotting and voting sure as hell don't seem to work. See, the major problem with the WORLD is that they don't seem to understand: America is just like any other country! We have dictators and tyrants and we have no power to make things better. We are sorry that these evil people are harming you too, but there is nothing we can do about it. Trust us, we have tried.
- Name an example of how we "interfer in other - countries buisness very aggressively." You - can't.
Name an example where we DON'T interfere in other countries business very aggressively. You can't...even Tuvalu gets it! You ever hear of a little place called Vietnam? How about the Phillipines? How about virtually anywhere in Central and South America? Haiti? Cuba? Somalia? Libya? Saudi Arabia? South Africa? Fucking Antarctica?
You really don't have a clue, do you?
Is your name Rumsfeld? The guy who shook hands with Saddam in 1983 AFTER he gassed Kurds? Who sold nuclear reactors to North Korea? Who now wants to invade North Korea and take 50,000 US casualties so he can prove what a big man he is?
No, you're just a right-wing troll...
-- Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I doubt that the USA's past or current support for Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia is a major reason for the anger.
Actually, I heard an interview with one of the people convicted of the first World Trade Center bombings and he said that American support of the Saudi regime was a major motivating factor. According to him, the goals of the bombing were to get the US to stop supporting the "corrupt regime" and to get foreign troops off of Saudi soil.
-- "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows.
You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
One thing you don't have to deal with is VAT in California. The US has a flat sales tax with simple paperwork, VAT gets calculated over and over again at each stage of production. Sales tax rates run up to 10% in our most leftist areas but usually are much lower (4-7%) while Canada seems to have a 15% VAT.
I don't know of anybody in the US moving up to Canada for the superior economic opportunities but I do know several people moving the other way. It's not a scientific sample but the principle's right. Watch the population flows and you'll see through the bull
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Its not like we can actually sell them a tank, or provide soldiers... we don't have any if either right now...
Just think, our navy is smaller than the Egyptian navy during the middle kingdom, 9 boats doesn't make a navy.
Yes, I mean BOATS, not ships. (row, row your boat gently down the stream...)
If the Americans want to pull their Manifest Destiny on us again, all they have to do is sneeze!
Not to sound anti-canadian but this sounds like another negative.
I like Canada and think its a cool country and I do not want a flamewar. Toronto is a great and clean city and Ottawa is a beautifull capital.
I am just trying to show why Americans view there system more favorable then the Canadian one. Yes we have less social services and I gave you a reason why.
My father was a VP which explains his %50 tax. In America he would of been takes about %37.
Mortage interest deductions are great and inflating the market value of homes is a good thing. Yes it makes them more expensive but homes are an investment.
My aunt lost over a million dollars due to bad stock purchases during the.com bubble. Anyway her apartment she bought in 88 on the shore of Lake Michigan went up over a million in value! Low interests rates are to thank. She bought it for only 250k!
If the stock market is bad then investing in realestate or bonds is a safer alternative. The American system is more friendly and pro bussiness at the expense of lack of social services of course.
For sucessfull people less taxes = more money left which equals more investment money for things like homes which go up in value.
It also equals lower unemployment rates. When I was in Canada back in 96 and 97 the rate was close to %10. America it was about %3. Coincidence?
Well, Bush spent *our* money to land on an aircraft carrier so he could use the photos for his campaign. I don't approve of that. Makes the whole Lincoln Bedroom thing look kinda petty, doesn't it?
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
Look at the history of the US' meddling in South America. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Panama. We've helped violent Coups, given money to some freedom fighters while supported friendlier dictators. Ask THEM if our "Christianity" is the problem.
Look at the history of the US' meddling in South America. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Panama. We've helped violent Coups, given money to some freedom fighters while supported friendlier dictators. Ask THEM if our "Christianity" is the problem.
And how many terrorist attacks against us have come from their soil? How many of their governments have supported terrorist groups? I never said the US was innocent; but a significant part of the reason the Arabs react to us like they do is religious reasons.
No they don't. They use several versions developed at home of the Merkava.
Egypt uses the M1A1 Abrams. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait use separate versions of the M1A2 Abrams as their main battle tank.
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually the exact reverse is true.. Look at the manufacturing process for a GM vehicle and you'll understand..
GM car made in the USA:
Car needs Molded pressed steel, so GM buys it from a sub-contractor that presses and makes the steel for GM.. Sales tax is added to the total product price
The sub buys rolled steel from the mill.. Sales tax is added to this price
The steel mill buys the ore from 3M.. Sales tax is added to this price..
You see how a product that goes through several stages can have up to 30% or more of its value taken in sales tax..
Compare that to VAT.. VAT is only collected at final point of sale.. GM buys the pressed steel and provides their VAT number.. No tax charged
The Sub buys rolled steel from the mill.. Provides his VAT number.. No tax charged
The mill buys their ore from 3M.. No VAT charged (Import duties are another matter!)
So all of a sudden that 17.5% doesnt look so bad does it..
1. The terrorists in South America have in the past taken US hostages. They killed Nuns and stuff. Ever seen "Proof of Life"?
2. Actually, there is more terrorism in South America than in the Middle East, according to the State Department. They just aren't interesting, so they get back pages in our newspaper, and have for the last decade. The thing is that we don't give weapons to their enemy (like how we gave Israel megaton bombs that they used to blow up an apartment building with 20 civillians and one terrorist), so they have no beef with us really.
Mortage interest deductions are great and inflating the market value of homes is a good thing. Yes it makes them more expensive but homes are an investment.
How is more expensive housing a "good thing?" It makes that "investment" less affordable to the middle and lower class. They're forced to stay in rental arrangements longer, rather than building their equity. Inflating the market values of homes is not a good thing.
My aunt lost over a million dollars due to bad stock purchases during the.com bubble.
So did many Canadians... how does this demonstrate that the US is a better place to live than Canada? You can lose money in investments in both countries; what was your point? Does the US protect your losses somehow? In Canada, you can write your losses off against future (or past) capital gains. Does the US have similar allowances?
Anyway her apartment she bought in 88 on the shore of Lake Michigan went up over a million in value! Low interests rates are to thank. She bought it for only 250k!
Sorry to break it to you, but that's nothing spectacular. That's less than a 10% ROI, which don't get me wrong, is good, but it's nothing phenomenal. A similar gain could have been realized with a simple stock index fund, or balanced mutual fund.
It also equals lower unemployment rates. When I was in Canada back in 96 and 97 the rate was close to %10
Huh??? Where was that - Newfoundland? Got a reference to back that up? I'm in a city with a terrible unemployment rate at the moment: Ottawa. A very tech-oriented city. When the.com bubble burst, Ottawa's local unemployment rate "soared" to almost 8%. I don't recall it ever being 10% in my lifetime, nationwide. It is well known, however, that some regions do have unemployment rates in that neighborhood, such as Cape Breton Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
Personally, I think Canada is the better place to live. That's probably why I'm still here.:) Our taxes aren't as bad as people make them out to be, and anyone who's had to experience both medical systems (without insurance) will never again complain about socialised health care. Canada has legalized prostitution, a drinking age of 19 instead of 21, much lower crime per capita, a more relaxed lifestyle, a virtually identical quality of life (depending on which province you look at), superior strip clubs, and soon-to-be virtually legal marijuana. Canada, in spite of al l its problems, has more freedoms, less prejudice, and better care for the poor than the US, in my opinion and experience.
Overall you are right, the US did try to contribute earlier in WWII though.
Actually F.D. Roosevelt wanted to get involved in WWII much earlier and much more, but he US opinion was against it (look up `America First' and the political involvement of Charles Lindberg). FDR did help the allies a great deal before entering the conflict via export laws that were neutral-sounding but in fact favoured the UK much more, such as `cash and carry', which ensured the UK was much less likely to get low on matériel.
Some people say FDR knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor but let it happen (shipping away the aircraft carriers and leaving obsolete ships at shore only), so that the US could declare war on Japan and therefore against Germany too.
Re:wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am a native US citizen and, for a while, I worked on a project in the UK for BSkyB. Many times I heard complaints about American TV shows being aired in Britain.
Let me tell you what I told them: "We are simple folk. If you stop sending us money, we will stop sending you our lame reruns."
I do not understand why people attribute such simple things to geopolitics or to cultural hegemony. Once you strip out the things we do simply because other people willingly give us money for them, there isn't all that much left. Mainly you're just left with some really stupid drug policies because too many of us are giving other "simple folk" money for their drugs.
The US have a large home market for media production, much larger than most other countries, this can be leveraged to out-compete pretty much any home media production of smaller cultures. That does not mean that people for instance in Norway don't like to watch Norwegian programming. It just means that a full feature Norwegian movie will not be economically viable. Even French or German movies hardly are, because they have such a smaller market to cater to.
Most European cultures are wealthy enough to compensate via media subsidies. Developing nations can not afford this, so you only find native movie making in developing countries with large and somewhat protected home markets (i.e. India and China).
> Well, Bush spent *our* money to land on an aircraft carrier [...] Makes the whole Lincoln Bedroom thing look kinda petty
Well, assuming that was the ONLY reason he landed on the carrier, and that by landing on that carrier he was spending more tax money than if he would have landed somewhere else (The President has the right to use Air Force One at his leisure), then you are correct, I don't agree with it either.
But I don't think it "Makes the whole Lincoln Bedroom thing look kinda petty" at all. Bush may have landed on a carrier to get photos, but he wasn't renting out a room to get MONEY for his campaign. Basically, Clinton was renting out a room on a per-night basis that wasn't his to rent out. Bush, being commander-in-chief of our military, has the right to land on an Aircraft Carrier.
Consider the facts: he did not have to arrive in a Navy S-3B, a helicopter would have worked (the Abe was 39 miles off San Diego). It also breaks a tradition that seeks to retain the civilian nature of the office of the President. He may be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but that is not his major purpose. The appearance walks a dangerous line that portrays the President as a militarist, which smacks of fascism. The speech would have been better if it was given at the rose garden. We would not have to foot the bill for the extra days the ship was at sea, and the fuel for the unnecessary trip. That money could have been better spent helping keep Oregon's public schools open for the whole year.
As for campaign donor perks, spending the night in the Lincoln Bedroom is a mere bagatelle considering that Enron allowed Governor Bush to use its jet for his campaign. Democrats have their campaign lapses of judgment, but Republicans are shameless...
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
> We would not have to foot the bill for the extra days the ship was at sea
I didn't realize the ship was staying out at sea just for him to arrive. So did the crew disembark for home immediately after the Prez was there? If not, we aren't footing the bill for it. As for wasting fuel on the plane... Well, you are right. I can't argue that.
What is an S-3B? I'm not a military equipment enthusiast. I'm assuming that's a really big jet plane. Yes, a helicopter would have worked; I wonder what the cost difference would be if he had used one.
> The appearance walks a dangerous line that portrays the President as a militarist
Presidents always appear with the military, it "shows that they care," whether or not they really do. I can't comment on the "smacks of fascism" remark as I don't think it's very appropriate or even comes close to reality, but that is my opinion, I respect you for at least having yours (which is more than I can say for about %99 of the rest of the people).
> Democrats have their campaign lapses of judgment, but Republicans are shameless
Okay, please stop being so one-sided. Both major parties (and I'm not stupid -- all of them, if there were more than 2 major ones) are shameless. I have seen only a few elected officials who I believe are doing what they really think is best. They are about equal (in number) on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, one of them was the one who died in that plane accident last year (or has it been almost 2 years?).:(
> spending the night in the Lincoln Bedroom is a mere bagatelle considering that Enron allowed Governor Bush to use its jet for his campaign
I'm may not be taking my own advice here about one-sidedness, but my thoughts on this are that the Lincoln Bedroom "belongs to the people," even though we can't just walk into it, so Clinton was making money from the "people's possessions" and as for the Enron jet, I would prefer he used a jet that was loaned to him instead of using taxpayer money to pay for the jet he already has. While I agree that that may appear to be quite a conflict of interests, that was before the "Enron debacle." Both sides take private campaign donations in many forms. Enron also gave a good bit of money to the Democrats as well. Dems also received much more from Lawyers than was given to Reps. That's the nature of politics.
An S-3B is actually pretty small, it seats four people, they use them for surveillance. It has the safest flying record of all the planes that land on carriers, which is why they used it. The Abe had to extend its cruise by two days, after the longest cruise in history for an aircraft carrier. It costs a lot to operate an aircraft carrier for one day. Also, normally at this point in the cruise, the planes are all gone, but they left a few on the deck for effect, which screws with the Navy's logistics, which again, costs money. It was a waste of taxpayer money, and yet all anyone does is gush about how cool he looks in a flight suit. Those photos are going to end up on the jumbotron at the Republican convention, printed on campaign materials, and end up in TV spots. It's one thing when the President visits service members while they're on the job, it's another to ask them to go out of their way like this. It's taking the whole Commander-in-Chief thing way too far.
That aircraft carrier, that airplane, and the salaries of the aviators that fly them are also the property of the people, not George W. Bush, and for the President to feel that he is somehow entitled to use them for photo-ops is shameful. I just have to think about how in Oregon the public schools are closing early due to budget problems, or how prisoners in Kentucky are being set free, the fuel alone for that little PR stunt could have paid to keep those schools open.
As far as showing "that they care" about the troops, wasting tax money on stunts like this while cutting veteran's benefits strikes me as callous. Spare us the "Top Gun" act, make the speech from the Rose Garden, and return the benefits to the veterans that deserve them a hell of a lot more than someone who blew off their last two years in the Air Guard during Vietnam.
I must agree that politics in this country is thoroughly corrupt. This is just beyond the pale for me.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
and how would the larger egyptian navy from the middle kingdom fare against one of our aircraft carrier "boats"? The egyptians fought mostly by ramming the other ship, then hand to hand boarding parties. How would ramming 18" of steel with a wooden boat work? how would the egyptians board a "boat" that was 9 stories tall? your military power is not made only of numbers. Otherwise the iraquis would have won, they had the numerical advantage over the americans. It was our 3 divisions vs their 18. Who came out on top in that battle?
first
not every one out there is speaking english native
then you missunderstand me
i was comparing Israel & the Palestinians not to US & and Canada
i compared them to what will get some day to US & a lot of the Islamic countrys
if the US continue this policy
--
stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
Respecting Canada
by
JohnFluxx
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm a brit, but things like this make me respect Canada. Particularly after watching Bowling For Columbine (watch it if you haven't).
Of course, SP reduces that respect, as it tells me to hate canada. And they do have funny accents. And flapping heads.
Re:Respecting Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My son, who is to blame for all this??! 'uhh.. Canada, sir?' yes, yes of course. but how will you know them when they come for you? 'they have little beady eyes and great flapping heads!' Excellent, George my lad. They'll never call you Shrubya again!
Re:Respecting Canada
by
EGSonikku
·
· Score: 2, Informative
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/
Bowling for Columbine is mostly a work of FICTION. Some people do anything for notoriety. It's even sader when people accept things as fact without any thought to research.
-- -
"Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Just be sure to watch it as the entertainment that it is, as opposed to
an actual documentary. Moore, as his unkempt appearance suggests, is a sloppy and lazy thinker. He uses very little
fact in his opion pieces.
Even the bloodiest of liberals such as Roger Ebert realize this. There are many Moore links to be found showing the intelectual dishonesty rampant in MM's ravings, but, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Re:Respecting Canada
by
JohnFluxx
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
>Bowling for Columbine is mostly a work of FICTION
It might be, but the url you gave, gives no proof of this. It doesn't actually contradict anything in the film, just says it doesn't like what it hears, and says it is a work of fiction, without following it up.
Probably one of the most interesting things about the site you mention is the Paypal button for donations. This is fascinating. I suspect you are the author of the website, but hey, I'm lazy, so I apologize for not giving "any thought to research".
Re:Respecting Canada
by
EGSonikku
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Sure.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
I'm not saying to love America,but dont NOT like it based on a work of fiction. Truth be told I live here and I have some problems with it, but by and large I love my country, the government could use some work, still not as bad as some people make it out to be.
-- -
"Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Your criticism on this website is confused because you miss the point. By the way, you may want to check some of your historical facts, and especially the conclusions you make. Wouldn't want anyone to call your website "fiction."
Re:Respecting Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
southpark does not tell you to hate canada.. it's just a way of making fun of americans who make fun of canadians, with it's roots in british making fun of french in monty python series.
Re:Respecting Canada
by
jgalun
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
http://www.galun.com/misc/seasonal/2002/12/17-Moor e.html - Michael Moore is one of the sleaziest documentary makers/authors around. Almost nothing he says is true. I have to revise this article (that's my next project) because more falsehoods in the movie have been discovered since I wrote it.
Re:Respecting Canada
by
Nidoizo
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
http://www.galun.com/misc/seasonal/2002/12/17-Moor e.html - Michael Moore is one of the sleaziest documentary makers/authors around. Almost nothing he says is true. I have to revise this article (that's my next project) because more falsehoods in the movie have been discovered since I wrote it.
Well, this is funny. The corrections on this web page are almost the same numbers as in the movie. Sometimes these numbers would even been to the advantage of the movie cause. Is it really important if they were 11,127 gun murders in the US, not 11,167? Anyway, it doesn't remove any credit to Bowling for Colombine analysis to me...
Regards,
Re:Respecting Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, I read your article. I think you missed the point. Who cares if there are 11% non-white or 14%? Bowling isn't a statistics movie. It points out problems, and the few percentage points that you found that didn't match the statistics *you* had do nothing to change any of the questions Moore's movie asks.
Yes, Bowling isn't really a documentary. More often than not, Moore doesn't document things, he creates them, but that doesn't change the fact that these things *did* and *do* happen.
Yes, Moore is sloppy and loose with his statistics. And I don't give a rats ass. I still watch him, read him, and enjoy whatever he publishes. Besides, you can't say that the American Right blowhards are wholly accurate in their stats either.
I don't follow Moore because his numbers are perfect - its 'cause he's saying things that should be said, louder then most of us can say them. And he's saying them in a way people can swallow.
The left horrible at spin. Where the right has polished charmers, we've got robots like Gore, snooty intillectuals like Chomsky, or loudmouths like Rage Against the Machine. Granola, academics and loonies represent the compassionate half of the political spectrum - even though most leftists are just normal folks who've been screwed by corporate greed too many times.
Moore is different - he's normal. He's a good blue-collar everyman. He's just some fat factory dork from Flint - he's like most american men - overweight, ill shaven, and dressed in blue-jeans and a baseball cap. That is why he's important. He's someone representing the left who's not an alien freak. He's saying plain things in a plain way. Sure his numbers are off - but nobody ever cares about the numbers exactly. And yes, most of his evidence is anecdotal - but even anecdotal stuff counts for something. What made bowling for Columbine cool was where he took the camera. He listened to what Americans were talking about, who they were talking about, and just walked in there with a camera and showed "well, this is how they are".
I'm a brit, but things like this make me respect Canada. Particularly after watching Bowling For Columbine (watch it if you haven't).
Well, I have seen the movie and I have a few problems as well as a few arguements with it. The "slum" shown is along Lakeshore West in Toronto, and is brand new Ontario public housing. Taking the cameras through Parkdale or Jamestown in the same city would show a better picture. Regent park maybe? I mean, yeah, our slums are cleaner than US slums, but lets be a little more honest.
However, it *is* true about the unlocked doors. That made me stop and kinda realise I never lock my door when I'm home. I mean, I'm home, why should I lock it? Apparently this is diffirent in the states.
Of course, SP reduces that respect, as it tells me to hate canada. And they do have funny accents. And flapping heads.
You've gotta relax guy, take a load off. Put your feet up!
out problems, and the few percentage points that you found that didn't match the statistics *you* had do nothing to change any of the questions Moore's movie asks.
The problem is if the questions Moore asks are so profound then why does he need to distort statistics. The questions themselves along with the truth should be enough.
Yes, Bowling isn't really a documentary. More often than not, Moore doesn't document things, he creates them, but that doesn't change the fact that these things *did* and *do* happen.
Didn't he just accept an award for best documentary?
Things *do* happen, but you can't make up the reasons for why they happen and then try to back them up with misinformation.
Sadly Moore's usually gets away with his poor research by saying that it's all satire and comedy.
Re:Respecting Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You do understand that SP is written by two Canadians, and their depiction of Canadians is really making fun of how the US sees the rest of the world.
Bowling For Columbine is indeed one big work of fiction, but a good one because it is believable to many. Being a Canadian, it would be nice to believe Moore's portrayal of Canada, but one flaw rendered it fiction in my mind.
When they were in the bar interviewing people in Windsor if they lock their doors and EVERYONE said no. Windsor is a large city in densely populated southern Ontario across the river from Detroit. Give me a break!
> Anyway, it doesn't remove any credit to Bowling for Colombine analysis to me
If the fact that almost the entire Chuck Heston interview was made up &/| spliced together doesn't remove any credit for you, then a sharp slice to the head with a clue isn't going to do it either. I have no problem with standing up for what you believe in -- in fact, I encourage it, but don't make yourself look like a fool in the process. If you actually read the links and processed the information, (I didn't read the one this was a reference to, as I've read enough other ones) you could not say "Bowling..." has much credit to stand on.
> Probably one of the most interesting things about the site you mention is the Paypal button for donations. This is fascinating. I suspect you are the author of the website, but hey, I'm lazy, so I apologize for not giving "any thought to research".
What an insightful... err wasteful statement. Please clear one thing up for me. What is your point? That he posted a link to/. to con ppl into PayPal-ing him free money? Possibly. But if that's so bad, it's the idiots that donate that are the problem. Since you "didn't do any research," you wouldn't know if he's the author, therefore nullifying your argument. What was your argument again?
> Besides, you can't say that the American Right blowhards are wholly accurate in their stats either.
Everyone slants their facts to suit their need, anyone who claims otherwise is lieing or being fooled. The difference in this one case is that he presented his lie-filled rant as a documentary on the scale I have never seen from the right-wing side.
> I don't follow Moore because his numbers are perfect
Absolutely great, no one's statistics are perfectly accurate, but when a speech is mangled and dates completely wrong, there is a problem.
> its 'cause he's saying things that should be said, louder then most of us can say them. And he's saying them in a way people can swallow.
Well, I find it "hard to swallow," but that's just me. The issue I have with this statement is that you assume "that [these statements] should be said." What makes you think that this needs to be said? Or are you saying they need to be said because they follow your opinion?
> The left [is] horrible at spin. > Where the right has polished charmers
That's a lie. Look at Clinton. While he may not be totally left-wing himself, the people in his administration mostly were, and his presidency was all about spin. Also, look at George W.Bush. If you call that a polished charmer, I'm going to find some snakes to charm, cuz I must be pretty damned sweet. Come on, the guy's a fucking chimp in a President suit.
> What made bowling for Columbine cool was where he took the camera > He listened to what Americans were talking about > and just walked in there with a camera and showed "well, this is how they are".
Except that some of the places he said he was, he wasn't. Some of those Americans weren't saying what he implied they were saying. He made up some of the situations and TOLD US "this is how it is."
Nevertheless, it is a very interesting movie (not a documentary).
Re:Respecting Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
dude, seriously...Ive lived there....5+ years, and other then living on the west side of the bridge (any americans wanna know what Im talking about, turn right and the mickey d's and then left at the second stop sign comming off the bridge) I didnt think much about locking my door...I have friends that lived all their livings in windsor and NEVER locked their door....
That said....the pop of windsor is 200,000 or so....its all about stripers and the casino and the bars....and its filled with americans for just that reason.
That's all I can say about it. OK, so terrorism claimed 700 lives last year. In Belgium alone (that tiny country you can never find on the map) 1500 people died in car accidents. Not to mention how many died of the flue. So why is such a pathological, marginal fenomenon causing so much panic? Right. Hysteria. That's always a good way to ruin people's rights.
-- "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
You just don't understand. Dubya just wants to take our rights and keep them in a safe place for us. That way the terrorists can't get them, don't ya see? All our rights are still there. We may even get to take our kids to see them someday. They'll be preserved in pristine condition in hermetically sealed jars. We should thank Dubya for taking such good care of our rights!
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
And the answer is...because it gives a wonderful excuse for any sort of action, and a convenient way of attacking those you don't like for economic, political or geostrategic reasons. Read the arab states, at the moment.
It gives an unquestionable moral high ground for what the likes of Noam Chomsky call *state terrorism* -i.e. direct wars and state sponsored terrorism. Look at Algeria, Colombia, Israel for recent examples of state sponsored terrorism, some with links to the US...
See this is Reagan's cold war all over again, a great way of shaping foreign policy to your convenience, and with a heavy hand.
And the best thing is that the public is buying it!
Good points, but I think you are underestimating the ability of the people to think for themselves--and that is what is very sad.
Yes, the fears is unfounded.
No, it is not some government conspiracy making people afraid. They just are.
If you want an example, just look at SARS. Here is a disease that has killed 250 people. And look at all the over-reacting hysteria--and all of this while 250,000 people died of the flu last year. Again, yes the fears are not based on any reason, but lets not give the government more credit than it deserves.
I agree with you that many theories completely over-do it: and they are then called conspiracy theory.
*However* you have to be careful not to underestimate the influence of governments perpetual lies, helped by sheepish (or interested!) media. A lie, if told often enough, becomes the accepted truth.
"Thinking for yourself" is difficult when all you know is doctrine--how do I know I am not just repeating something I have been taught?
Can you tell me why on earth Kissinger got a nobel *peace* prize? This may seem unrelated, but it is quite clear that in this case, there were a lot of lies, practically a system of thought. Come on the guy is light-eons away from peace.
Something in the work of the crazy team that is currently in the white house is very scary, in that they seem to want to create hysteria, and endoctrination; and they seem to act in a concerted manner, with a world-view of their own (the "new american century", does that ring a bell to you?)
So is what I had said conspiracy theory? No, it is trying to state the facts: governments like to make things acceptable to public opinion, and to do that they will lie about actions, and motives of actions; the current US government lies a lot, with a particular weird scary edge.
Now to SARS: the justifiably scary thing about SARS is that it is very contagious, and it is airborne. The death rate is between 10 and 20%, and medical personnel is suffering a lot from it. Now if you saw how densely populated SE Asia is, you'd realise this is scary for governments, they have to do somthing about it. Yes, there is also hysteria, and they take tough measures, which I believe partly fuel this hysteria. But it isn't the same.
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends We're so glad you could attend Come inside! Come inside! There behind a glass is a real blade of grass be careful as you pass. Move along! Move along!
--
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
And the answer is...because it gives a wonderful excuse for any sort of action, and a convenient way of attacking those you don't like for economic, political or geostrategic reasons.
So, there was no fallout or $multi-billion price tag from 9/11; that's just in our imagination. The population wasn't 'terrorized' either.
It gives an unquestionable moral high ground for what the likes of Noam Chomsky call *state terrorism*
I like Noam to a degree, but beyond that, he reads more like a tinfoil-hat nut job. People like him criticize everything the U.S. government has done but never look at the brighter side of the results. When pressed, Noam will say something dismissive like, "oh sure, the USA has done lots of good things and there's no place I would rather live, but that's not my bailiwick." The radical left wing and the radical right wing meet and overlap. Make *him* your president if you want to suffer.
It just bugs me the hypocricy of those who criticize everything the U.S. does but either do it inconsistently or who fail to appropriately criticize those who have done enormously worse. How many millions of civilians did the Japanese kill during the WWII? How many tens of millions of civilians has the U.N. watched die while it has sat on its ass? Russia? China? The U.S. is just everybody's favorite punching bag.
Of course, Canada wouldn't be able to 'do it right' if the U.S. didn't exist. That's right: the U.S. the sole source of freedom on this planet, despite the cyncial ingratitude of the masses of the world. You may now all bow your heads in a moment of silence to thank the United States of America for your freedom. 'Old' Europe (Hitler). 'New' Europe (Soviet Union). Pacific Rim (Hirohito). The Americas. And the Middle East in this and the next decade. Think about it.
That's right: the U.S. the sole source of freedom on this planet, despite the cyncial ingratitude of the masses of the world. [...] 'Old' Europe (Hitler). 'New' Europe (Soviet Union). Pacific Rim (Hirohito). The Americas. And the Middle East in this and the next decade. Think about it.
Yeah, "Flamebait". Must have been a European who modded that one. Truth hurts, doesn't it!
It just bugs me the hypocricy of those who criticize everything the U.S. does but either do it inconsistently or who fail to appropriately criticize those who have done enormously worse.
The point is not that the U.S. is worse than other countries; comparing American foreign policy to that of Stalin's USSR or various other monstrous regimes is just ridiculous.
The problem is that most Americans assume that since America is such a great place to live, our foreign policy must also be great, bighearted, generous, unselfish, etc. This is also not true; our foreign policy is sometimes nice and sometimes spectacularly bad, in measure approximately equal to other large powers (the difference being that we're the most powerful!).
I genuinely believe that if Americans could have the magical ability to suddenly see American foreign policy from the perspective of non-U.S. citizens, most of them would be horrified and embarrassed about many things. But if anybody, including Americans like myself, try to point out the excesses of U.S. behavior in the world - in the interests of improving the country we love so much - our patriotism is called into question and we're immediately discredited.
9/11 was horrifying and tragic; of that there's no question. But it's equally obvious that the response has been all out of proportion, and that some of the actions taken in the fight against terrorism have been politically motivated and/or resulted in less security, not more.
9/11 was horrifying and tragic; of that there's no question. But it's equally obvious that the response has been all out of proportion, and that some of the actions taken in the fight against terrorism have been politically motivated and/or resulted in less security, not more.
So you think the world was a better place *with* Saddam?
Maybe it will take a WMD attack for the people used to comfy life in the first world to realize that there are lot of nasty folks out there who wish us ill. I really don't give a crap if there is a direct relationship between 9/11 and Iraq or not. 9/11 is merely the excuse that uncorked the bottle. The entire Middle East and other parts of Asia are in need of massive reforms, I am glad to see it finally happening. You can't have a safe neighbourhood if you refuse to lock up the criminals.
Some might argue that "reforming" the Middle East will invite more terrorist attacks on the U.S., but strangely, this has not happened. There has not been so much as a car bomb in the U.S. since 9/11, and a car bomb is trivial to carry out for a terrorist organization and doesn't even cost them an operative. My theory is the reason that there haven't been any more attacks on the U.S. is because al Qaeda's initial little plan to persuade the U.S. to withdraw its troops from the Middle East backfired enormously. There are more U.S. troops in the Middle East now than ever (well, except during Gulf War: Part I), and two countries have fallen. Just imagine what the U.S. will do if it takes a WMD attack on its soil. I suspect that the "kid gloves" might come off.
The demonstrated inevitable backfiring of future operations and excuse-building for even more dramatic U.S. action is a major reason that there hasn't been another attack, not to mention the disruption of terrorist networks and of al Qaeda in particular. A effective way to protect itself from attacks appears to be to threaten to take even more Middle East countries. Iraq is a wakeup call that the U.S. will actually crack some skulls. Not to mention that the terrorist-sponsoring governments in the Middle East are likely to put the kibosh on the actions of their own terrorists for fear that their country will be the next to fall. Boots on the ground is a strong deterent, and Iraq is a very good position for future operations against Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and other terrorist-sponsoring dictatorships clustered in that region.
OTOH, if the U.S. had huffed and puffed on Iraq and then backed down and slinked away, the terrorist-sponsoring dictatorships and terrorists organizations would be breathing a sigh of relief while planning their future devastating attacks on U.S. soil.
Even if we assume that Russia would have succeeded without any U.S. involvement, then the list item would simply have been: 'Old' Europe (Soviet Union). In what way was Stalin any less of a monster than Hitler? I'm pretty sure that Stalin killed more people during "peace" time.
Well, since you're tracing causality, what country does the U.S. have to thank most for its freedom? France.
Assuming you mean by tying up the British forces with their own pointless war, I think any debts of gratitude would have been repaid with a credit balance by the liberation of France.
Let's not forget that it was the US who funded and trained Iraq's soldiers during the war against Iran.
Oh, and what about DROPPING THE GOD DAMN A-BOMBS ON JAPAN? The country who first unleashed the nuclear menace are now the ones who are responsible enough to protect us from it? PLEASE.
Let's not forget the use of agent orange in Vietnam, a decision that still yields deformed births and poisoned natural resources to this day.
Or how "Old" Europe (which is what you call Germany, for some reason) was battled against by Britain and the French Underground (along with countless other allies, such as CANADA) for 2 full years before the Americans graced us with their own contribution. Just because France fell under the might of the German army quickly doesn't mean the French citizens fell with them. Without the French Underground, the war effort would have never advanced as quickly as it did.
I can go on and on. If the U.S. is the sole source of "freedom" on this planet, then it's a sad, sad world we live in.
--
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
Let's not forget that it was the US who funded and trained Iraq's soldiers during the war against Iran.
To try to get rid of the Islamic radicals who took over the government in Iran. Y'see, Islamic-radical types are bad news.
Oh, and what about DROPPING THE GOD DAMN A-BOMBS ON JAPAN? The country who first unleashed the nuclear menace are now the ones who are responsible enough to protect us from it? PLEASE.
Like I said, people love to criticize without ever giving credit. The A-Bombs ended WWII, and the occupation turned Japan into a first-world democracy.
Let's not forget the use of agent orange in Vietnam, a decision that still yields deformed births and poisoned natural resources to this day.
Agent Orange was a defolient. Anyone care to criticize the infant mortality rate of Communist and other third-world nations? How many hundreds of millions of babies have died from the U.S. not defending a country?
Or how "Old" Europe (which is what you call Germany, for some reason)
Y'see, during WWII, Germany consumed most of continental Europe.
was battled against by Britain and the French Underground (along with countless other allies, such as CANADA)
Britian was on its last legs before the U.S. joined the war. The French underground was not a fighting force; it was mostly an intelligence force. I doubt that Canada was a decisive factor. I think that you need to consider how the war would have ended without any American involvement. Europe would have been owned either by Hitler or Stalin.
I can go on and on. If the U.S. is the sole source of "freedom" on this planet, then it's a sad, sad world we live in.
I agree that it's a sad, sad world out there beyond our comfy chairs. But, hey, you can always have fun punching your favorite punching bag.
How many tens of millions of civilians has the U.N. watched die while it has sat on its ass?
Quite a few. But, then again, that's mostly due to the fact that the US used its veto in the Security Council, thus negating UN involvement. Don't blame the UN for sitting on its ass when it's the US that pulled up the chair for it to sit on.
Care to guess how often the US has NOT vetoed against resolutions regarding illegal, israeli settlement in Palestine? Answer: 0, Zero.
It never ceases to amaze me that, since WMD's are apparently so bad in the Middle East, how come the US doesn't interfere with the ONLY nation that literally has all sorts of WMD's, that single nation being Israel?
Yeah the US did good things to "the Americas"... Chile, Argentina, etc... they are all very happy with the US there...
While all of these countries (except Cuba) are technically democracies, their problems are primarily caused massive internal government corruption. You may thank the U.S. that these countries are democracies at all. You may thank the indiginous culture that they are corrupt.
Do you _really_ want to go through that list, point for point, with someone who's read history books written outside of the US?
There's nothing that says western europe would've become part of Soviet Russia - you do know that there are whole countries that neither the US nor Russia set foot on in WWII? Mine's one of them.
I consider the US to be _the_ civilian-killing country in the world in the last 60 years or so. Do you _understand_ why?
So you think the world was a better place *with* Saddam?
The world would just be the same.
Maybe it will take a WMD attack for the people used to comfy life in the first world to realize that there are lot of nasty folks out there who wish us ill.
A lot of people don't even care about "us" (whatever us is) as they have enough problems of their own. Maybe you should stop being so self centred for a change.
I really don't give a crap if there is a direct relationship between 9/11 and Iraq or not.
And so does the US foreign policy and that is why everybody does not agree with it.
The entire Middle East and other parts of Asia are in need of massive reforms, I am glad to see it finally happening. You can't have a safe neighbourhood if you refuse to lock up the criminals.
Says the biggest Bully of the all. Let's not forget for a moment that a lot of those criminals were best buddies with the US for the longest time, if they not even have to thank the US for their rise to power in the first place.
Some might argue that "reforming" the Middle East will invite more terrorist attacks on the U.S., but strangely, this has not happened.
Yet It hasn't happened yet. You make the mistake to think that it's already over. For most people it only just started.
My theory is the reason that there haven't been any more attacks on the U.S. is because al Qaeda's initial little plan to persuade the U.S. to withdraw its troops from the Middle East backfired enormously.
Yet so far I still haven't seen the Al-Qaeda proof. It is interresting though that the people who pull the trigger right now keep insisting that they do exist, are that bad.... I guess I am wrong in asking for proof?
There are more U.S. troops in the Middle East now than ever (well, except during Gulf War: Part I), and two countries have fallen. Just imagine what the U.S. will do if it takes a WMD attack on its soil. I suspect that the "kid gloves" might come off.
/me thinks that you have been successfully brainwashed. You seem to think as black and white as your leader and it doesn't even occure to you that whoever caused the attacks on the WTC has gotten exactly what they wanted: An aggressive US that is threatening people who already felt betrayed and threatened by the US. If someone has nothing to loose they usually don't care if they surive. Most of those countries (and their individuals) have nothing to loose. Can you say the same about yourself? Your way of life? The US as a whole?
Iraq is a wakeup call that the U.S. will actually crack some skulls.
If countries dare to use the Euro instead of the US Dollar. You think I am dreaming? Iraq changed from USD to Euro a couple of months ago, Iran is threatening it and North Korea has already done this.
In fact the only way your way of life is as good as it is is because of the USD. Don't believe me? You might want to read this then.
It never ceases to amaze me that, since WMD's are apparently so bad in the Middle East, how come the US doesn't interfere with the ONLY nation that literally has all sorts of WMD's, that single nation being Israel?
That'd be because Israel is a first-world democracy. Most of the major first-world democracies have WMD. Even Canada has research samples of nasty biological organisms and large stocks of spent nuclear fuel rods.
But, you seem to want to equate first-world democracies with corrupt, terrorist-sponsoring, Islamic-fanatical, totalitarian dictatorships. The latter cannot be trusted with WMD.
I think you can thank the Palestinian terrorist groups and their Islamic sponsor nations (such as Syria) that there is no resolution to that perpetual crisis. How would you feel about your own country taking daily terrorist attacks, especially if you had the military might to crush those attacking you but you were being held back by the U.S.? But, if there ever is a peaceful resolution, you will have to thank the U.S. for that.
Arrgh.. I invoke the "Noam Chomsky Rule" whereby the mention of Noam Chomsky so radicalizes your argument that it can no longer be considered valid by rational people.
Yes, and the people of Chile will now thank the US for liberating them from the socialist government of Allende, and giving them decades of freedom under the Pinochet government. The families of those who vanished will have the most appreciation for this freedom.
The people of Argentina support you for the support you gave in eliminating leftism from their fair country.
The people of Angola will now thank the US for supporting UNITA, and fighting a brave war against that communist government. The families of those who perished in that decades-long slaughter salute you.
The people of Cambodia salute the US, for when Vietnam finally ended the killing fields, the US government sanctioned the Vietnamese agressor.
The people of Italy salute you, for making sure they did not foolishly include the Italian Communist Party in any post-war government, despite the number who voted for this party in democratic elections (making it at times the second largest party).
And the people of Australia thank you, for removing Gough Whitlam when they did not have the sense to do it themselves.
--
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
So you think the world was a better place *with* Saddam?
This is exactly the kind of straw-man crap I'm complaining about. If we weren't for the war, then we must be pro-Saddam, anti-American, blah blah blah. So mindless! So stupid!
We didn't have any problem with Saddam back in the 80s when he was actually using chemical weapons and so on. Back then he was *our* guy, so it didn't matter that he was a dictator; we sent Rumsfeld over there to kiss his ass, we sold him arms, etc. The issue is not whether Saddam was a bad guy; the issues include the question of whether he was actually worse than dictatorships that we continue to support, whether he actually had WMDs, whether he was any kind of credible threat to the U.S., whether there were other motivations for invading Iraq that were smokescreened by the terrorism hysteria, and so on.
The sad fact is that America is willing to support dictatorships when it is expedient to U.S. interests to do so. That this does not reflect the moral outlook of the American people only makes it a larger tragedy.
As far as getting troops out of the middle east goes: bin Laden's stated intent was to get U.S. military bases out of Saudi Arabia, which it seems he has accomplished; we've also overthrown the major secular government in the region that bin Laden wanted to get rid of, and at the same time inflamed passions among many fundamentalist Muslims in the Arab world, which should make it easier for Qaeda and similar groups to gain new followers. If we do what we've said we plan to do, and allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government, then Iraq will become an Iran-style theocracy; watch for the American controllers to influence the process to make sure that doesn't happen. The last time the West played the regime change game in Iraq, we got the Ba'ath party. But I'm sure it'll work this time, Citizen of Earth.:)
To try to get rid of the Islamic radicals who took over the government in Iran. Y'see, Islamic-radical types are bad news.
Oh, so aiding one "Islamic radical" to remove another (just like the U.S. aided to Taliban to overthrow what eventually became the Northern Alliance) is OK then?
Like I said, people love to criticize without ever giving credit. The A-Bombs ended WWII, and the occupation turned Japan into a first-world democracy.
I'm sure that gives much comfort to the memory of the thousands who died in the process? Typical... if saving thousands of American lives comes at the cost of thousands of "non-Americans", then it's surely justified... along with a justification of "Look, eventually they were off on the right foot so it all worked out in the end... and they're no longer a threat to us!"... kinda like Iraq.
Agent Orange was a defolient. Anyone care to criticize the infant mortality rate of Communist and other third-world nations? How many hundreds of millions of babies have died from the U.S. not defending a country?
You so heavily missed the point I choose not to comment.
Britian was on its last legs before the U.S. joined the war. The French underground was not a fighting force; it was mostly an intelligence force. I doubt that Canada was a decisive factor. I think that you need to consider how the war would have ended without any American involvement. Europe would have been owned either by Hitler or Stalin.
Nobody suggests that Canada was a decisive factor. Nobody suggests that the French were a fighting force. Nobody debates the the addition of US troops to fight the Nazi menace were decisive. The point that you have so clearly missed is that all the other ally countries were in their on DAY ONE in aid. When Canada decidied against going to Iraq, the US government (and in turn, the bulk of the US population) cried us down from the height of morality for it, and the US ambassador to Canada actually went on record, saying that (par) "America is always there for it's friends on day one. Shame on you Canada!"
I agree that it's a sad, sad world out there beyond our comfy chairs. But, hey, you can always have fun punching your favorite punching bag.
Hey, if there was a better punching bag, I'd punch at it too. My own government is hardly made up of saints... I spoiled my last vote on the grounds that the current Liberal governement in Canada largely seems corrupt, and there are definately more oppressive regimes in the world then the Americans.
Nobody debates this. Nobody denies that US contribution to what we consider "the western ideal" has been invaluable. What people HATE is the self-righteousness FUD that your government spews, smearing everyone else in the process.
People HATE when the only nation to ever -really- use WMD's invades another nation for supposedly having WMD's (oh wait, it was liberation you invaded for, right? Since there haven't been any real WMD's the story had to change in a hurry).
People HATE when one sovereign, western nation makes threats against another for having bad border policy... totally forgetting that the majority of those involved in (for example) the 9/11 incident came directly into the United States using American visa's.
Sort out what you're debating over before you start using the "favorite punching bag" rhetoric.
--
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
No, because I can. There are a whole lot of puppet regimes put in place, supported, funded by the US that in turns kills a lot of civilians. Yes - both the Kurds living in Turkey and Iraq are counted here - US money and support killed a lot of them. US pilots scouted the area where Saddam (funded by the US) gassed them, and Turkey - being everything but a nice democracy, is a member of Nato just because the US needed a launch-country close to the Soviet Union.
There are, of course, a lot more examples like these.
Is he going to put them in a lockbox? Cause that would be an original idea.
--
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The US' biggest problem is that it needs to stop giving out money to the rest of the world. I don't approve of handing out MY money to these other countries.
We can thank Clinton for using our money to feed North Korea for the last decade. Look where that got us?
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That was a France that was influenced by the enlightenment thinkers. Now France is just a little Marxist bullshit paradise. To hell with France. We've got to stop our country from turning into the same.
And for putting saddam hussein in power back in the 60's. How are iraqis going to like us when they find out we were funding him during the iran-iraq war?
--
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A good start would be to throw your current administration out of office. Read the fucking headline again.
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Care to guess how often the US has NOT vetoed against resolutions regarding illegal, israeli settlement in Palestine? Answer: 0, Zero.
Perhaps it's because the US doesn't view the Israeli settlement as illegal. There was no official "Palestine." The land was appropriated fairly. The Palestinians have no interest in setting up a free and just democracy in that land.
[...]a convenient way of attacking those you don't like for economic, political or geostrategic reasons.
I first read that as "goatse.cx reasons". I need to get out more.
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So it was Stalin who was bombing Germany from Great Britain? The truth is that Hitler was defeated by the allied forces which included the US and the USSR, neg.
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm sure that gives much comfort to the memory of the thousands who died in the process? Typical... if saving thousands of American lives comes at the cost of thousands of "non-Americans", then it's surely justified... along with a justification of "Look, eventually they were off on the right foot so it all worked out in the end... and they're no longer a threat to us!"... kinda like Iraq.
So we have no right to defend ourselves? No right to kill others to protect ourselves? That we should have continued to fight Japan by conventional weapons and allow thousands and thousands of American soldiers (many of whom were innocent young men) die? Fuck you.
IT ABSOLUTELY justifies it. People like you make me absolutely sick to my stomach. Evil and ignorance will never be gone from the world. Thank you for reminding me.
That we should have continued to fight Japan by conventional weapons and allow thousands and thousands of American soldiers (many of whom were innocent young men) die?
This was my point.
Why bother fighting with conventional weapons and risk the lives of BOTH American and Japanese SOLDIERS when you can just drop the A-Bomb (or two) on a bunch of Japanese CIVILIANS instead? The woman, children and elderly who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and continue to die from radiation related sickness) had no right to defend and protect themselves I guess.
Better them then a bunch of American soldiers, right?
--
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't think you understand. The other party we had to vote for was the one that would love nothing more than to turn our country into a Marxist bullshit country just like France. Fuck socialism. Fuck environmentalism. No Bush isn't the best government we could have, but at least he doesn't pander to labor unions and international bullshit like the Kyoto treaty.
Corrupt, check (enron, Haliburton, etc.); terrorist sponsering, check (israel, IRA); islamic fundamentalist...kinda check (call it christian fundamentalist and we're even); totalitarian dictatorship, check (have you even read the USA PATRIOT act and seen what it does? How about contraventions of the geneva convention? Also have a look at laws now drafted for congress (PATRIOT II should chill your heart).
Me, I'd say the US can't be trusted with WMD's either. And we know the US has them. THings is, if you use them, you automitically become to my mind a rogue nation, disrespecting everything humans holsd dear...so why does the US have them and why have they used them in the past?
Anyway, the US doesn't have any interest in stopping the whole Israel/Palestine thing...it sells too many weapons over there.
-- --
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Us"? You're an Afghani? Say, have you seen Junis around? I want to ask him if he's seen Jon Katz lately.
Go do some research (historical and psychological). That whole cold war thing was the responsibility of the US and Russia. If the US hadn't been so paranoid, they wouldn't have fed Stalin so many reasons to/be/ paranoid.
So not only is the US half of the reason for that whole mess, but they didn't/win/ anything either...the USSR collapsed under the same thing the US is facing right now: corruption and military overspending (40% of the budget...and that's just for the military, not other defense related spending!).
Anyway, if you're going to dredge up old cows, consider the French who are the sole reason the US is independant now...where is it's gratitide now?
Hehe...many a US city has a higher infant mortality rate than third world countries do...even more damning, USAID (a third world relief program) has actually gopt programs running in the US itself!
-- --
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So you really can't hold the french liberation in WWII above their heads can you? seeing as they helped the US, (supplies and arms were supplied by the french as well... (thats why the revolutionaries wore blue )not just by tying up the british forces) thus by your own admission, the US owes nothing more to the French, and then the French do not owe anything to the Yanks... they're even... all debts paid thus the french have the right to challenge what the US says and does... unlike what many people are saying because of the WWII situation... nobody owes anybody else anything...
And the best thing is that the public is buying it!
They're only buying what they've been sold.
And the sellers point to the events of Sep 11 to make their case. Something over 40% of Americans believe that "almost all" the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was responsible for their actions. President Bush's speech mentioned 9/11 more than half a dozen times, even though he was nominally explaining why Iraq and Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out.
It'd sure be nice if people did some comparison shopping, checking prices and quality before they bought into their political views.
If current conditions persist, I can see the beginnings of a vicious feedback loop, where more vehement anti-American sentiment causes more terrorist actions, which in turn, can be used to sell more overseas military ventures which will reinforce those anti-American sentiments even further.
-- "Provided by the management for your protection."
Yeah, but if the US were to vanish today, Canada would have to get a US-sized military to enjoy the safety it enjoys today. If France were to vanish, well, insert joke here.
You're of course free to view the history any way you want - but I'd suggest looking into the amount of forces Hitler sent into Russia and what happened there instead of concentrating on the terrorist attacks by the US/UK against cities like Dresden. (Look it up, before you answer, please)
> Can you tell me why on earth Kissinger got a nobel *peace* prize? This may seem unrelated, but it is quite clear that in this case, there were a lot of lies, practically a system of thought. Come on the guy is light-eons away from peace.
Speaking of Nobel Peace Prize candidates light-eons away from peace, how about doddering-but-evil old fart Yasser "Push Jews Into The Sea" Arafat (poor guy, he only got to push one Jew into the sea) and doddering-but-senile old fart Jimmuh "Give nukes to North Korea foah peace" Cahtuh. (Castro, Chavez, Kim, he never met a Stalinist dictator he didn't like.)
Anyways, thanks for Kissinger. I needed at least one right-winger to round out my "What The Fuck Was Nobel Peace Prize Committee Smoking" set:)
So you think the world was a better place *with* Saddam?
What you don't seem to get is that the affairs of other countries aren't our fucking business. The U.S. has no right to enforce democracy at the point of a gun on other nations, nor to spread 'liberty' across the planet like some goddamn venereal disease.
You talk as if we have some sort of religious calling to enforce our way of life and government on others. As an American I say "bullshit". I don't want an empire, and I don't want my taxes being used for this purpose. In fact, I pretty much want a 'live and let live' sort of government that doesn't go about trying to re-enact 18th century colonialism.
There is nothing at all naive about this desire. I don't swallow the Bush propaganda about pre-emptive strikes, nor do I think we're in Iraq for anything but the oil (and perhaps the ability to tell Israel to go fuck itself). You can spout the party line all you like, but in the end it's just another word for 'imperialism'.
And, as history tells us, imperialism just doesn't work very well.
Max
-- My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
But, you seem to want to equate first-world democracies with corrupt, terrorist-sponsoring, Islamic-fanatical, totalitarian dictatorships. The latter cannot be trusted with WMD.
As an American I don't trust my own government with weapons of mass destruction. In fact, I think Bush the most likely national leader on the planet to actually use them.
I doubt I'm alone in this way of thinking.
Max
-- My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Why would Canada need a military to be safe? It's amazing how little problems you have with other countries when you don't try and push them around all the time
And that whole French Revolution thing. You know, the whole creation of democratic systems thing. Like giving rights to people and stuff. And that whole parliament thing. Not to mention constitutions.
Turn off your computer and read a book buddy.
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So we have no right to defend ourselves? No right to kill others to protect ourselves? That we should have continued to fight Japan by conventional weapons and allow thousands and thousands of American soldiers (many of whom were innocent young men) die?
So if the military is that which goes to war to protect our freedoms, each soldier who dies reinforces US freedoms all that much more. In light of all of this Patriot Act business, perhaps we need some more soldiers to die because I don't see US freedoms on the increase for quite awhile now. Good thing that the US has pretty much insured that there will be a steady supply of new terrorists for the time being.
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
pfff fortunately Bush saved you from the Kyoto treaty I mean who cares about this fucking planet we live on?? To hell with this planet. I just hope youll soon get some sort of cancer because of CH4 in the air, maybe then you will start thinking. I mean, how can one say "fuck environmentalism". STFU
Your sense of perspective is completely out of whack. Trying moving to Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, etc. and live there for awhile. Maybe you'll then you'll get a clue.
How many aristocrats were slaughtered during the French Revolution? And then there was Napoleon. The French were as uncivilized as any other country during that period.
I agree with the SARS thing. My room mate was extreamly happy "Oh my God, I just saw on the news, somebody recovered from SARS! That's so great!" and I said "SARS has a fatality rate of about 5%. Most people do."
As a side note, the West Nile Virus, another one that people were getting hystarical about, has a fatality rate of 0.2%! And almost all of those are people with a compromized immune system, such as people with AIDS and the elderly. Influenza not only kills more people, but it also has a higher fatality rate.
-- ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Stalin was a ruthless dictator. He killed millions of his own people. You simply call it paranoia? It's the truth. We didn't want Stalinism to spread through Asia or Europe. In some areas we succeeded (Eastern Europe) others we didn't (Eastern Asia... Saddam, until now -- Stalin was Saddam's role model). We didn't feed him reasons to be paranoid, he created his own by brutality. Why do you think Saddam was so paranoid? Even when the U.S. did support Saddam, he was paranoid because his own rise to power was from brutality and treachery.
You think today the U.S. is suffering from corruption and military overspending? Why wasn't this true with the eighties? After all, both the U.S. and Soviets were trying to out do each other. Yet the Soviets collapsed, and the U.S. didn't. You think the Soviets collapsed because of military spending? I think you're going off the wrong way. In Russia, they didn't have really any means to support a large military because they had virtually no economy from communism, and their citizens had no freedom. Yet in the U.S. we have an econonmy and have personal freedoms. That is one reason why we came out of the cold war on top.
The French is the sole reason we are independent? haha. If anything, the French didn't care about our quest for independence (they were a monarchy). They only acted about half-way through the war after they saw the major victories by the Americans. Only then they signed an alliance. But they only wanted to get back at their rival and know they had some chance at winning it (you see, France never has won a war). They didn't provide any significant forces or supplies, except at the end, but the war was about to end anyway, they just quickened it. The alliance was dead before even the signing of the Treaty of Paris because the Americans made demands that the French didn't agree to (you see, they weren't doing anything for us even here) And then about 15 years later, we were already in a Naval war with the French. So much for their help. You see here there is no gratitude because there is none to give.
> In fact the only way your way of life is as good as it is is because of the USD.
The value of the dollar is dependant upon how the people of the country see it. So, if it's doing well, the country is doing well. If US would be so upset about Iraq not using the US$, they would have put a stop to it. How come people claim that the U.S. is a big, bad, brawling machine and will do anything when it comes to war -- but stopping a change to the Euro? Those pathetic Americans can't stop that! haha! Please.
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
France was NOT concerned with establishing freedom and democracy around the world (wasn't it King Louis XVI that supported us). France was only concerned with slapping down Great Britian as revenge for beating up on them 20 years before. Also, the help came in late in the Revolutionary War - it wasn't like they were the U.S.'s backbone that kept it afloat throughout the conflict.
"Also, the help came in late in the Revolutionary War - it wasn't like they were the U.S.'s backbone that kept it afloat throughout the conflict."
How long did the US wait before getting involved in WWI and WWII?
I seem to remember that France lost more than a million soldiers in WWI _sucesfully_ defending Paris and the rest of their country before the US decided to get off it's ass.
-- This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Hysteria.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That'd be because Israel is a first-world democracy.
Except that Israel has laws to prevent non-Zionists from standing. Effectivly anyone standing on a platform of equality for "Jewish" and "non-Jewish" Israeli citizens can trivially be deselected. Let alone anyone standing on a platform to give equal rights to the people in the occupied territories. Even someone wanting to advocate legal equality for Ashkanazi and Sephardic Jews could find themselves in hot water. Compared with typical European states, where it is perfectly possible for candidates to stand on a basis of fundermental constitutional change (even regional independence), Israeli democracy just dosn't cut it.
I think you can thank the Palestinian terrorist groups and their Islamic sponsor nations (such as Syria) that there is no resolution to that perpetual crisis.
Maybe Syria would be a lot more friendly with Israel were Israel to get out of Syria. Similarly it probably wouldn't hurt relations between Israel and the Palestinians were the Israeli army to leave the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Giving the "settlers" the option to either live in Israel or be "resident aliens" under Palestinian law.
How would you feel about your own country taking daily terrorist attacks
What those spewing hatred at the Arabs appear to forget is which group of people did the invading in the first place. How would you feel if your country was invaded? Most Americans can't easily answer this, since they have never been invaded or lived under occupation. Many Europeans know exactly what this is like, either first or second hand. Maybe that's why views of both Israel/Palestine and Iraq differ so markedly between the US and mainland Europe.
The problem is that most Americans assume that since America is such a great place to live, our foreign policy must also be great, bighearted, generous, unselfish, etc.
You probably can't even say that about US domestic policy. Especially with some of the repressive legislation the US Congress has been pushing out recently.
I genuinely believe that if Americans could have the magical ability to suddenly see American foreign policy from the perspective of non-U.S. citizens, most of them would be horrified and embarrassed about many things.
The last time anything like this happened would be with the Vietnam war...
But if anybody, including Americans like myself, try to point out the excesses of U.S. behavior in the world - in the interests of improving the country we love so much - our patriotism is called into question and we're immediately discredited.
An intersting deefinition of patriot is "someone who supports their country always and their government when it deserves it." Somewhere along the a definition more along the lines of "My government, right or wrong" appears to have become more common in the US.
And, as history tells us, imperialism just doesn't work very well.
Well, to be fair, history tells us that democracy doesn't work very well, either.;) Seriously though, I, too, have grown tired of the fear-mongering that has become the status quo. Yeah, we got slapped on September 11, 2001. Wanna know something? Its going to happen again at some point in the future. Every nation on the planet has to deal with this sort of thing, and the US has had it far better than most, since for us it is always isolated attacks with no further risk of escalation; i.e. an invasion of conquest or occupation. The United States could drop all pretenses of maintaining civil liberties and shift to a completely totalitarian regime and successful attacks on US soil and on US assets overseas would still occasionally occur.
Welcome to the real world, sorry if some of you find it to be far more hostile than the Cosby Show had prepared you for it to be. Go crack a few history books and you might begin to realize that a) humanity is violent, and b) the US has had it easy. I understand that Americans are more prone to be, for the lack of a better word, cowardly, since most Americans have never even been in a fist fight, nevertheless have had to deal with any real turmoil, but the cowardous has gotten out of hand. If you are still so frightened that you can't live accepting that you are far, far more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than you are to even see a terrorist attack in person, then move your ass out to the sticks and set up shop, because I don't foresee terrorists mounting an attack on Red Lodge, Montana. In the meantime, can we get back to building a nation for the world, and its own citizens, to envy rather than despise?
What you don't seem to get is that the affairs of other countries aren't our fucking business. The U.S. has no right to enforce democracy at the point of a gun on other nations, nor to spread 'liberty' across the planet like some goddamn venereal disease.
Anyway whatever you might get from that enforcement certainly won't be democratic. Might be "US friendly", at least short term.
You talk as if we have some sort of religious calling to enforce our way of life and government on others. As an American I say "bullshit". I don't want an empire,
Not that most people in an American Empire would have the way of life or rights of US Citizens. Given the what's happened in just about every empire in recorded history.
and I don't want my taxes being used for this purpose.
The alternative would be that either they be spent within the USA or even lower taxation. Proping up questionable governments and sending armies half way around the world can't come cheap.
In fact, I pretty much want a 'live and let live' sort of government
IIRC that is not dissimilar from the position of many of the "Founding Fathers".
There is nothing at all naive about this desire. I don't swallow the Bush propaganda about pre-emptive strikes, nor do I think we're in Iraq for anything but the oil (and perhaps the ability to tell Israel to go fuck itself).
Unlikely to be the latter, considering Israel was all for Iraq being invaded. Especially if it leads to the reactivation of the oil pipeline to Haifa. It would be a very brave US leader to tell Israel they were on their own.
You can spout the party line all you like, but in the end it's just another word for 'imperialism'.
Do Democrats and Republicans differ that much here?
If we do what we've said we plan to do, and allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government, then Iraq will become an Iran-style theocracy; watch for the American controllers to influence the process to make sure that doesn't happen. The last time the West played the regime change game in Iraq, we got the Ba'ath party.
The situation in Iran is also the result of "the West" specifically the US and Britain playing "regime change". When are these people going to learn that this just dosn't work?
Or how "Old" Europe (which is what you call Germany, for some reason) was battled against by Britain and the French Underground (along with countless other allies, such as CANADA) for 2 full years before the Americans graced us with their own contribution. Just because France fell under the might of the German army quickly doesn't mean the French citizens fell with them. Without the French Underground, the war effort would have never advanced as quickly as it did.
No doubt the Germans considered these French fighters "terrorists" (any who were caught were dealt with brutally, no doubt with little German concern for "collateral damage") and the likes of SOE "terror support agencies".
How are iraqis going to like us when they find out we were funding him during the iran-iraq war?
They already know. They knew a long time ago; and they certainly haven't forgotten.
But just to be fair, the US didn't put Saddam Hussein in power. The US helped the Baath party come to power; Saddam Hussein came a little later. But he quickly became friendly with the US. Saddam Hussein officially took control ~1979, though he was running the show for a few years before that.
Yeah...bet you've never lived in a country like that. Me, I have seen something like it: in Nigeria in the seventies (funny you mentioned that country...being a shell brat does give me much more experience than people tend to credit you for). Was even there during the fighting...saw a tank roll by in the street opposite, mobs of people going round. I have some comparison to make. You...well, you can't even see what's going on in your own country.
Not only that, but can you deny the charges I made? No, 'cos they've been widely publicised. Don't be a nationalist, be a patriot and ask your government wtf they think they're doing in your name.
You might like to have a read up on what FDR got up to. And I'm talking a real biography here, not just the one page you google up.
Also, have a look at the enormous budget deficit the reagan years left the US. As for your personal freedoms, take a look around. Read some accounts of how people are being detained (and I'm not even talking gauntanamo bay here, just people in NY restaurants, for example). Read the usa patriot act with a critical mind and imagine how it can be abused (and tremble a bit when you realise all those surveilnace and internet related clauses don't seem to have sunset clauses...as do quite a few others) then read about how, when the US' alphabet agencies have power, they have historically always abused it. Those agencies had their power limited for a reason, remember. Think that's gonna change, just because you want it to, or 911 happened? Just remember that the guys in office now are the guys who you can point to as the ones who escalated the cold war and caused all those dictators to be in power now.
As for american history...well, all I know from the memoirs of the generals of the time is that civilian militia where useless. Real headway was only made when proper military units where used...and that, I'm afraid, was the French. As for France never having won a war...man, your lack of historical knowledge really is amazing: there's a reason Schlesswig-Hollstein constantly changed hands, you know.
Let's not forget that it was the US who funded and trained Iraq's soldiers during the war against Iran.
To try to get rid of the Islamic radicals who took over the government in Iran. Y'see, Islamic-radical types are bad news.
So the Islamists ruling Iran were that much worse than the fascist dictatorial Baathists running Iraq? We supported Islamists like Osama bin Laden's mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Yeah, the Soviets were bad guys. The problem is, U.S. foreign policy isn't based on who is the "worst" party in a given sociopolitic conflict; it's based on who the top-level guys have decided to target at a specific moment. Kissinger and his crew supported Pinochet's coup in Chile in the 70s, and we continued giving them aid while Pinochet unleashed a hellish reign of terror over Chile's citizens.
The U.S. has a history of supporting one side or another in various conflicts in foreign shitholes, where one side isn't really much better than the other. All sorts of crap in South America, Africa, and the Middle East. It's just gigantically stupid; we don't get any lasting results, because we go for short-term "gains" (regimes that look like they'll support whatever issue we're insterested in) instead of, say, uniformly supporting democratic governments.
The A-Bombs ended WWII, and the occupation turned Japan into a first-world democracy.
Well, the second part is right.
The atomic bombs ended the war, but they certainly weren't necessary. The main sticking point for the U.S. government in the surrender negotiations that went on for months before the bombs were dropped was the preservation of the Emperor's person and power. Yet after the bombs were dropped, the Japanese still only surrendered when they were guaranteed... the preservation of the Emperor's person and power. From what I read, Truman's decision to use atomic weapons had more to do with providing a demonstration to the burgeoning Soviet power than anything specific to Japan.
For me, at least, that explains why they were dropped on civilian targets, killing more than a hundred thousand noncombatants. Because it was impressive. If the U.S. had wanted to convince the Japanese government they had a superweapon, dropping the bombs over a sparsely-populated area would have been adequate.
This should be given an off-topic rating. Do you hear that whizzing around your head? That was THE POINT flying past you and you MISSING it completely.
--
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
So if it is such a fine democracy how come it doesn't give full citizen rights to Arabs that always lived within its borders?
Don't get me wrong Israel has more reason's than nay other nation to want to have WMD. But one should never forget who shot Rabin. Fanatism harbored by many Israelis can take a lot of credit for the mess we're in. I hope I will live to se the US administering the necessary kind of affectionate pressure on Israel to root this out and thus to enforce a fair and lasting peace once and for all.
P.S.: I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find many EU nations that posses WDM besides the British and French nukes. My country fortunately feels save enough not to have to waste money on such garbage technology.
The path towards dictatorship is a slippery slope. It does not happen over night. Be smart and patriotic. Fight for your freedoms within the system before this option is stripped away.
> What are you trying to say? You're loosing me here.
The post I replied to said that Americans only have the way of life we do because of the value of the dollar. I said that in reality the value of the dollar depends on how Americans feel about their way of life.
> I don't think Troed's haphazard collection of web sites can kep up w/ the facts, thank you:)
Nicely done, Tackhead.
Thanks - but credit really goes to the guy who was compiling the stats. I don't have the time to keep up with the facts either, but I like the way the author of the "Historical Atlas" presents all viewpoints, explains how he got his derivation, and most importantly for debating purposes, leaves the politics out of it:)
Evolution of the State
by
mindpixel
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If we're very very lucky, in 200 years most countries will be like Canada is now. I was going to type a joke here, but I just discovered, I'm serious.
Re:Evolution of the State
by
samael
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Re:Evolution of the State
by
Drakin
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sad fact is, the US has had more time to evolve than Canada...
Maybe it's not evolution though. It's more of a growing up. The parent nation of the US smacked them around a few too many times, and the US fought back, they figured that fighting back was a good way to get what you wanted. This set the course for how the US is.
Canada on the other hand, benifited from the US fighting back, they got treated better by the same parent nation, and grew into a more stable, responsible country...
Maybe it's time to teach the US to be responsable, and make it grow up into something more than the school yard bully?
(just talking out my ass here... I've got nothing against the US, some of it's policies are stupid... but then again, it's not like it's that much better here in Canada.
Anyone else notice the lack of the AC checkbox?)
Re:Evolution of the State
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's too bad your not joking, because the Government of Canada is arguably one of the most inept governments in power today. It's not screw-the-civil-liberties inept, it's just plain stupidity.
Our Prime Minister routinely puts his foot in his mouth and chomps down, hard. When they aren't busy bumbling around SARS, or pissing off other countries, they (somewhat) ignore Quebec and the Western Provinces. You may have heard that Quebec want(ed) to separate? Now there is a small, but growing, separatist movement in Western Canada.
It's too bad, because this really is a great country. However, we desparately need to lose the current administration. The Prime Minister has stated he's going to retire, and doesn't seem to give a damm anymore; he basically deprecated himself when he announced his retirement. Paul Martin seems to be the man for the job right now. I think he's the only one with a chance at winning over most of the Liberal entrenched Ontario.
Re:Evolution of the State
by
mindpixel
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Try living out of the country for a few years...in a second world country like Chile or the USA and you'll stop complaining really quickly.
Re:Evolution of the State
by
ArcticCelt
·
· Score: 1
The separatist movement is so growing that they just lost the last elections with one of their worst scores in their history. And the Prime minister of Canada is so inept that he was reelected three times and no other political party stand a chance against is party since the last 10 years and minimum for the next 5 years. Yeah I see your point.
--
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Re:Evolution of the State
by
VanillaCoke420
·
· Score: 1
Yes, the AC checkbox disappears sometimes.
Re:Evolution of the State
by
tealover
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah, they do tend to tilt more toward the socialist policies.
-- --
You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Re:Evolution of the State
by
Citizen+of+Earth
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, Canada does seem kinda European...
I would say that Canada is a cross between the U.S. and Europe, civically, politically, grammatically, and geographically. As such, it frequently finds itself in the middle of a tug-of-war between the two poles.
Re:Evolution of the State
by
epiphani
·
· Score: 1
ding ding ding ding!
As a Canadian, I'm VERY impressed with the route the european nations are taking right now. The loosening of boarders, consolidation of monitary methods, trade and other issues are making the system they are building very forward-looking.
The only problems with the system are implementation disparities. To hold a single citizenship in a member country right now, and work anywhere within the european union. THAT is progress.
As a Canadian, I'm VERY impressed with the route the european nations are taking right now. The loosening of boarders, consolidation of monitary methods, trade and other issues are making the system they are building very forward-looking.
Yes, Europe is organizing itself into a second superpower. Probably a good thing.
Re:Evolution of the State
by
KaMiKa-Z77
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, now we only have to think about how to include those other countries in this Utopia, you know those non-U.S., non-Canada and non-European Union countries... what are their names again? Oh yes! Mexico, South America, Africa and Asia... I mean they only have, what, 90% of the world population?
-- Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous? - Calvin
Not at all, at least in my eyes. It all depends on what are your priorities. Mine are: good public transportation and being able to jaywalk in the cities.
In that sense, Canada is every bit as bad as USA (except for Boston). I just wouldn't survive in a country where you need to take a car just to go one block away.
-- Sigged!
Re:Evolution of the State
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You mean like high unemployment of 7.4?
http://www.statcan.ca/start.html
"The Hilliers and others acknowledge that Canada has its strong points -- universal health care, an excellent public education system, generous welfare and old-age benefits. But the cost of providing all that has saddled Canadians with a tax burden that is among the heaviest in the world, and 20 percent higher than that in the United States. "
Great health care just because it is Universal and at what cost? 4http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/rel/2 002/pr_ 02-10-31.html http://www.angelfire.com/nf/Snazz/c hcp.html
Beautiful place to live? It is very so. So is Indonesia.
Evolution of State? And because Canada is so great Quebec is trying to secede?
I cant believe you got modded to 5. Must be the same people who believe in their own lies. I also believe that it is easier to blame USA for all the ills of the world, then to look at yourself and at your own countries problems and its inability and failures in fixing them. Or what...will you like to blame it all on USA?Ohh wait...yeah that must be it. USA is evil..yeah sure.
Your argument about France is an interesting one, why stop there? Lets go to Greece as a place from where it all started. Ohh wait, why not Iraq? We all know the cradle of civilization was there once as well was called Mesopotamia. Your argument is moot point.
If you choose to ignore all the links, please at least read this one. This one is very blanced and fair:
Re:Evolution of the State
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you obviously have never been to canada...moron
Re:Evolution of the State
by
NeMon'ess
·
· Score: 1
Obviously socialist ideals like providing health care, food, shelter, and jobs for everyone are hideous and vile right?
Re:Evolution of the State
by
Rob+Simpson
·
· Score: 1
No kidding. That's one of the things I dislike the most about my country - especially since hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk with a truck is a "no fault" situation, according to ICBC.
Re:Evolution of the State
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah the US just did that 227 years ago. Talk about progress.
Re:Evolution of the State
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canada is not that bad. Canadians don't stink - they have heard of soap and deodorant. And they use 'em too!
Re:Evolution of the State
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As such, it frequently finds itself in the middle of a tug-of-war between the two poles.
Sigh... I find it terribly sad that the poles are with a bunch of white people and another bunch of white people.
Seriously, white people don't even make up a sixth of the world's population. India and China together make up 1/3!
My point exactly: it's a very unfriendly country for pedestrians. See, here in Finland I can leave my apartement (I am 10 minutes from the center of Helsinki by local train or 18 minutes by bus) and I find myself in a park just 10 meters from the door. From there, just by walking for 2 hours I end up in one of the national parks. But just as well I could have walked all the way to the center (a bit more than an hour) and watched a movie in this 24-theater ciname complex that I am so fond of. On my way to the cinema I could drop into Kiasma, a modern art museum that I'm rather fond of, too.
There is absolutely no place that I can not reach just by walking or with a bycicle (or is it spelled bicycle?), in the whole of Finland, except for a few restricted military areas.
I have lived in several european countries, I didn't like them all, and I definitely don't buy into the anti-US hype that is going on in some places, but as I am really used to and enjoy jaywalking, and don't want to use a car (several reasons for that, one of them is comfort), I consider countries such as US, Canada and New Zealand (and I guess Australia is similar, but I have not been there so I don't know) exclusively as touristic destinations, not as places to live in. Well, except for Boston, as I said, which looks a decent enough city to me... except that I guess I wouldn't be able to leave the perimeter of the city.
instead of tug-of-war, i would consider it more of two big masses leaning on one another to hold each other up. more of a balancing system instead of a system progressing towards one side or the other
I have a friend from Canada, who came down to the States for college in part because he was tired of the Canadian government crushing his liberty with excessivlely high taxes etc. Thanfully after 4 years here (and 2 years of Bush) he's learned better -- Americans fondness of liberty is mainly a scam. Too many are just too scared or stupid to care.
(oh I'm not bitter.)
Re:sigh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wait, he was tired of the Canadian government crushing his liberty with excessivlely high taxes
You are kidding, arn't you? What does taxation have to do with cival liberties? Do you and your friend understand what cival liberties are, and what taxation is?
I paid 17.5% tax on a t-shirt I bought the other day. The man is keeping me down!
perhaps if he were smarter he would have earned a scholarship.
that's what I and all my friends did.
-- --
You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Re:sigh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's the complete opposite of my experience. I've known quite a few Canadians living in America, and most of them are still here. I haven't heard any of them express an interest in moving back, maybe because none of them smoke pot.
Guess what: Immigration from the US to Canada takes also place and the older fellow I am talking about holds a Ph.D. in physics and certainly did not regret his decision nor seems to care for pot in any way.
These kind of hearsay arguments are completely pointless. Only truly insightful data like a histogram based on age covering immigration to and from Canada and the US would add any value to this discussion.
"Too much emphasis"?
by
geekwench
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The very fact that the government of the United States is claiming that Canada (or any other country) places "too much emphasis on civil liberties" says something profoundly disturbing about the state of our State, and the Evil Old (and young) Men currently infesting Washington.
I know that I will sleep much more soundly the day that Ashcroft is forced to clean out his desk.
-- Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
on a serious note, i have to agree. not only does the Pres/Ashcroft want to chip away at our civil liberties, but he plans to take away everyone elses. I'd like to hear what the ACLU has to say on the matter.
P.S.Canada did have a set of anti-terror laws ready to pass, but they were tabled when it was proved that the hi-jackers didn't come into the US of A through Canada.
As a lawyer, I have to jump into this for a bit. The dominant assumption among Slashdotters seems to be that "more civil liberties = good; we want more good; therefore, we want more civil liberties, and anything that reduces them is bad."
This, of course, is idiotic. For example, the Supreme Court could radically increase privacy rights (part of your civil liberties) simply by requiring police to petition the Supreme Court (or State Supreme Court) for every search warrant. Obviously, that wouldn't be a good idea -- the average guy's privacy would receive no practical increase, police would be unable to investigate the simplest cases, and crime would shoot out of control.
Civil liberties isn't the ultimate good -- it's one of many competing goods in our legal system which must be balanced with other goods, like effective law enforcement and judicial speed.
The U.S. government's position simply seems to be that Canada has made an error in calculating what the best trade-off is. This isn't a crazy notion: Germany, for example, has (at least in the past decade or so) been a favorite place for terrorists and criminals to setup HQs precisely because they have strong privacy laws which make it difficult for the police to actively seek out these groups. The German concern with privacy is certainly understandable after the Nazi regime, but just because they have more privacy rights doesn't mean they are therefore unambiguously better off. Likewise for Canada.
Re:"Too much emphasis"?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I know that I will sleep much more soundly the day that Ashcroft is forced to clean out his desk.
There's definately some tension between privacy, political freedoms, law-enforcement and anti-terrorism-measures.
I'm just concerned about the way the US is trying to tell the rest of the world how to handle this tension. Every country for itself should make it's own descision in how to solve these challenges.
I don't think that's a real problem, countries tell each other what to do all the time. France told the US that they couldn't invade IRaq, which the US ignored and did anyways. The ICC frequently makes rulings that the US courts ignore as well.
Heck, it happens with people. We are always telling eachother what to do and what to think. Right now, I'm telling you that you shouldn't think like you do, you should agree with me. This is no big deal.
What will be a problem is if the US decides to try and FORCE other countries to handle things the way it wants. That is a very different story and very wrong. That would be like me putting a gun to your head and telling you that you MUST agree with my stance.
So I've got no problems with the US state department telling Canada they don't like how they are handling this just as I don't have a problem with Canada telling the US they didn't like how they handled Iraq. I would have a problem if either tried to force their views on the other.
That would be like me putting a gun to your head and telling you that you MUST agree with my stance.
Or, perhaps, like dropping bombs on a country and saying 'you must have a democratic government (as long as the candidates are people we've chosen for you).'
I think you have something mixed up here. I can ASK you to do something. I can TELL you that I don't agree with something and that you shouldn't do it. And I can TELL you to do something, at which time you can TELL me to blow it up my ass. With the third option, we'll both probably ignore each other.
I believe the US government ASKED other countries to join them in fighting Iraq. A lot of them said no, and the US (cildishly) vilified them for doing what they believed. They TOLD Iraq to not inhibit the UN inspection teams, among other things. When they weren't satified with Iraq's responses, a war started.
What I'm worried about is the US government saying that Canada's laws are causing Canada to indirectly support terrorism, and that we can either adjust our practices to stamp out this 700 people/year tragedy (um, yeah, okay) or they will invade Canada next.
After all, Canada is closer than North Korea, and we have oil, too...
Everyone knows america is only playing games, show the world a great war that makes people think they are doing a good job fighting terorism, but they forget their own people. and because the press is so busy with all the war stuff it even gets less attention. i think it is time for the U.S. to start looking at their own people instead of pretending to be the good guy.
Canada != USA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canada is so different from the USA... that I would like to *LIFE* there...
I doubt their prison system accepts transfers from the U.S.
Mice And Elephants
by
Farley+Mullet
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think it was former Prime MInister Pierre Trudeau who used the metaphor of the mouse in bed with the elephant to describe Canada-U.S. relations. In a lot of ways it's a good metaphor.
Canada has to walk a tightrope: on the one hand our economic prosperity as a nation depends on our trade relationship and close economic ties with the U.S. (Canada is the U.S.'s largest trading partner, and vis versa), and certainly Canada's national security is largely tied to that of the U.S. But on the other hand, Canada is a distinct sovereign nation, and it's important to protect our sovereignty, and not become an extension of the U.S. The article mentions the Canadian government's long-standing flirtation with legalizing pot, and not to downplay issues like that [1], there are other, bigger, issues to consider. The current U.S. administration has shown a cavalier attitude towards environmental protection, weakening the EPA and making efforts to open up protected areas in Alaska for oil exploration and exploitation. Canada has been (awkwardly at times) tracing out it's own environmental policy, balancing the need to preserve our unique and precious ecological heritage, while at the same time preserving our resource based economies. It'd be a real shame if that balancing act was thrown out of whack by pressure from south of the border. The situation with freshwater policy is similar, and will perhaps become even more important.
Canada/U.S. relations loom large over Canadian politics, just as the movements of the elephant loom large in the thoughts of the mouse that it's in bed with. So when U.S. officials make "rumblings", the Canadian government can't help but take note.
[1] I'm for it. The war on drugs has been an abject failure, especially as far as pot is concerned
Re:Mice And Elephants
by
Galvatron
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I agree that pot should be legalized, but you have to recognize that so long as the majority of the US is against it, the US government is going to try very hard to keep Canada from doing it. If pot is legal in Canada, then we (the US; I'm American) are going to have to radically overhaul the way we monitor US-Canada border crossings. It would be an absolute nightmare (even more than it already is) for the US to have pot illegal and for Canada to have it legal.
The privacy/terrorist issue is similar in nature. It's not that the State Department believes Canada is actively harbouring terrorists, but if Canada is less vigilent (or, less kindly, intrusive) than the US, then the US government will have to make up for the difference with more strict border checks. A system is only as secure as its most vunerable part, and the State Department is worried that Canada will become that vunerable part.
-- "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Canadians with a drug conviction on record (and yes the US guard at the border has this information) are NOT welcome in the US.
The Canada/US border is already heavily monitored (at the official crossings) Drugs move both ways across the border and always have. Cocaine comes north and pot goes south. Heroin,via Vancouver, also goes south.
Your argument about the border should be referencing what happens in Holland. The proposed relaxation of pot laws here are (on the surface anyway) similar to Holland's. Do you have to go through addition crap to go to/from Holland.
-- The truth about Led Zep should never be told on/. (Karma suicide ensues)
If pot is legal in Canada, then we (the US; I'm American) are going to have to radically overhaul the way we monitor US-Canada border crossings.
Border holdups will be intentional political pressure rather than actual attempts to search for pot.
Re:Mice And Elephants
by
Karl+Cocknozzle
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I agree that pot should be legalized, but you have to recognize that so long as the majority of the US is against it, the US government is going to try very hard to keep Canada from doing it.
...I'd agree with you except that a majority of Americans do not support the current marijuana witch hunt.
In fact, the War on (some) Drugs has little to do with the will of the people, and everything to do with being a scapegoat for hysteria, and a way to justify egregious pork budget increases.
And it is a witch hunt... People are so scared of the flowers of a harmless plant that job applicants are mercillessly rejected if they "Test positive" for marijuana. In some states, the "pot paranoia" is so pervasive that they've enacted "Smoke a joint, lose your driver license" laws to further stigmatize marijuana smokers. Without a driver license, where can you work in this country? If you live in a city that doesn't have GREAT public transportation (thats most of them) you simply won't get a job.
In the U.S., felons (for non-Americans, a felon is somebody convicted of a "serious" crime) can't vote. Even though arrests for drugs are about proportional to the proportion of the various races in our society, minorities serve vastly longer sentences than whites arrested for the same offense... They are three times less likely to be offered "diversionary sentencing" (ie. non-jail) to avoid felony conviction, and FIVE TIMES more likely to do jail time for a first-offense.
Of course, since white people in the U.S. on average have more money than their minority counterparts they can afford a lawyer who can get them out of trouble without jail.
So even though it might not have been the original intent, what you have is a de facto concerted effort to disenfrachise "undesirables."
The only advice I have is to write your congressmen and tell them you want legalized buds-- And keep your eyes peeled for cops.
If pot is legal in Canada, then we (the US; I'm American) are going to have to radically overhaul the way we monitor US-Canada border crossings. It would be an absolute nightmare (even more than it already is) for the US to have pot illegal and for Canada to have it legal.
You mean the way that handguns are legal in the USA and (almost totally) illegal in Canada. Great Scott! We'd better close the border from the U.S.A!
If you want high rhetoric and shrill accusations, as a Canadian, I'd reply something like:
"Most severe crimes of violence in Canada are perpetrated using guns manufactured in the United States, which are supported by the American government. Over the last 20 years, hundreds of Canadian lives have been lost to these American tools of death. Even now, the American givernment is considering giving special, unprecedented support to these merchants of violence, sheltering them from the consequences of their products. At this point, we have no choice but to invade Afghan... whoops. America."
However, I won't:-). Let's just say that its obvious that Canadians and Americans (as an average, pretty high standard deviation here) value certain civil liberties differently. It doesn't have to mean the destruction of a mutually benficial relationship.
It would be an absolute nightmare (even more than it already is) for the US to have pot illegal and for Canada to have it legal.
Right... Same as cuban cigars are illegal in the US and legal in Canada. And exactly opposite to handguns which are legal in the US and not in Canada. Here's another firearm comparison for you.
-- Corporate Gadfly Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
Re:Mice And Elephants
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I agree that pot should be legalized
In Canada, the proposed change to the law will NOT legalize pot; it will decriminalize it. If caught in possession of a certain quantity of pot, you could be fined, but would not receive a criminal record. Trafficking/selling pot would still be a criminal offence.
you have to recognize that so long as the majority of the US is against it
Is this even true though? I'd wager that most people who have more information about marijuana than the anti-drug propaganda forced on us through the DARE program and films like 'Reefer Madness' would not be opposed to legalization.
Problem is, no one's going to speak up and admit to this, lest they be lumped in with the burnouts and radical NORML members, who insist that all textiles should be made out of hemp...
It would be an absolute nightmare (even more than it already is) for the US to have pot illegal and for Canada to have it legal.
To get an idea of what that would be like, imagine if Cuban cigars were legal in Canada, but illegal in the Unites States. Oh wait!
There are those of us who have never smoked it in our lives and would absolutely vote to legalize it. It isn't just a matter of believing the government has no right to intrude on our rights to do things that only harm our bodies, but also the reality that the war on drugs has destroyed inner cities and increased poverty in many areas.
You can tell people that pot is less harmful than alcohol until you are blue in the face, but some people just won't liste. I don't understand the scapegoating, either.
Re:Mice And Elephants
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A majority of Americans don't support the current "marijuana witch hunt"? Someone tell the voters of New Mexico and the other three or four states that attempted to decriminalize pot (at least for medical purposes) in public referendums - every single attempt failed miserably.
I agree with you that the War on Drugs largely amounts to a witch hunt, but the government's scare machine is wayyy more powerful than you think, especially among those who actually vote.
"Of course, since white people in the U.S. on average have more money than their minority counterparts they can afford a lawyer who can get them out of trouble without jail."
If you are a typical white suburban teenager in high school you drink and smoke pot with your friends out in the woods. Or perhaps you sneak into the park at night. The reason you do this is because those places are not heavily partolled by the cops and your chances of getting caught are pretty slim.
If you are young black teenager growing up in the inner city you don't have that luxury. You have to smoke dope in the alley in a very heavily patrolled part of the city. Your chances of getting caught are much higher.
Also the chances of a cop letting a white teen off with a warning are pretty good. The cop sees the teen as basically a "good kid" who maybe needs a little scare. The black kid OTOH is seen by the cops as a future criminal who needs to kept off the streets so the cops haul them off to jail.
Of course once you have been busted once and have a record the rest of your life is made much harder for you. Nobody wants to hire felons.
the government's scare machine is wayyy more powerful than you think,
especially among those who actually vote
I am sorry you posted this AC, because it deserves to be more visible. Any argument about the majority opinion of US citizenry as expressed through the vote is weakended severely by the low voter turnouts we've been seeing in recent decades. It's a distressing cycle of the disillusioned failing to vote, increasing the power of the voting minority, resulting in further disillusion, ad nauseum.
I have no doubt that if the majority actually expressed their opinion, our government would be quite different (a term I've chosen quite deliberately to avoid value judgment) than it is today.
I greatly admire Canada. I frequently vacation there and have been to BC, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec a number of times. I wish that the US were more like it. It is a much more humane country than the US and more pleasant to live in in so many ways.
However, it is completely bogus for a Canadian to attack the US on environmental issues, as this is one area where Canada lags the US. Canada has no equivalent to the US Endangered Species Act; Canada burns way too much coal (Ontario coal-burning is a major contributor to acid rain in the Northeast US and the Maritimes); Canada is destroying its (temperate) rain forest at a rate comparable to Brazil's, and British Columbia has already enacted policies that the Bush anti-enviro forces can only dream about (ending the establishment of any new wilderness areas or any limits on exploiting lands that haven't yet been exploited). The focus on resource extraction is natural for a country with so much, but continuation of such policies will ruin much of what makes Canada such a great place. It will just take longer because of the lower population density.
...our economic prosperity as a nation depends on our trade relationship and close economic ties with the U.S.
With due respect, that is pure fiction. Canada's prosperity comes from its resource wealth and home control of same. Without U.S. trade we'd likely be even better off, as Asians and Europeans need our resources more urgently than the Americans do.
Your very first link proves you wrong! Did you even read it?"In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930's"
Maybe I should have used the words (almost totally) illegal. The second sentence after that reads:
Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection."
-- Corporate Gadfly Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
There are those of us who have never smoked it in our lives and would absolutely vote to legalize it. It isn't just a matter of believing the government has no right to intrude on our rights to do things that only harm our bodies, but also the reality that the war on drugs has destroyed inner cities and increased poverty in many areas.
In theory it should be a "no-brainer" that a policy of prohibition at best just dosn't work at worst creates more problems than it solves. Given the historical example in the US.
Re:Mice And Elephants
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Dude....you cant stop the flow of anything across that boarder...I know 4 times that 20lbs-50lbs (granted not that much over all) went across the boarder, car got stoped and searched everytime and still nothin came of it. You boarder issuses are a joke. Ive flashed, as best a fast flash, my id to cross the boarder...and looked like a hard core punker. I mean really.
the only thing that will happen from long boarder waits is less travel and a shift from depending on us companies for products, to having them shiped from china where they are made for nuthing. Granted shipping goes up, but price overal is basically the same.
It might suck for a while, but there will be a shift in the types of jobs people do, where they work. When its all said and done, some will work. some wont, and most will bitch about something
Re:Mice And Elephants
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's it? That's how it already is in a lot of states in the US.
Re:Mice And Elephants
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, it's not the mouse 'in bed' with the elephant but merely the relation of elephant to mouse in that the mouse is accutely aware of every move the elelphant makes while the elephant doesn't have any clue what the mouse is doing.
Re:Mice And Elephants
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And another thing about legalizing pot. We aren't legalizing pot. It's that simple so stop saying it. We intend to make possesion of small quantities (a joint, a gram, you get the idea) of grass a ticketable offense rather clogging up the jails and justice system with these people. Makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't mean you can carry a pound of grass around with you and not expect to get arrested for possession of it and possibly trafficking.
Re:Mice And Elephants
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
WE AREN"T MAKING POT LEGAL. GET OVER IT!!!! What we are intending to do is to make possesion of small quantities (a joint, a couple grams...) of pot a ticketable offense rather than a jail term.
oh for sure....Canada has its problems...some from others, some cuz stupid people got elected....and yes, there is WAY to much coal being bured...here and everywhere.
But something to keep in mind. Go to windsor. Live there 2-4 yrs and I will bet you good money that you will have or be develope some sort of respratory (sp?) issuse...there is crazy CRAZY amounts of polution that floats up here from the Ohio valley. And this is not the only place...its sad really. Its sad that we would rather make a buck or stay the course then try to make things better for everyone...or atlest try.
I just love hearing about how a gov't (american more and more sadly) not willing to force companies to clean up their act cuz it would hurt the economy. or other Money issuses.
I love how I got paid 10/hour can to work 5 ft from a plastics machine that made fake mustang air intakes with plastics that is slowly killing me and everyone around. two days later I got alerges, then I left cuz I didnt like the brown stuff I started coffing up
I figure Canada will always be welcome to join the EU;-)
Their evaluation of France
by
Mostly+a+lurker
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
France has provided outstanding military, judicial, and law-enforcement support to the war against terrorism.
Unfortunately, they do not support attacks on countries, justified by the war on terrorism, based on a combination of manufactured and inadequate evidence.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
lovebyte
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I think Bush put it thus: "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
--
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
fluch
·
· Score: 1
Lukily France still has their own will. As every state should have.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Tycho
·
· Score: 1
Apparently you didn't get the new memo, we attacked Iraq to remove an evil man, Saddam, from power.
-- Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Newsflash: there are many evil men in the world. (quite often alot more dangerous than saddam) Heck there's even an evil man in the white house!
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
kingkade
·
· Score: 1
Could you imagine what went through Blairs mid when he heard that?...
Blair to himself (while Bush continues blabbin' in that Texan drawl, yapping about invading stuff): Jesus Christ, this chap's a few biscuits short of a tea party. And I'm in this with him. What have I done?
Bush (continuing):...and anyways, who's gonna stop up? Am I right or am I right Tony? Tony? Why ya'll got that look on yer face...?
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
dair
·
· Score: 1
That refutation is based on a quote from Alastair Campbell, who's the U.K. equivalent of Ari Fleischer - perhaps not the most independent of sources...
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
NeXTer
·
· Score: 1
Who the US put there in the first place...
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So? Why didn't you wait for the U.N to it? What was so desperate about removing him; there wasn't much of a rush in the previous 12 years.
You're fucking niave if you think that the U.S is the worlds peace makers, and fucking stupid if you think you're doing anyone any favours by stomping around on nation states. Fuck you and the fucking war machine you rode in on.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
MartinB
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it was Reagan saying that the Russians didn't have a word for detente.
--
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Tycho
·
· Score: 1
Hello people, sarcasm!
-- Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
mattite
·
· Score: 1
And certainly not while France had a $4,000,000,000 oil deal with Iraq, not to mention all the other business contracts. But then again, I could be making this all up. That article at CNN has to forged, and those chemical warheads Iraq was supposedly hiding are most certainly fake!
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Drogo+Knotwise
·
· Score: 1
That's an urban legend.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Mostly+a+lurker
·
· Score: 1
I could be making this all up. That article at CNN has to forged, and those chemical warheads [idsnews.com] Iraq was supposedly hiding are most certainly fake!
No, you are not making this up. It is all a matter of interpretation.
If the only issue was the business contracts, I am convinced France could have negotiated their maintenance in return for support of the attack. Even if that were not the case, it would not automatically follow that the attack was justified. France has business contracts with Britain, but I hope any proposal by the U.S. to attack Britain would be opposed by them for other reasons.
On the weapons, Iraq itself admitted that they had a chemical weapons program in the past. The question is whether these warheads were the residue of a terminated program or evidence of an active ongoing development effort. [I do not pretend to know.] Did the warheads justify an immediate attack without giving the weapons inspectors (who discovered them) the extra time they requested to determine the answer to the above question?
We are all entitled to our opinions, but I did not believe at the time that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. and I do not think so either in hindsight.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
barryfandango
·
· Score: 2, Informative
--
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
5KVGhost
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, they do not support attacks on countries, justified by the war on terrorism, based on a combination of manufactured and inadequate evidence.
Especially when those attacks might jeopardize lucrative weapons sales, and Iraqi oil contracts with a French company whose biggest shareholder happens to the son-in-law of the Prime Minister.
But I'm sure all of that had absolutely nothing to do with the French government's brave and principled stand against enforcing UN resolutions.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Except that France's position was that they would veto anything under any circumstance. No conditionals mentioning "inadequate evidence" involved.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
metachimp
·
· Score: 1
If we'd given Iraq another 30 days, who is to say how France would have voted? They said they'd oppose it under any circumstances right now. If they'd gotten the 30 days, maybe they would have gone along. Since waiting 30 days conflicted with Rumsfeld's timetable, we alienated them.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
metachimp
·
· Score: 1
Let's not even talk about how connections to oil companies informed people's decisions about this war, because the U.S. looks far worse upon examination.
Did you know that Halliburton was lobbying the US government for an exemption to the sanctions so that it can deal with Saddam in 1992 onward? Funny how when it became clear that Halliburton was not going to get its exemption that the PNAC came about in 1998? Not ha-ha funny, I assure you.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
McPLUR
·
· Score: 1
Don't think that just because France was against the war on Iraq that it was for completly respectable reasons. France was against the war mainly because they are the main distributors of the oil coming out of there, the pipes go directly to them and they sell it, and they didn't want to lose the deal they had with Saddam.
Similar to the Russian situation, they had just lent Saddam a whole load of money, billions of dollars. Now the Russians are telling the Iraqis they expect their money back. Tell me, why should a nation have to pay back debts incured by a previous dictator that used the money to fund his lifestyle, build a military to protect himself and torture the very people that are now being told they must pay the Russians back?
-- If you don't stop reading this right now you owe me $1,000. Send check or money order too...
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 1
"If they'd gotten the 30 days"
Even ignoring the way France has vocally opposed simply continuing sanctions on Iraq for most of the 1990's, in March the US and UK proposed a compromise that would do exactly that. We were willing to extend the deadline for the use of military force as much as France would like. Chirac's response:
No conditionals of any way, shape or form. Chirac's government wasn't against the use of force "right now" or even "next month," they were opposed period and President Chirac himself said so in quite unequivocally (much like the way he told Eastern Europe to "shut up" and much like the way he stated that his stance on Iraq wouldn't harm Franco-American relations).
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
metachimp
·
· Score: 1
He made that statement after we said no to the extension of the inspections. So if we'd given it to him, they may have changed their tune.
And so what if France wanted to lift the sanctions? Every petroleum company in the world wanted the sanctions lifted so they could do business there There were people in the US that argued that we should lift the sanctions.
France was not the only country to supply Iraq with weapons.
I just think it's hypocritical to try and call out French commercial interests while pretending that US interests were entirely noble, and that France is somehow betraying the US by not going along with every ill-conceived neo-conservative gunboat diplomacy idea.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
GrodinTierce
·
· Score: 0
While that does sound just about dumb enough for Bush, I'm still rather doubtful for one simple reason: there's no way the man could say a word that long correctly.
Tierce
--
Tierce Who sponsors your feelings?
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 1
"He made that statement after we said no to the extension of the inspections."
No, he made the statement after the US and UK said they were willing to extend the inspections so long as an ultimatum was stated.
"So if we'd given it to him, they may have changed their tune."
We did, they didn't.
"Every petroleum company in the world wanted the sanctions lifted so they could do business there"
Actually, there has been little US interest in Iraqi oil. While places like France have been Iraq's biggest customers during the Oil for Food program, the US only purchased a pittance here and there, just enough to say that the US was trying to feed the Iraqi children.
And why should there be much interest in Iraqi oil? It's literally half-way around the world. If the entire Middle East were to suddenly stop selling oil to the US, it would be at least 8 months for the US to notice (that's how long it takes the tankers to get here). And even then, the US doesn't buy anywhere near as much Arab oil as we do from Venezuela, Mexico or Canada (for the half of our oil we don't get from Alaska, Texas or Louisiana). They're closer, they're friendlier, and they tend not to drive truck bombs into our buildings.
"France was not the only country to supply Iraq with weapons.",
On that I agree. During the sanctions regime, it seems Russia was the big "winner" there.
"I just think it's hypocritical to try and call out French commercial interests while pretending that US interests were entirely noble,"
While the US intentions weren't entirely noble, US policy on Iraq was far less related to the oil market than either the press or public opinion seem to suggest. It's safe to say that France's policy was more decided by oil than the US, even without considering all the corruption charges pending on Chirac for his dealings with TotalFinaElf.
Re:Their evaluation of France
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you are missing beaucoup nuances, and some big obvious points.
Nuance 1: Chirac said to the "New Europe" wannabes that they had missed a good opportunity to keep their mouths shut. Not the same as telling them to shut up. Think about it.
Big obvious point 1: France had no good reason to invade and occupy Iraq, and many good reasons not to. Does it surprise you that national leaders should act in the best interests of their nations and in accord with the popular will? If you count Blair and Aznar among your dearest allies, then I guess that sort of thing would come as something of a shock.
Where are you getting these views I wonder? Are the Republicans seriously planning on campaigning on a frogbashing platform? Ridiculing the French has always been a favorite pastime of the guzzling classes, but do those people vote in enough force to actually carry a general election? For the good of the country I hope that sensible probusiness Republicans either put this shit down or jump ship.
if the Yanks cared so much about civil liberties,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
they'd slaughter the true terrorists and elect a REAL leader. George Shrubya, Rumsfeld, Poindexter the Criminal, and Ollie the crook North would all go under the knife, and other countries would be free of the threat of hostile invasion by a "liberating" force. Honestly, do Americans really believe that the war in Iraq is more than a sham to bolster a weakling's public image? more than an oil grab? I pity the lot of 'em. Eh.
I really don't understand what's cheeky about this article. It appears to be at least as well referenced and researched as any other 'hard' news story posted here. It doesn't seem to contain any sort of mocking undertones that one would expect from something labelled as cheeky. For something to be cheeky, one would expect something to be at least mildly offensive to some, due to the manner that the facts were presented it.
Re:Cheeky?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
are you kidding? that's the cheekiest article I've ever read! that article is so cheeky my cheeks are embarrased to be called cheeks for fear of being associated with that cheeky-ass article!
Yes, exactly. Michael seems to not realize that the Ottawa Citizen is published by the Southam newspaper chain, a.k.a. Canada's version of Fox News.
This article is about as cheeky as Kronkite.
--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
they did forgot themselves
by
ifi_domin8r
·
· Score: 1
If there is a report about "global terrorism" I'm just wondering why they are not talking about internal (USA related) terrorist activities. Perhaps about the mysterious white powder they found or the oklahoma bombing.
Isn't it a little bit strange to write something about global terrorism as a single country? How would such a report look like, if it was writte by northcorea?;)
Re:they did forgot themselves
by
RatBastard
·
· Score: 1
The Administration doesn't seem to concerned with domestic terrorism at all. They haven't expended much energy at all in dealing with the people bombing abortion clinics or churches with black congregations.
Nope, can't take action against the reactionary white "Christains" here at home.
-- Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Re:they did forgot themselves
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh, Bush tries to mention as little as possible about 'mysterious white powder'...he's known a bit of mysterious white powder in his past, I suspect =P~
Re:they did forgot themselves
by
metachimp
·
· Score: 1
The people who do that are "people of conscience" or some such Ashcroftian doublespeak. One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
And Marijuana
by
OldMiner
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A little policy issue thrown at the bottom of that article. The U.S. administration is unhappy that marijuana possession in Canada is now a ticketing offense (parking meter sort of thing) instead of a criminal offense. I'm sure someone will have to draw the paralel that's been brought before that the "war on terrorism" has allowed the broadening of police powers which are being used for the "war on drugs". I'm voting Democrat in 2004, and I'm a Libertarian.
-- You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
Re:And Marijuana
by
TC+(WC)
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The U.S. administration is unhappy that marijuana possession in Canada is now a ticketing offense (parking meter sort of thing) instead of a criminal offense.
Well... not quite yet... The intention to do this has been announced, but no legislation has yet been passed.
Hear, hear! Going to be doing the same way. As much as it goes against my conscience, I feel that voting against Bush will be better for the country than voting for the Libertarians. I feel that Bush is doing this nation harm, and that he needs to be thrown out of office at the next election.
As for the marijuana issue, I think the best approach is to get a massive run to try to get drug decriminalization measures on the ballot next presidential election. Part of the reason Nevada's decriminalization measure failed was because of the fact that the DEA and ONDCP could use their massive propoganda machine in one place to confuse the voters into thinking that this would be a harmful measure. Were every state to have a ballot measure simultaneously, those efforts would be diluted. Yes, most of such measures would probably fail, but at the same time, if just one state passes decriminalization measures, the shaky deck of cards the drug war is based upon could begin to collapse.
This is a funny thing. Both countries say that the are free, and that its people are free, but I find something very wrong with the outlawing of drugs. Do people not realize that this is in violation of their rights? Now I do not use any drug, other than an occasional beer or wine, so I'm not a "user" arguing for the free usage of pot - BUT - it seems to me that this is a law designed to impede actions based on another group's particular set of moral standards.
Law and order is not about dictating moral code, as it is sometimes used in both the US and Canada, but to protect the innocent against crime. That's where law should end. If I am directly harming another human being through theft or rape or assault or whatever I should be punished, because at that point I have extended my decisions to directly negatively affect someone else. The argument that the use of drugs will lead to the inevitable crime against other persons does no sit with me. People adopting such an attitude are basically saying they can without doubt see the future, and no matter what the trends suggest, no one can predict that. There are many other examples - wear your seatbelt under penalty of fine; instances of swinger parties being broken up for unmoral conduct; the whole drug thing (not just pot, but others as well... if you commit a crime while under inflence THEN there is reason for punishment); law stating homosexual couples cannot be wed. The list can go on and on...
I'm voting Democrat in 2004, and I'm a Libertarian.
I feel you there: I'm an anti-abortion Christian (no debates just now, please?) and thanks to W. I'm saving up for a membership with the ACLU. *shudder*
Hear, hear! Going to be doing the same way. As much as it goes against my conscience, I feel that voting against Bush will be better for the country than voting for the Libertarians. I feel that Bush is doing this nation harm, and that he needs to be thrown out of office at the next election.
Amen.
I have to admit, its partly my fault, I voted for Bush, he sacred me less than Gore. Boy, did I ever get taken in. I don't intend to make this mistake again, I'm voting democrat next election. Hell, if given the same choices again, I'll pick Gore this time, he can't be this bad.
As for the marijuana issue, I think the best approach is to get a massive run to try to get drug decriminalization measures on the ballot next presidential election. Part of the reason Nevada's decriminalization measure failed was because of the fact that the DEA and ONDCP could use their massive propoganda machine in one place to confuse the voters into thinking that this would be a harmful measure. Were every state to have a ballot measure simultaneously, those efforts would be diluted. Yes, most of such measures would probably fail, but at the same time, if just one state passes decriminalization measures, the shaky deck of cards the drug war is based upon could begin to collapse.
I don't think its as shakey as you think. Here in California we passed a measure legalizing marijuana for medical puproses. This, of course, has done nothing to stop people from being arrested. Drug laws are, after all, federal laws which therefore trump state laws. The only way this is going to ever get sorted out is if/when we get rid of the current incumbent congress and get some younger blood in there.
On a side note, I have never smoked pot, after my attempt at cigarettes a number of years back the idea of smoking anything still makes me queasy. But I'm all for the idea of letting people kill themselves if they feel the need to. Personally, I think we should just legalize pot oughtright, along with allowing cocaine and opiates to be served in specially regulated venues (kinda like a bar). Also, allow companies to setup farms to grow this stuff here. It'd create jobs, and it would drop the bottom out from under the drug cartels. Afterall, considering how easy this stuff would be to grow in quantity the price would fall like mad. But this is just my take on this "war on drugs".
Lastly, as for the article at hand, I think this is being blown out of proportion. Admitadlly the US govenment shouldn't be telling the Canadian government what to do, but I don't think this was the intent of this statement. It seems more like the State Department was expressing an opinion about the Canadian system. And, I seem to recall, that expressing an opinion is still allowed reguardless of which side of the border you live on. Or did I miss the memo?
-- Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I'm voting Democrat in 2004, and I'm a Libertarian.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Democrats WILL find other rights to trample when in office, they have in the past and they will in the future. Your taxes WILL go up, your property rights (via environmental legislation) will get shot, what little choice you have in education will be less
How does voting for the left totalitarians instead of the right totalitarians help further the cause of liberty?
If all the libertarians in the country voted democrat the next election the effects would be small, If libertarians actually voted libertarian next election the effects would be significant (as a step in the right direction). We make a much stronger force (currently) as spoilers than as swing voters.
I AM voting Libertarian (assuming, of course, the LP candidate is acceptable)
from the country that brought us
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, PATRIOT Act, infinite copyright extensions, and last but not least, true terrorism disguised as "liberation of the people." What a jolly surprise.
What's next, mandatory lobotomies to bring the rest of the world into line with their ridiculous regime? Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Re:from the country that brought us
by
Pig+Hogger
·
· Score: 1
What's next, mandatory lobotomies to bring the rest of the world into line with their ridiculous regime? Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Why do you think the American public school system has been gutted for? So the common people are automatically lobotomized into accepting whatever bullshit the bourgeois throw at them, whilst the bourgeois send their offspring to expensive private schools that dispense education of a good enough quality to enable the kids to become bourgeois themselves.
What happenned to the "equal opportunity" in front of life americans used to enjoy a mere 50 years ago?
Truly, a society has become decadent when the social position is but a matter of where one's parent are standing.
Won't it be easy to invade Mexico?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A hell of a lot warmer by all accounts.
Create a wee buffer zone between the US and those hordes of illegal aliens.
Re:Won't it be easy to invade Mexico?
by
metachimp
·
· Score: 1
Without those "hordes of illegal aliens", you'd be paying $5.00 for a head of lettuce. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
Wait- we're the ones
by
Fat+Casper
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
With a Bill of Rights. The Constitution protects our rights to freedom of speech, free assembly, to keep and bear arms, privacy, a speedy trial, legal counsel and not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.
Wow. Watching the news for the last year and a half made me forget all that. Hey, Bush- remember this? "I, George W. Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Try reading it instead of wiping your ass with it.
It's not fair. We're the ones with these rights guaranteed, and Canadians are the ones getting them. It's not my fault; I voted for the other loser machine politician.
-- I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
rtscts
·
· Score: 5, Funny
and I will
to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States
I think he's found a loophole...
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
JohnnyCannuk
·
· Score: 1
Canada Act 1984..we've had a codified Charter of Rights and Freedoms for about 20 years now. That doesn't mean we didn't have them before (as they we part of our English Common Law heritage back to the Magna Carta and our Napoleonic Code heritage in Quebec back to, well, Napoleon)
Our Charter contains mayny of the same fredoms that your Bill of Rights has.
-- Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
yeah the constitution also says that congress is the only one allowed to call war but Bush does it whenever he wants.
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
pudge
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"yeah the constitution also says that congress is the only one allowed to call war but Bush does it whenever he wants."
First of all, "war" does not mean "military action." Hundreds of years of precedent maintain that the President, as Commander in Chief, may use military force abroad without the initial consent of Congress (though that consent must be granted at some point, else the troops must be recalled).
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.
Nothing in the War Powers Act takes away from the Constitution, which says, the Congress has the power "to declare war." Declaring war is a political act not directly related to the use of force. The Constitution says nothing about the use of force. It does grant Congress strong powers over the military, but the War Powers Act, if anything, *shrinks* the power of the President by disallowing long-term military action without Congressional approval, and enumerating the power of Congress to end military action at any time.
So, as the Congress did authorize the use of force, and as it has not been 60 days even if it had not, and as the Constitution does not prohibit it and the War Powers Act and precedent allows it, there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about what has happened or is happening in Iraq, in regard to the power to use military force.
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The US is by no means unique in the fact that it has a constitution. It is not the only country where certain rights are (supposedly) guaranteed, it's just the most vocal about some of those rights (and pretty selectively, the first two amendments are the things that most people will remember).
Lots of countries have (or have had) constitutions of various types. To what extent they are actually adhered to is a different issue. The Soviet constitution was arguably very progressive in terms of human rights, but that didn't prevent a totalitarian reality from emerging...
So those Americans who are taking comfort in the expectation that "whatever happens, the constitution will protect us", wake up, please!
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Our Charter contains mayny of the same fredoms that your Bill of Rights has.
Yeah, but you don't have the right to purchase a sub-machine gun and shoot up a school. What sort of country is that?!
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well.. you still have the freedom of elections left:)...but I'm afraid your country has only a one-party-system. Since it doesn't really matter if you elect democrats or republicans like it doesn't matter for the money who's in charge...
Actually, the Constitution doesn't protect your rights - the courts are supposed to do that. The Constitution merely lists the rights that the courts OUGHT to protect. If the courts fail you, the Constitution is just a piece of paper with some nice autographs on it.
-- I am anarch of all I survey.
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey man, maybe you have a Constitution but you're not the only ones. In Europe almost all countries have it and USE it right, not like you, poor north-americans...
Can you show me in the Constitution/Bill of Rights where it says Americans have the right to privacy?
HINT: It doesn't. Now, there is the Privacy Act of 1974 (keep those SSN safe!) and the ECPA of 1986, but the Constitution/Bill of Rights... privacy is rather silent. Some have interpreted the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments as including privacy rights, but AFAIK, this is not very solid and really hasn't been flat-out tested in the Supreme Court.
There is no "right to privacy" in the same sense as the right of free speech or the right to bear arms. But... I'm no lawyer... just an American.
It was 1982. Canadians had all the same rights and freedoms before that date, just as unwritten customs.
Our Charter contains mayny of the same fredoms that your Bill of Rights has.
The Charter also has an 'escape clause' for every one of the rights granted and an escape clase for the whole document. Just say "notwithstanding" and you can inflict freedom-of-speech violations on businesses in Quebec.
The Soviet constitution was arguably very progressive in terms of human rights, but that didn't prevent a totalitarian reality from emerging...
There was no rule of law in the USSR. The constitution was not the real law of the land.
The Soviet state was Totalitarian Dictatorship from the beginning. It did not emerge over time. The dictatorship preceded the Soviet constitution.
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
JohnnyCannuk
·
· Score: 1
Woops you're right...the Act is Canada Act 1982...the Charter simply didn't come into effect until 1984 (I think that irony was intended by Pierre....)
-- Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You hit on the real problem. The American public no longer elects public servants. They elect kings with a four year term, call them leaders, and think this is the way it should be. No wonder privacy, freedom of speech, Miranda Rights, all the safeguards of public life, are seen as impediments in the way of Getting Things Done.
This was as true of Clinton's War on Drugs as it is of Bush's latest insanity. The problem isn't them, it's you.
Some have interpreted the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments as including privacy rights, but AFAIK, this is not very solid and really hasn't been flat-out tested in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court itself has said that the Bill of Rights cannot be supported without privacy, and even anonymity (which is a prerequisite to true free speech). So yes, according to the highest court in the land we supposedly have a right to privacy, without which certain other rights would cease to exist.
A simple google search can lead to enlightenment, in this case.
Max
-- My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"I, George W. Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But remember, he answered, "Can you repeat that? I was with you up until the 'W' part."
Can you show me in the Constitution/Bill of Rights where it says Americans have the right to privacy?
Well, rats, now I have to let several perfectly good moderations go, just because I feel compelled to respond to this goofy idea.
Apparently vast numbers of Americans, including many who've sworn solemn oaths to defend the Constitution, don't understand the most basic fact about the document. The principle purpose of the Constitution is not to list the rights individual Americans have. The purpose is to limit the powers of the federal government to a few narrowly-constrained functions. If the Constitution does not specifically authorize the federal government to do a certain thing, it is not allowed to do that thing, Constitutionally speaking. That's why we had to have a Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol on a federal level. (Apparently Americans used to have a better grasp of Constitutional principles than current Americans do.)
Therefore, the proper form of the previous poster's question is: "Can you show me in the Constitution/Bill of Rights where it says the federal government has the right to constrain or diminish in any way the privacy of American citizens?"
And the answer? Yes, I can show you the 4th Amendment, which details the circumstances under which the government can invade the privacy of Americans. Unfortunately, years of politically-active Supreme Courts have broadened the scope of the 4th Amendment to the point where it no longer provides any reasonable constraint on intrusive government prying.
The framers felt that it was so obviously inferred from the bill of rights that it didn't need to be enumerated. Of course we have a right to privacy. They figured it would be obvious to anyone with half a brain (as it is), that privacy is concomitant with every article in the bill of rights. Including, in my non-legal scholarly opinion, the all-but-forgotten 3rd amendment.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
You don't have that right in the US, either. So what's your point? Oh! This is about guns. Canadians have guns. They just don't feel compelled to use them as a means of conflict resolution. Check your state and federal laws. You can't buy a "sub-machine" gun in the US, either. Well, technically you can, but not without time and considerable expense, as well as extensive background checks.
I appreciate that you're anti-gun. I'm not, but your shrill misrepresentations don't give your case any strength.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
Re:Wait- we're the ones
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Constitution merely lists the rights that the courts OUGHT to protect.
And at that, only the minimum sets of rights, as there are others "not enumerated".
The Charter also has an 'escape clause' for every one of the rights granted and an escape clase for the whole document. Just say "notwithstanding" and you can inflict freedom-of-speech violations on businesses in Quebec.
That's not completely correct. Section 33 of the Charter explicitly states:
(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
and...
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
Thus you can't just say "notwithstanding" and override anything you want in the Charter. Only certain sections can be overrided (ie: you can't override the sections on Democratic Rights (section 3) or Mobility Rights (Section 6)), and even then only for a five year period, at which time the notwithstanding law must be reviewed.
Besides which, some could argue that Quebec's language laws don't prohibit free speech at all -- you can still say what you want on business signage, it simply requires that you do so in French (or, at least make the French predominant over any other language).
The Constitution says that Congress should have the ultimate control. It still does. The President can act without Congressional approval, but must stop acting if the Congress says so, and cannot continue action without approval. So yes, it seems perfectly legitimate in terms of the Constitution, in both letter and spirit.
I can't answer if "this is the way the Constitution should be interpreted," because I think there is room for many Constitutional methods of dealing with the War Powers problem. I think this is a way the Constitution may be interpreted. As long as the ultimate authority rests with the Congress, I don't see a problem.
I would like to see the language from the War Powers Act tightened up some, to allow responses such as in Japan and Afghanistan without immediate Congressional approval, but to require approval in cases like Iraq; that is, where there is sufficient time for Congress to act. But again, this is not a deal-breaker, because Congress has the authority to stop the planes from flying at any moment.
Remember the fact that Congress DID approve of the recent action in Iraq. The original poster said "yeah the constitution also says that congress is the only one allowed to call war but Bush does it whenever he wants." But it was Congress who authorized the action Bush took. I really don't see room for complaint, and don't see the point of this interrogation over something no one could reasonably claim is unconstitutional. If Congress had not approved it, then I could understand the questions. But it did. If Congress has attempted to stop the action, but Bush disregarded it, I could understand the questions. But they didn't.
Then what do you make of the "dirty bomb" Padilla case? An American citizen imprisoned for 12 month now without having been able to speak to his lawyer. If this is not clearly against the letter an spirit of the constitution I fail to see how the Bill of Rights is worth the paper that it is written on.
I should clarify that what I am speaking of in the "do what is right" in that post is that there is a lot of legal wrangling over the President's stance on Padilla's rights, including moves by various courts to say his lawyers must have access to him, reviews of the right of the President to name him an "unlawful combatant," and more. I don't worry about it because this is how it is supposed to work: someone in power does something we disagree with, that we think is wrong, and the courts carefully review it and render their decision. If the courts find in favor of the President in this case, then I'll complain.
Let me get this straight
by
Billly+Gates
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
During the American revolution Canada went one way while the states went the other. Before then they really was no Canada except by the french in what is now Quebec.
Representatives from upper and lower Canada including Ontario were originally part of the continental congress during the American revolution but backed off when the declaration of independance was signed.
It was then when loyalist for England moved north into Canada while freedom loving rebels stayed in the states or moved south from Canada.
How is it that today Canada is more free then the US?
Americans love freedom and credit the revolution but support the president and look at anyone non conformist as unpatrotic. Guess what?
Bush is the one who is unpatrotic. I really hope he is not re-elected. Many Americans are becoming wary of not only his economic record but his horrendous foreign policy. Bush advisors mentioned that he will start his reelection on ground zero this september 11 and run on a foreign policy campaing. I think it will fail. They do not look Bush or Powell twisting everyones and threatening everyone they see fit. I think Powell definetely acted inapropriatly in Syria yesterday.
I was on yahoo messages boards and found many are upset and look at Bush as reckless and a threat to global stability more then anyone else. He really could overreact and create a nuclear war if he is not carefull. Some republicans do not like what is going on with the patriot act and even view bush as more pro-government then Clinton.
During the American revolution Canada went one way while the states went the other. Before then they really was no Canada except by the french in what is now Quebec.
I am not an historian, but I believe the Oregon treaty set the boundary between the U.S. and Canada at the 49N from 1846.
I was on yahoo messages boards and found many are upset and look at Bush as reckless and a threat to global stability more then anyone else. He really could overreact and create a nuclear war if he is not carefull.
This is the main opinion in a lot of freedom-loving European states.
Re:Let me get this straight
by
ebbomega
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Very simple. Freedom has become a buzz-word in the states. The flag, the white house, apple pie, Declaration of Independence. It's all become symbol.
Canadians pride themselves not on their past accomplishments. I know of relatively few Canadians that happen to know about the actions taken at Vimy Ridge during WWI where they took what the British and French had been trying to take for years in half a day, even fewer know about how a Canadian was the first to enact the Uniting For Peace resolution in the UN.
But we don't base our freedom on these past actions. We base our freedom on our current standard of living and how we live our day to day lives.
Let me put it this way. Read 1984. It's all based around having relatable symbols to your "freedom": Big Brother, Minutes of Hate, slogans and catchphrases. This is the one way to guarantee your own personal attachment to your government and as such gives more way to control the people. What are our national symbols? Beer and Hockey. These aren't things you pledge alleigance to, these are things that you do to make life more for the living.
As far as I'm concerned, my patriotism means having a country that makes me happy with my life. It doesn't mean being blissfully in love with a flag or a pledge that you have to say every day at the beginning of class or of a history of accomplishments.
At least that's my take on it. I'm proud to be a Canadian, but not because I was told to be.
-- Karma: Non-Heinous
Re:Let me get this straight
by
holviala
·
· Score: 5, Funny
What are our [Canadian] national symbols? Beer and Hockey.
As a Finn, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside... Beer..... Hockey.... More beer.....
:-)=
Re:Let me get this straight
by
kevin+lyda
·
· Score: 1
"i wish bush wouldn't get re-elected."
wish away, but unless there's a sudden iq jump in america, bush will be re-elected. the republicans will increase their hold on congress.
many americans are eligible for citizenship in other countries. why waste your energy helping your fellow morons when there are more deserving fellow citizens elsewhere?
Re: Let me get this straight
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> Bush advisors mentioned that he will start his reelection on ground zero this september 11
Whereas in fact he already started it on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Let me get this straight
by
Sarcasmooo!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As much of a generalization as this might be, (hell it might even be borderline bigotry) I really think the problem is that 50% of this country is in the south. I'm reluctant to be so simplistic in my judgement, but I only need talk to my relatives in Kentucky, or visit the barber shop here in North Carolina to see people just gushing about our beloved aristocrat. You should've heard the way they were wow'ed by him landing on an aircraft carrier, 'Oooh! I even heard he flew at the controls for half the trip!' 'Wow!'
To me it's like everyone is insane. No one sees him as putting PR above the reality of a bloody war, and no one seems to notice that every word that comes out of his mouth wreaks of insincerity. And it's not like I'm trying to play favorites, I hate democrats and republicans equally! They're all phonies! The real republicans are the Libertarians, and the real democrats are the Progressives. But Bush is the worst phony I've ever seen at the mic. You can find better acting in a low budget porno. Unfortunately, I think with voter apathy at an all time high (17% of the voting population was enough for Bush, or Gore, or whichever talking head supposedly got elected) he'll probably get re-elected. This time around he has the new neo-patriotic furvor backing him.
The conclusion to be drawn from your history lesson is that the Americans chose a violent course to address their grievances, while those who fled to Canada chose one of gradualist reform. So who has the better, more humane society today? Arguably it's Canada. While U.S. culture became habituated to reacting violently to every itch, Canada was quietly building a very nice civil society (and yes, it's not perfect). Doesn't appear that Canadians are too much troubled by the British Empire, either.
Re:Let me get this straight
by
kingkade
·
· Score: 1
What are our [Canadian] national symbols? Beer and Hockey.
As a Finn, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside... Beer..... Hockey.... More beer.....
That fuzzy feeling is probably all that salted meat.:-P
Re:Let me get this straight
by
bfl
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As Trudeau said:
"I know a man whose school could never teach him patriotism, but who acquired that virtue when he felt in his bones the vastness of his land, and the greatness of those who founded it."
Re:Let me get this straight
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nicely spoken. I completely agree, subtlety, humility and hospitality are (not uniquely) Canadian qualities that I most enjoy.
It seems to me that it has always been this way, in Canada most believe that progress towards peace and freedom is not made at the point of a sword. The emphasis has always been on evolution rather than revolution.
The United States presidency is becoming a monarchy where the face sitting on the throne gets changed every 4 years or so. But the tenants of 'with us or against us' are frighteningly familiar.
-- This is not a sig.
Re:Let me get this straight
by
intermodal
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
actually, I find that one of the big problems in the US is mislabeling what should be called "Nationalism" as "Patriotism". A patriot stands up against his government when it does wrong, but loves his countrymen above the government. A nationalist does whatever the government compels him to. Nationalism was big in Germany in the thirties I hear. These are sad times for the true American patriot.
Re:Let me get this straight
by
Glytch
·
· Score: 1
Regarding Britain, Canada is effectively soverign. We don't outright declare ourselves a republic, because the Queen is a nice lady who's very polite when she visits, and it would cost too much money to change all the government stationary. I'm not joking, by the way. This is the way most people I know feel.
I also agree with your point about gradual independence. Scotland and Northern Ireland are two good examples in Britain. I think Scotland's going to turn out a bit better in the long run, even if some of the more nationalistic folks there are grumbling about how long it's taking.:)
Re:Let me get this straight
by
antiMStroll
·
· Score: 1
"How is it today Canada is more free then (sic) the US?"
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely?
Re:Let me get this straight
by
JohnnyCannuk
·
· Score: 1
Testify Brother!
I agree. Love your country because it earned your love, not because you were brainwashed to do so from kindergarten on.
An loving you country is not the same as blindly following your leaders. Loving your country is knowing your leaders are humans that you may agree with or not, depending on the situation.
Our Prime Minister is a knob. But he's the best of a group of knobs that we have to choose from (notice the "group"...much more than 2). When he says "NO" to involvment in a war without UN support, I agree and support him. When he says he'll get rid of the GST and then doesn't, I can't stand him.
Thanks for saying something I've always beleived to succinctly.
-- Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Re: Let me get this straight
by
rudedog
·
· Score: 1
Yes, except the aircraft carrier was actually only 30 miles from San Diego. The had to reposition it so that the cameras wouldn't see the shoreline during Bush's photo op^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hspeech.
I think Powell definetely acted inapropriatly in Syria yesterday.
Yes, it's improper to put political pressure on a dictatorship to stop sponsoring the terrorist groups that destroy any hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Better to let the blood bath continue forever.
Re: Let me get this straight
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 1
> Yes, except the aircraft carrier was actually only 30 miles from San Diego.
Ooops, I missed that detail.
(You can tell his campaign funds aren't going to be well spent on the likes of me.)
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Let me get this straight
by
Abcd1234
·
· Score: 1
That fuzzy feeling is probably all that salted meat.:-P
No, it's the beer, silly.;)
Re:Let me get this straight
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 1
What are our national symbols? Beer and Hockey.
You forgot donuts. Or, more accurately, donut shops. Tim Horton's is a part of our national identity, too. Recently I went on a road trip to the University of Notre Dame (my university in Canada regularly sends a few students down there to do research). Crossing the border, we declared that we were carrying various personal effects, a large box of Timbits (donut holes), and a twelve of Sleeman Cream Ale*.
*Stronger Canadian beer is the real reason why we seem so laid back. An old joke: What do American beer and having sex in a canoe have in common? Answer: They're both f*cking close to water.
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:Let me get this straight
by
DataSquid
·
· Score: 1
As a Canadian who spent last winter in Oulu, I'd like to thank you yet again for the wicked time. It was like being in Canada, but with more parties with naked girls.
Re:Let me get this straight
by
metachimp
·
· Score: 1
I'd like to, but the EU has made it perfectly clear that their full-up and don't need any non-EUers. I'll consider Canada as soon as I finish my masters. Australia and NZ are also not hot on the prospect, either. I guess Costa Rica's nice, but the bugs...
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
Re:Let me get this straight
by
guanno
·
· Score: 1
What are our national symbols? Beer and Hockey. These... are things that you do to make life more for the living.
I'd say Beaver belongs on that list too!;)
Re:Let me get this straight
by
monkiesblue
·
· Score: 1
lol awh, that great Canadian humor...I love it...and everyone (non-canadian anyway) thinks I crazy when I show it.
factoid: Canada would be a world super power...bigger then the US...except there is a cheak list of things that an soon to be invaded...er..liberated country needs to have before the Canadian War machine move. Point number one is "Do they have really good beer?"
If not, the option is to big our own, but that just takes away from drinkin time, so we say take off eh! and crack open a stubbie
Bush claimed shortly after 9/11 that we were attacked because they hate us because of our freedoms.
So what a great way to prevent a future terrorist attack. Remove those freedoms so they (theoretically) have no reason to hate us anymore.
(Of course, that is a bunch of crap. "They" hate us now more than ever.)
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
superyooser
·
· Score: 0
Give it a rest, already! I'm tired of this bogus charge. No freedoms have been removed.
So what a great way to prevent a future terrorist attack. Remove those freedoms so they (theoretically) have no reason to hate us anymore.
Getting them to not hate us has never been an objective of the war on terrorism. You liberals have been contemplating strategy for a battle that is not being fought. Bush is not into the psychology of terrorists. He knew that there was NO justification for 9/11 that could possibly exist. All we have to do is stand up and say, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!", and the terrorists will sit down and shut up no matter how they feel about us.
"They" hate us now more than ever.
They are dead now more than ever. The ones still alive respect us now more than ever. Syria is turning over terrorists. Palestinians are giving Arafat the boot.
Who cares if they hate us more than ever? Let them steam and fume and pout and kick the sides of their caves. As long as the world opposes terrorism, they will remain powerless. It is always a pity to see people mad all the time, but their anger is misdirected.
On the day THE statue fell, the myth of the "Arab street" was exposed. The reasons that the Arab street seems to be monolithicaly anti-American is because (1) their governments' state-controlled media wildly distort reality and (2) America (and its close allies) is the only thing that the dictatorships allow the people to criticize. Sure, they hate their own governments and other Arab institutions, but they're not allowed to say it. They end up funnelling ALL the hate and disgust they have for everybody else and focus it at America. The media's propaganda tells the people that America is the source of all their problems. America serves as the dictator-sanctioned shooting target for everything they're dissatisfied with.
What is the Arab street saying? No, not just any Arab street. The Arab street is meaningless except in the few places where they are free to say what's really in their hearts, mainly Iraq. And it's really no different than the American street. Or the street of any other free country. They're saying anything and everything! What a surprise that even in Iraq, when the fog of false propaganda is blown away and the real truth about the world becomes known, people have widely opposing individual opinions. Some are kissing U.S. soldiers and putting flowers in their hair. Others are yelling at them to leave. Maybe individualism is not just an American thing. Maybe freedom is a universal thing. It looks that way to me. Bush was right.
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
NMerriam
·
· Score: 1
Give it a rest, already! I'm tired of this bogus charge. No freedoms have been removed.
Writ of Habeas Corpus? I recall something about that being a small part of our need for a revolution in the first place -- we didn't like the idea of a king or governor locking people up with no reason.
-- Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
Larsing
·
· Score: 0
...They are dead now more than ever. The ones still alive respect us now more than ever...
I believe you are confusing respect with fear.
-- Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
JohnnyCannuk
·
· Score: 1
Ah yes, facist Christian Fundementalism rears its ugly head and shows it's true colours.
Thank you for confirming that I have you an the correct list...;)
-- Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
mdielmann
·
· Score: 1
Maybe they hate Americans for the same reason that most kids hate the schoolyard bully - people don't like being told what to do, even when they're doing something wrong (which I don't think is the case this time). Maybe if the US had a foreign policy of not sticking their noses into it, and giving countries the opportunity to fumble towards democracy, with assistance when asked (and non-military pressure when other countries engage in human rights violations), other countries' attitude towards them would change. An additional benefit might be that other fledgling democracies would apprecate their newfound enlightenment.
-- Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
weave
·
· Score: 1
No freedoms have been removed.
I manage 18,000 e-mail accounts. I recently was instructed how I am supposed to comply with the Patriot act, including turning over everything I know about my users, including their e-mail and files, without a subpoena and without me being allowed to tell anyone I did it, not the user, not even my boss. I may also need to keep copies of everything my users do for several years as well.
And this is only in my little corner of the world I manage.
The best way to effect a change on a culture is not by revolution, but by a little bit here and a little bit there since no one thinks its a big deal or worth worrying about.
And what's this "you liberals" crap? What's a liberal? Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Mike Gallagher or Rush Limbaugh?
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
Malcontent
·
· Score: 1
I wonder if the christians will ever get tired of killing muslims.
--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
russellh
·
· Score: 1
Remove those freedoms so they (theoretically) have no reason to hate us anymore.
You jest, I know, but it's worth pointing out that the specific freedoms in question are along the lines of : men without beards, women getting an education, Zionism, not requiring everyone to be Muslim, etc.
-- must... stay... awake...
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
superyooser
·
· Score: 1
It's funny that you call me a fascist. My list of foes is shorter than yours (I have zero).:-)
I have a very short list of criteria for somebody being on my foe list in life. Number one on the list is whether they want to kill me or other innocent people.
I judge people first by the content of their character, not by their ethnicity or professed religion. Now, sometimes tenets of their religion cause them to want to kill me. It's not really that I'm against the religion per se (beyond the arena of ideas); I just don't want to be murdered. If you think I'm bad for opposing someone because he wants to kill me, then so be it.
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
Snoopy77
·
· Score: 1
Give it a rest, already! I'm tired of this bogus charge. No freedoms have been removed.
Please read the Patriot Act
Getting them to not hate us has never been an objective of the war on terrorism.
Pity that. Terrorism is not a person, group of people or a country that we can just go and bomb. It is an idealogy. And if you would care to listen to the terrorists as to why they hate you then you would see it has nothing to do with your 'way of life' or freedoms but instead your foriegn policies (i.e how you screw the rest of the world for your own gain).
They are dead now more than ever. The ones still alive respect us now more than ever. Syria is turning over terrorists. Palestinians are giving Arafat the boot.
The ones still alive hate you even more. The deads ones are fast being replaced by moderate muslims who are watching world events and are being pushed further to the fundamentalist side. Moderate muslim nations like Morrocco are struggling with an increase in fundamentalism. I hope you don't think Arafat is your problem.
media wildly distort reality
Take a look at your own buddy. I was working in America throughout most of the war but only saw news stories that painted the US in a good light. When I logged onto the news at home (www.smh.com.au) I got to see a few more stories, ones that weren't exactly pro-US.
You also seem to paint all Arabs with the same brush. There are Arabs who do not live under a dictator, or if they do it is a US condoned dictator anyway.
Maybe individualism is not just an American thing. Maybe freedom is a universal thing.
Would you guys get off your high horse. You think you are the only country with freedom. Take a look at Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britian, Western Europe, even parts of the former Communist Europe have the same freedoms and often times more than you. Stop being so insular.
-- "She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush
Iraqis
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
superyooser
·
· Score: 1
media wildly distort reality Take a look at your own buddy.
I have, and just like the American people, the American media portrayed widely different views. Compare the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. National Public Radio and your local conservative talk radio station. It's night and day.
Most of the U.S. media was against the war. (Don't let the waving flag on screen fool you.) Some of it was for the war. I don't know how you managed to see only pro-U.S. news. Anti-U.S. news was rampant in the American media. The bias didn't jump up and smack you in the face in the way that the Iraqi Information Minister's statements did, but the bias was nonetheless glaring. Unless you listen to AM radio, you had to proactively seek out pro-U.S. stories during this war. You had to turn your TV to the single national station that airs conservative views. You had to cherry-pick the few conservative news publications among the reams of liberal anti-Bush ones.
Even with Fox News and talk radio, a majority of the U.S. media is still liberal and anti-Bush, especially the press. They went out of their way to exaggerate every little bruise and wayward bullet. They trumped up every civilian casualty as a potential war crime. Much of the U.S. media was declaring the war a "quagmire" only two weeks into the operation. Some were predicting tens of thousands of U.S. casualties and all kinds of catastrophes that never materialized. The U.S. liberal media did everything they could to paint the U.S. in a bad light, as liberals always do. They despise our founding principles and institutions and wish we more like old Europe.
You cannot make a legitimate comparison between American media and Arab media. The former is independent and varied; the latter is monolithic and regime-controlled.
History has spoken: Saddam out of power, an evil regime disarmed, minimal civilian casualties, few casualties of coalition troops, injured Iraqis are cared for, a nation liberated, persecution ended, POWs released, terrorists dead or fleeing, other regimes "schooled", national terrorism alert level lowered a notch, gobs of valuable intelligence acquired, Old Europe's deals with Saddam exposed undermining legitimacy of their opposition, no refugee crisis, no ecological disaster, no American occupation of Iraq, no U.S. seizure of Iraqi oil, no destruction of Islamic holy sites by Americans, no destruction of historical artifacts by Americans, troops coming home ASAP (many already here), Iraqi reconstruction underway, schools reopened, some Iraqis going back to work and receiving incomes.
Knowing what we now know, we can easily determine which media outlets were accurate and which were innacurate.
The pro-U.S. media was vindicated.
The anti-U.S. media was discredited.
The media that portrayed the U.S. in a bad light were WRONG! How can you complain that you were given accurate information (however distasteful it might have been to you) while you were in the states? Ah, I think I just answered my own question in my parenthetical remark.
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
Snoopy77
·
· Score: 1
At the time I was in the US practically every major news station covered only stories which did not portray the US invasion in a bad light. I felt most of the stories I saw simply stated the facts of the situation. I did not feel that any of it was particularly pro or anti US. What I did find was that some stories covered in overseas media were not covered in the US, or were at most hiding in an obscure column somewhere. I did not mean to compare State run media with US media. Everyone knows media run by dictatorial governments is at best fiction loosely based on events that possibly happened. But what you may not have known is that your own media was and still is not exactly open to presenting stories portraying US troops and the war in general in a bad light.
As for your history has spoken, yes Saddam is out of power, but, you have not found any WMD so you have not disarmed anything yet, there were far more innocent civilian casualties than 9/11 (just perpetuating civilian death) and we now have a nation under foriegn occupation. There is no proof that there are dead terrorists (not all Muslims are terrorists). The US had just as many deals in the past with Saddam as Britian, France, Germany and Russia. The first building in Baghdad the US troops guarded was the Ministry of Oil building letting looters go to town on the museum despite plees from the museum staff. True, no refugee crisis but some running water would really help about now.
You're a product of your own media's ignorance.
-- "She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush
Iraqis
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened...
by
bagsc
·
· Score: 1
In the immortal words of a true American, Bill Maher "They hate us because we don't even know why they hate us." For the explanation, read the book.
-- http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Terrorists won already
by
LittleStone
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Americans, look what your lives have change.
It's just amazing that, when you walked into any government related building in DC, you gotta go through a metal detector. All visitors are treated as potential terrorists.
Then it's always a pain to fly. All those hassle, especially if you have the wrong look (I thought being a Chinese Canadian is easier, not so. Security officer in airports like to pick me, because they know for sure there's nothing to look at, just to pass the quota.)
How about Americans visiting other countries? Better pretended to be Canadians.
That's how the terrorists won. Canadians, on the other hand, just refuse to live like that. The first step Canadians do: be friendly to others. Respect the difference, accept other's value. No matter how inefficient or stupid Canadian governments sometimes are, Canadians still can live peacefully.
So, if you have the right to vote in US, exercise your right and tell your government what you think.
-- A sig is redundant.
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Reading this reminded me of something I read in my local newspaper (Canadian) a few weeks after 9/11.
It was basically a transcribed message (or something like it) from Osama bin Laden saying, essentially, that they (al Queda) had already won. Supposedly, the idea behind their attacks was not to kill citizens, or destroy landmarks. It was to kill liberties, and destroy freedom. Apparantly Osama wanted the citizens of the US to live in fear, and to loose their freedoms. He wanted them to experience life as other countries did, with checkpoints, searches, and the constant fear of attacks.
It would seem he succeeded admirably.
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hence "terrorist."
You're exactly right, the whole "war" against the invisible enemy (I use the term invisible loosely, the destruction of the World Trade Center was obviously quite "real") is probably exactly what they were hoping for. The U.S. claims that these terrorists hate the U.S. because of their freedom..it's only expected that this hatred would lead them to consider ways they might be able to erode these freedoms. Now the U.S., supposedly the most liberated country on earth, is reclassifying public information..pushing for entire sets of laws that allow for more leniency in domestic espionage (as if they really needed to ask for it)..hundreds of people disappear to "undisclosed locations," never to be heard from again.
Kim Jong Il might very well be a maniac, but he probably has the right idea. Defend yourself before they come for you, too.
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And of course he wanted America out of Saudi, which he has now achieved. A brillant mind, as well as a twisted one, he also cunningly used the most powerful military machine in the World to eradicate a secular Iraq, and he doesn't even qualify for a vote in the US, let alone hold high office. Slam dunk!
Re:Terrorists won already
by
cheesedog
·
· Score: 1
How about Americans visiting other countries? Better pretended to be Canadians.
This is a very common Canadian myth. I think they teach it in the schools up there. I've heard it over and over and over again from my Canadian family: "Europeans love Canadians, abhor Americans," or, "Oh, you're going to Hong Kong -- better stick a maple leaf patch on all you clothes so that they won't think you are a big fat American jerk!"
Guess what? I've traveled abroad a fair deal. And, believe it or not, I've had more than a handful of people (in hotels, at museums, on the street, etc.) say that the Canadians are FAR worse than the Americans -- that their patriotic Maple Leaf wearing is offensive and that their attitudes are annoying.
I, on the other hand, think that Canadians are wonderful people, and I love the fine Canadian country. I visit Ontario and Quebec regularly, and am impressed with MANY things there. But one thing I've never been able to stand is the fact that Canadian patriotism often equates with a snottish attitude, particularly as it involves a comparison with the U.S. You guys are better than that -- quit trying to establish your identity by being "better than the Americans."
Just a few thoughts.
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Good, bad, or indifferent if Canadians are that legitimately patriotic they should be commended, not ridiculed. It seems that for the bulk of Americans to be "patriotic" something bad has to happen that then has to be televised on every news bearing TV channel. To get the public really patriotic pop, rock and country stars would have to write songs about the incident along with music videos.
Okay that's probably a very broad, very bad view of things but I know (and see, thanks to the news) people who at one time didn't care about what's going on and could really care less about their US government (even bad mouthing about it) and then like someone flipped a switch these same people had the flag in both hands, on their house, and was saying "God bless America". Patriotism isn't something you that one should just turn on and off at a moments notice. Like religion one would think it's a full day affair rather than when it's convenient.
"Guess what? I've traveled abroad a fair deal. And, believe it or not, I've had more than a handful of people (in hotels, at museums, on the street, etc.) say that the Canadians are FAR worse than the Americans -- that their patriotic Maple Leaf wearing is offensive and that their attitudes are annoying."
These seem to have been Americans pretending to be Canadians then;-)
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It would seem he succeeded admirably.
Except for the small fact that we don't have to go through checkpoints, don't get searched, and quit living in fear of another attack at least a year ago. Don't let the constant homeland security talk on the news fool you. We quit paying attention to the color coded chart a long time ago.
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've flown into and out of canada, it was no treat my friend, dogs walking up and down sniffing all the passangers, guards everywhere. Talk about discomfort.
Yet, walking through a metal detector offends you?.
It seems to me that his objective was to persuade the U.S. government to remove its troops from the Middle East. He wasn't quite so successful at that goal.
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How are you figuring this out? I have yet to go through a checkpoint, or been searched. Nothing has changed. Sure my temperature may rise when I see an asian/indian/non-american, but thats simply becuase I cant understand what there saying. Speaka my language and I'll be happy. Oh, and stop with that stinky ass currie already, sheesh. We eat steaks n' shit here.
if by admirably you mean "Killing thousands" Then yeah.
or if by admirably, you mean "Killing thousands, and does not have the guts to stand up and say 'I did it, come get me. I am not afraid.'" instead of hiding in the forest of brazil.
-- I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Re:Terrorists won already
by
KaMiKa-Z77
·
· Score: 1
Canadians, on the other hand, just refuse to live like that. The first step Canadians do: be friendly to others. Respect the difference, accept other's value. No matter how inefficient or stupid Canadian governments sometimes are, Canadians still can live peacefully.
Benito Juarez, one of our most illustrius (sp?)(Mexican) presidents said it a couple of houndred years ago(think "the Mexican Abraham Lincoln): "The respect for your neighbor's rights is peace." ("El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz").
This is one of the reasons Mexico has never been involved in any international conflict except for WWII. We also try to be friendly to others. With this whole Iraqui mess, the U.S. tried to bully our government into giving our vote in favor of them on the UN Security Council (the whole "if your not with us your against us" schpeill).
Had it not been for the level-headed, peace-loving Canadians, many governments, like mine would not have had the ground to stand up to the Americans. Go Canadians!
-- Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous? - Calvin
Re:Terrorists won already
by
JW+Troll
·
· Score: 0
no, you've got it all backwards. That memo was from George W. Bush.:P
-- just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
Re:Terrorists won already
by
I_M_Noman
·
· Score: 1
I have yet to go through a checkpoint, or been searched. Nothing has changed. Sure my temperature may rise when I see an asian/indian/non-american, but thats simply becuase I cant understand what there saying. Speaka my language and I'll be happy. Oh, and stop with that stinky ass currie already, sheesh. We eat steaks n' shit here.
You don't live in New York City, evidently.
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If it's OK with you, I'll just have the steak.
Ewwww....
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How about Americans visiting other countries? Better pretended to be Canadians
Old news. The CIA got busted with Canadian passports in Iran during Iran/Contra years ago, they still do it.
Mind you, our PM at the time was just WAY to whiney about it. Next time I want to see Canada's Intl affairs department recall the US rep up here.
That would be so sweet!
Re:Terrorists won already
by
monkiesblue
·
· Score: 1
Ever seen those herattage (sp) commercials? well, when they started..there was one about the start of the un...CAnadian soldier in cypris, there is an agruement between two nieghbours and they are ready to fight and he cuz thats what they where suppost to do (civil war) and he told them that they were not to fight, not here, not now, not ever. and to go home. Thats it. Think about it.
ps. they dont fight there any more....well not as much
Re:Terrorists won already
by
Yaztromo
·
· Score: 1
How about Americans visiting other countries? Better pretended to be Canadians.
This is a very common Canadian myth. I think they teach it in the schools up there.
(This same article appeared on CNN.com back in late March, but unfortunately I couldn't find a link to it through their search engine, but was able to find a copy from the Toronto Star).
Quote:
While the rules enacted by the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University weren't quite as strict, the combined Minnesota schools did suggest another tactic to avoid becoming the target of anti-American rhetoric -- one favoured for decades by U.S. students hoping to keep a low profile.
"We told them, if you're travelling or if you're out somewhere for the weekend, tell someone you're Canadian," said Stephen Burmeister-May, the director of international education.
So there you ago -- a US school that tells its students going overseas to tell people they're Canadian.
Yaz.
Canada should follow our lead!
by
Gregg+M
·
· Score: 2, Funny
-- Linux is only free if your time has no value.
Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
a la beavis and butthead
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
US: Canada don't make me have to kick your ass.
Canadian Terrorists??
by
__aaaehb3101
·
· Score: 1
Since I don't belive that a single act of terrorism has been enacted by a Canadian citizen or Canadian immigrant against the US since the war of 1812. And the last acts of terrorism in Canada were during the FLQ crisis in the 60's. I don't see how the US has right to talk about Canada and our government policies.
Only because the US has so far been sucessful in catching terrorists (like these ones) from crossing into the US.
And the last acts of terrorism in Canada were during the FLQ crisis in the 60's.
You must have forgotten about the bombing of the Air India flight that killed 329 people in 1985.
Re:Canadian Terrorists??
by
Conor+Turton
·
· Score: 1
"Only because the US has so far been sucessful in catching terrorists (like these ones [cnn.com]) from crossing into the US."
Appears that the only reason that one was caught is because the Canadian Intelligence and Security Services had done all the leg work since 1994. If you want to see how terrorists are caught, look to the UK.
-- Conor
"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
a whole lot of weed comes in from mexico. the problem (at least this is my understanding) is that the weed from mexico is raggedy schwag while the stuff from canada is of much higher quality. 'course, drug seizure statistics won't tell you this; they'll just list the amounts seized.
Got me there, I remember reading that article, too.
Okay then, what country do you think started it all!?:)
lives lost in in city slums
by
realkiwi
·
· Score: 1
How many kids were shot dead in East LA and other inner city "hot spots"?
That is where people live in terror IMVHO
-- realkiwi
Re:lives lost in in city slums
by
senrik
·
· Score: 1
~ How many kids were shot dead in East LA and other inner city "hot spots"?
People are getting shot at Star$ucks?
-- "the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad"
-Salvadore Dali
Author's words, not State Department's
by
Galvatron
·
· Score: 4, Informative
As far as I can tell, the headline is simply the author's interpretation of the State Department's report, not the wording of the US government. In actual point of fact, the State Department seems mainly concerned with police funding (which has nothing to do with civil liberties), low penalties for marijuana possession (also not a civil liberty) and privacy laws. Privacy obviously is a fairly important civil liberty, and clearly the US government is going too far with its anti-terrorist legislation, but the headline is also a tad too alarmist. Indeed, the article does not even specify which privacy related laws the US objects to in particular.
-- "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
AndrewRUK
·
· Score: 4, Informative
What ths State Dept. report says is
"Some US law-enforcement officers have expressed concern that Canadian privacy laws, as well as funding levels for law enforcement, inhibit a fuller and more timely exchange of information and response to requests for assistance. Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from Government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations." (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19 987.htm)
Sounds to me like they're complaining that Canada cares too much about privacy and preventing Government intrusion, and I would consider that to be caring about liberty.
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
Daniel+Dvorkin
·
· Score: 1
In actual point of fact, the State Department seems mainly concerned with police funding (which has nothing to do with civil liberties), low penalties for marijuana possession (also not a civil liberty) and privacy laws.
Well, police funding has to do with civil liberties in the sense that, after a certain point, more cops = less liberty. Up until that point, it's more cops = less crime, which of course is a good thing; but I suspect the US passed that point a long time ago. We now have a gigantic law enforcement apparatus in the US which is more about enforcing the government's will on the citizens than it is about catching murderers and thieves.
Which leads to the second point: possessing marijuana may not be a civil liberty, except in the general "ain't nobody's business if I do" sense that there is something profoundly fucked up about the government telling you that it's okay to get drunk but not to get stoned... but as part of the War on Drugs, which up until the War on Terror was the greatest assault on American freedoms in history, it is most definitely a civil liberties issue. The average drug dealer does more jail time than the average murderer. There is something seriously wrong here.
-- The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Some US law-enforcement officers have expressed concern that Canadian privacy laws
Read that part again. Note the part where it says "some US law enforcement officers". Note how this does not equate with "the US government". Fudging the facts is called spin. Feel free to grab a dictionary or other aid if needed.
Also feel free to actually read the report, where you will find phrases praising the Canadian government. Read phrases like "the Government of Canada has been a helpful and strong supporter of the United States in the fight against international terrorism", or "overall antiterrorism cooperation with Canada remains excellent and is a model for bilateral cooperation on counterterrorism issues". Pay attention to the fact that there is one small paragraph containing criticism of "Canadian civil liberties" and it is surrounded by many larger paragraphs giving praise to the Canadian governments efforts. The act of taking a small statement or part of an article out of context and blowing it up to create a headline that becomes the whole point is also called spin. I hope this hasn't been too tough to follow.
Yes I am an asshole, and I'm fine with that.
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
blibbleblobble
·
· Score: 1
"The headline is simply the author's interpretation of the State Department's report, not the wording of the US government."
Okay then, let's support this quote with another:
"If you're not violating someone's human rights, you're not doing your job"
-- from a U.S. soldier whose job it is to torture prisoners.
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
Daniel+Phillips
·
· Score: 1
The average drug dealer does more jail time than the average murderer.
Not that I doubt you, but can you back that up with statistics?
Note that, the way things are going, breakers of computer laws will soon be doing more jail time than the other two categories combined.
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
low penalties for marijuana possession (also not a civil liberty)
Speak for yourself, brother.
The way I read it is that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are rights. If the cultivation, possession or use of marijuana doesn't injure other people, it should be legal. The decision to use it, or not, should be a personal choice.
Remember, it wasn't until after 1900 that marijuana was criminalized...so far the main result has been that countless thousands of potentially productive citizens have been placed behind bars, where we all get to pay for their care and feeding until they are released to be a further burden on society. You need look no further than the massively unsuccessful "war on drugs" to see why the United States has the highest per-capita prison population of any industrialized nation. We also have a nasty surplus of lawyers.
The United States is rapidly transitioning from a "free" country to something else. As Heinlein said (paraphrased) "Once a country has a national ID system, it's time to think about leaving". The many technological advances in the area of privacy invasion just make things worse.
The world needs a true new frontier, badly.
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
phelddagrif
·
· Score: 1
Why give more funding to police. There's no real need for it in Canada. Half the freaking country is basically uninhabited. And even the large cities like toronto suffer from very low crime rates as far as big cities go.
If there is no real reason to police either because no one's breaking laws or the laws that are being broken are stupid and small, then why not give that funding to something useful like healthcare and education. Things people can actually use.
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
Azghoul
·
· Score: 1
While informative (thanks for the copy), I would say that such a statement in a report is an indication of fact, not a suggestion for future policy.
It's a fact: Canada's laws and regulations probably do limit the depth of an investigation. So be it. What I would say to those law enforcement officials is, "try other methods, then".
That statement does not, however, say, "We think Canadians are a bunch of libertarian boobs and they should change their laws!" I'd have to call the Canadian author a little sensitive...
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
antistuff
·
· Score: 1
And even the large cities like toronto suffer from very low crime rates as far as big cities go.
Re:Author's words, not State Department's
by
Rasputin
·
· Score: 1
Read that part again. Note the part where it says "some US law enforcement officers". Note how this does not equate with "the US government". Fudging the facts is called spin.
One can infer that that statement was included in the official report for a reason. The US obviously wants to send Canada a message.
Spin, by the way, has nothing to do with "fudging facts". Spin is an attempt at changing the perception of the facts. "We quickly took superior placement one mile behind the front" would be in spun version of "the enemy pushed us back a mile".
-- "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows.
You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
Interesting read but..
by
praksys
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Privacy is not liberty, nor is it a "civil liberty", although it might be a "civil right". A liberty is a right to carry out some type of action without being obstructed by anyone else. Privacy rights restrict the actions of others (to obtain or publish information about you) which makes them claim-rights. So the US complaint about Canadian privacy laws has nothing at all to do with liberty.
This gives a pretty good introduction to the theoretical classification of rights.
The stuff about legalizing dope is of course another matter entirely. I have no idea why American politicians gets so wound up about dope, when most Americans have used it without comming to much harm.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
glenebob
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I have no idea why American politicians gets so wound up about dope...
Power. Control. Money. What used to be accomplished through the proper application of religion is now done through things like War on Drugs and War on Terrorism. They even tried it with a War on Alcohol a few years back, but that one was way too over the top and it didn't fly. We now have a War on Tobacco ramping up too.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
One word:
Hemp.
The rope manufacturers didn't want competition, so they used it's narcotic use as a reason to ban a competing material.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
kevin+lyda
·
· Score: 1
those of us who have had addicts (of any drug) as parents, siblings, s.o.'s, kids or friends, have a sightly less happy view of drugs. that's not to say "the war on drugs" is right, but that realistic debates on the topic would be nice.
It all reminds me of 1984... the constant wars that were going on.
When they were at war with one power, they denied that they had ever been assisting them. Sort of like the US and Afghanistan, or the UK and Iraq.
(Iraq was once run by the RAF, believe it or not.)
-- Beep beep.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Addicts of any drug - that includes alcohol, right?
Very few people are trying to claim that drugs are healthy and harmless, just that the treatment of alcohol vs. other drugs is entirely inconsistent, as alcohol is one of the worst drugs.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
kevin+lyda
·
· Score: 1
of course it includes alcohol.
i just fail to see intelligent arguments that would lead me to believe that more legal addictive substances would make the problems any less worse.
*if* people would support higher taxes to properly educate people (k-12 on all subjects including drugs and civics and science), to provide decent healthcare (including drug treatment and mental healthcare - depression in particular), and to provide decent programs to help people escape poverty then i might believe that the societal causes of drug (and alcohol) abuse might be lowered - as well as lowering the negative effects on society.
but since most countries (in particular the usa) fail to adequately provide for even the most basic levels of those things, i don't think those societies should make their problems any worse.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
conteXXt
·
· Score: 1
Were they locked up because of it?
NO let me guess.....They were given treatment under the US's very comprehensive health care system.
How many lives and families could have been saved or at least not terribly disrupted by a fine and treatment over long term jail sentences?
The war on drugs in not only illogical, but a complete waste of money.
-- The truth about Led Zep should never be told on/. (Karma suicide ensues)
Re:Interesting read but..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The cotton growers in the south backed it too. They couldn't have them niggers all doped up now, could they?
Re:Interesting read but..
by
kevin+lyda
·
· Score: 1
some were locked up, yes. i'm not going to go into my family history in huge detail, but yes i can think of one person locked up for commiting a crime while he was an active addict. and it contributed to his recovery.
not really the ideal way to treat an addiction though. a better way would be drug and alcohol treatment centers and there aren't nearly enough of them.
and i think i can speak with some authority that family life with an addict is much more disruptive then when they're at home. al-anon and similar programs teach a concept of "tough love."
not all people in prison for drig offences are addicts. in fact i'd guess most aren't. all i'm saying is that it will not be happy-fun-world if drugs are legalised tomorrow.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
Mac+Degger
·
· Score: 1
Thing is, THC (the active ingredient in mariuana) isn't addictive. And it has never killed anyone. Neither is it a gateway drug. The only violence involved with it is the 'criminal' element one encounters when one buys it (in countries where it's prosecuted).
Alcohol is much worse and people tend to abuse it more...at least, in countries where it's terated the wrong way. Decriminisation of alcohol and dope have much less addicts than countries where it's criminilised, and that is basically due to the fact that people are much more responsible about it: they've learned to lifve responsibly with it.
-- --
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:Interesting read but..
by
kevin+lyda
·
· Score: 1
sex and food aren't addictive, but there are sex and food addicts. there's more then just physical addiction.
"A liberty is a right to carry out some type of action without being obstructed by anyone else."
Ahem.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated(.)
No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law(.)
Re:Interesting read but..
by
maddskillz
·
· Score: 1
It is a gateway drug, because you have to buy it from drug dealers. Of course they are going to want to push you towareds the more lucrative market of heroin or crack. Now, if it was sold legitametly, it wouldn't be a gateway drug any longer
Re:Interesting read but..
by
stew-a-cide
·
· Score: 1
Even if it isn't chemically addictive, Marijuana is still "habbit forming" with a lot of people.
I'm a lazy person by nature: REALLY lazy. I have no motivation or goals or desire to do anything. Despite this, I still somehow managed to graduate from high school (grade 13 even:) and am currently in university doing something with myself.
I don't smoke pot or drink alcohol: if I had a KNOW I wouldn't be where I am today.
My brother's friends (who are ~3 years younger than me and still in high school) all smoke pot all day long. They get up, go to one kids house (who's a 'foreign exchange' sudent from Korea who is failing ALL his classes because he smokes pot all day long), and get high. At lunch they get high again. All evening they get high.
They each have a ~$100 a week habbit - some for a few years strait now. They each have crappy jobs solely to support their drug habbits. And they're all doing horrible in school (when they're not kicked out for being high, or skipping to get high).
Also, I knew these kids when they were younger and sober and I SWEAR they've all smoked themselves retarded. When even not high they're too dumb to have a conversation with.
The point: even if marijuana doesn't physically damage you and the people around you the way alcohol does (I'm much more strongly against alcohol than I am marijuana), it can still mess up your life. The fact that pot heads are a drag on society (especially in a country with a comprehensive social safety net like Canada) must also be considered.
Oh yah, I forgot to mention that by brrother and his friends are not getting jobs this summer, and are instead growing pot with the intention of becoming drug dealers. I for one hope they get caught and go to jail if that's what sets them strait (I fear the Korean kid will just be deported:)
Re:Interesting read but..
by
astroboy
·
· Score: 1
Privacy is not liberty, nor is it a "civil liberty", although it might be a "civil right"
This is an excellent and correct point, but I'll quibble just a bit. Some degree of privacy is a prerequisite for some liberties. For instance, it's widely (including by the SCOTUS) held that both a freedom of speech and a freedom to read
require some protection of privacy to be meaningful. Privacy may not be a liberty in and of itself, but it is necessary for other liberties.
Some degree of privacy is a prerequisite for some liberties.
No doubt. All the same it is important that we remember that privacy is just a means to securing certain liberties, and maybe not the only means. I fear that a steady erosion of privacy is inevitable, and not just because of government activity, but also because of advancing technology in private hands. As privacy becomes less effective as a means of securing liberty, I think it is important that we find other ways of securing it, so that we don't see a steady erosion of liberty as well.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
cyberformer
·
· Score: 1
Don't forget the War on Sharing (or "piracy"). And we all know what motivates that.
One more big reason for the War on Drugs is lobbying from the privatized prison industry (Republicans) and the prison guards' unions (Democrats). The U.S. now locks up more people than any other nation in the world, both in absolute terms and as a pecentage of its population. Most pork barrel projctes merely take taxpayers' money, but prisons require a steady supply of inmates too.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
Paul+Jakma
·
· Score: 1
THC (the active ingredient in mariuana) isn't addictive
Can you cite a reference to back this up, because from personal observational evidence i would tend to think it most definitely is.
-- I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
Paul+Jakma
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that criminalising drugs/users/ does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
It opens up a huge market to organised crime, giving very unsavoury characters a lot of funds, and allowing vast networks of criminals to be built up. This then requires allocation of massive amounts of policing resources - which is a significant cost economically, and also in terms of other areas from which policing resources are diverted.
In the meantime, you havnt really solved any problems relating to drugs/usage/. (but you've got a burgeoning population that again is a drain on resources, and also quite a few otherwise law-abiding citizens who now have a criminal record).
The whole thing needs a rethink really. Its a problem, and the current way of handling it just exacerbates it. Precisely what the answer/is/ isnt clear, much more education, much more preventative action - but criminalisation of/users/ is not part of the answer imo.
-- I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Re:Interesting read but..
by
Mac+Degger
·
· Score: 1
Well, there's numerous studies, latest being the one the Canadian government commissioned, citing a 5%-10% addiction rate. That falls within normal margins (ie, you can have that kind of rate with driving a car, having sex etc).
I could also give you links to german, dutch and french studies, but you'll have to google for them yourself.
-- --
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Re:Interesting read but..
by
Mac+Degger
·
· Score: 1
Just means you and your friends are lazy. All large-scale, scientifically sound studies show that dope is not physically habit forming and only marginally mentally habit forming. So much so that a couple of days 'cold turky' gets rid of that monkey on your back.
Denmark also made noteworthy contributions to the war on terrorism. On the economic front under its European Union (EU) Presidency leadership, in forging a workable EU Clearinghouse they froze assets of terrorist groups, even those not taken to the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1267 Sanctions Committee. On the military front, they continued their commitment to Operation Enduring Freedom through the Danish-Norwegian-Dutch F-16 contingent at Manas Airbase.
Makes me all fussy and warm inside. NOT.
The current danish goverment is so pro-US it's sickening. They are alienating us from the rest of europa, so fast it's unbelivable.
When Bush tells our Primeminister to jump he goes "I would love to Mr Bush, but as you are currently also fcking me up the arse it's a bit hard for me to comply"...
Well, well, this freedom thing is probably overrated anyway. I mean, how I can reject slavery when I haven't even tried it...
Denmark are staunch supporters ot the USA. Most Americans seem unaware that Denmark was one of the very few countries that sent troops to Iraq. To aid the US in this desert war, they sent a submarine. It probably arrived just in time for the end of the war.
--
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
Re:Denmark
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Denmark is on Europa? Wow...
But seriously, if the Danish government is pro-US but the people aren't, that should show in the next elections.
Re:Denmark
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I hate that countries who support us (the USA) are termed "pro-US" like it's a derogatory term. The vast majority of the anti-US rhetoric coming out of here is by liberals who wanted Gore to be president, but didn't get their way. A democratic president usually means that money flows away from the USA and into other countries, so naturally other countries have picked up the whining of the liberals here, and are echoing it across the world.
Kudos to Denmark for doing what they wanted. Kudos to France to, for saying what they wanted to say, but France can fuck the hell off. We've found French-made products in Iraq that were banned by the UN in the first Gulf War. France's only reason for not wanting the US to oust Saddam was so they wouldn't be discovered. Cowering Frenchmen.
Crime in Canada
by
ottawanker
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
.. suggests that while Canada has been helpful in the fight against terrorism, it doesn't spend enough on policing and places too much emphasis on civil liberties.
This is interesting.. the following are some stats I found on crime in Canada and the US (and Sweden, see this page.)
- Homicides per 100,000......Canada-1.8..US-5.5 - Assault/Threat per 100,000.Canada-4.0..US-5.7 - Prisoners per 100,000......Canada-118..US-546
The last stat can be clarified as such:
People locked up for pot possession... Canada-0..US-428
The Americans are way ahead, but that's ok. I want them to win in this category:-)
Locking people up for pot possession (under an ounce) should be illegal as it is usually (not always) reserved for minorities....(proof? Is the Dell guy in prison?)
. <- the grain of salt that may be necessary to get this moderated as Funny
-- The truth about Led Zep should never be told on/. (Karma suicide ensues)
Interesting stats web page! It is full of political bias. To win gold, you have to have more public schools and less private, less rich people, more unions, health care should be public, no social private spending, etc.
So what do the stats measure? The political preferences of the Canadian Council on Social Development?
Do you have a state by state and province by province list of stats? Because I'm willing to bet NH doesn't have 5.5 murders per 100,000 people every year. (I believe it was less than 1.0 per 100,000 last year.)
--
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Yep, that describes Canada pretty well - all talk (- Assault/Threat per 100,000.Canada-4.0..US-5.7 ), no action (- Homicides per 100,000......Canada-1.8..US-5.5)...
-- Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:Crime in Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Yeah, because assault, homicide, and other violent crimes generally take place outside. And in Canada, it's too fucking cold to go outside 90% of the year.
Re:Crime in Canada
by
Citizen+of+Earth
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Why is it "Interesting" that Canadians have a higher quality of life than Americans. This should be modded as "Well, Duh!"
-- BTW, thanks for taking care of the dirty work so that we may enjoy this quality of life.
Do you have a state by state and province by province list of stats? Because I'm willing to bet NH doesn't have 5.5 murders per 100,000 people every year. (I believe it was less than 1.0 per 100,000 last year.)
Point being? There hasn't been a murder on my block - ever but that doesn't make it a very impressive stat. amurika is no more new hampshire then the world is yank.
-- "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
You know...Id love to know how many murders are commited by americans that cross the boarder?
In Windsor, the last murder was commited by an american...like so many of them...strange but true
Re:Crime in Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then I guess we agree. You can't blanket label America, or any other country for that matter;-)
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said although there has been great progress in the last year, terrorism still "casts its grim shadow" across the globe.
The War on Terrorism is casting a grim shadow across the globe, and I dare say it's darker than the one terrorism ever cast. I am honestly one hell of a lot more afraid of what this administration will do next than I am of any potential terrorist attack.
Is it just me or is GW the puppet and Rumsfeild the insane puppet master? Or maybe he's got me fooled and they're both insane.
Re:Grim Shadow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What I find confusing is how many Americans don't seem to approve of how Bush is handling things, whether domestically or internationally - yet like with the recent invasion of Iraq, the American people allow it to happen. Why?
I thought that the US Government was for the people and not the other way around. How can Americans preach on about spreading freedom around the globe when they don't even seem to be in control of their own?
Much easier to attack what you don't understand, hence the oxymoronic War on Terror.
Already done!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Create a wee buffer zone between the US and those hordes of illegal aliens.
It's called Texas! Man, where were you during History classes?
I declare Jihad upon the infidel US webservers!
Suicide Slashdotting!
Cheeky?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What is cheeky about the article?
I was expecting to read a humorous or... well... I expected the article to be cheeky, but it wasn't.
Or is it "cheeky" just because it investigates odd and scary comments done by US, and by definition anything criticising or disagreeing with US is "cheeky"?
Strange for a Nation who claim to be the liberty one.
The same nation who have for 1st rule : In god we trust. (Yeah !! Wich one ??? I belive they whote this on their dollar bills.)
I am proud not to be american.
revokethepresident.com
by
Nicolas+MONNET
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It can't be as much fiction as that war on Iraq (where are the WMDs again?) or the last US presidential election.
Oh, you think that while running away no one thought to bring the bombs with them? Maybe they weren't quite finished yet and they destroyed them or got the byproducts the hell out of there? Of course they would get rid of them ASAP in any way possible. Just because you haven't seen any yet doesn't mean you won't.
Re:revokethepresident.com
by
Nicolas+MONNET
·
· Score: 1
I remember hearing about tons of Vx, Mustard, Sarin... surely, considernig how dangerous those are, you can't just hide them under the carpet?
I have a few thoughts on that one, the first being that if the US forces had found any within a week of invading Iraq I would have KNOWN they were lying, while I don't nesecarilly beleive that Blix et al were 100% effective, I also don't beleive they were that incompetant as to miss anything major that is obvious enough to be found that quickly by the americans.
the second thought is that I, unfortunatly, have no doubt in my mind that the americans will find WMD in Iraq, now before you assume that this means I think the US was "right" hear me out, this is a huge publicity thing, the US looks REALLY bad if nothing is found, so I'm sure they will find something, the real question is, was what they find there BEFORE the US got there? now I know that will put me in a few people's bad books, but should we really trust a country that brought obviously falsified evidence to the UN to justify the invasion (the CIA is "investigating" how that falsified information got to Powell to present it...) and even more obvious is when the US tells the UN that they do not want any UN inspectors to verify any finds... now why wouldn't you want the international community to verify your find (when you know that a lot of countries are sceptical) unless you aren't sure that they will agree the find is legitimate... I should also say (before I get completely flamed to death) that I think Iraq could easilly have WMD, I also think they could NOT have them just as easilly (and not because Saddam didn't WANT them, but because there was a LOT of preasure on him from the rest of the world, and just because he was a "Bad Man" (tm) does not mean he's stupid (in fact most evidence is to the contrary))
anyway, just this Canuk's 0.02$ (that's somewhere less than 0.014$ US...)
Your definition of "in Canada" fascinates me
by
NicotineAtNight
·
· Score: 1
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. That being said, the OP is obviously exploiting the linguistics....
True, there are different ways to take that last statistic, such as:
1) Canada has less crime per capita. 2) Canada has not enough or bad police officers. 3) Canada doesn't have enough laws, too liberal a society. 4) The US has too many laws, too restricted a society.
Feel free to add your own!
Re:Aha!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
5) Hand guns are illegal.
No, really. A typical guy in a barfight or a traffic jam can't pull out his.45 and blow the other guy's brains out, because they aren't available here.
Incidentally, though, I can tell you as an actual citizen of the country that people from the U.S. seem to love belittling (even some of the people that we assisted while they were stranded here during the September 11th attacks) that violent crime in my particular area is low enough that I can't actually remember hearing about anyone being murdered in my own town. Ever. Doesn't mean that it's never happened of course, but try and picture how unusual it'd be if someone said the same thing about Detroit.
Re:Aha!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Of course you can say that these alternatives have the same probability but actually, since the number of homicides/threats are also much lower the first one is perhaps more likely.
Re:Aha!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Try and picture if someone said that about Wetumpka, Alabama. The USA has a much more varied population than Canada, and a much more densely packed population as well. Picking a gangland city as representitive of the USA's violence is just plain dumb. There are cities and towns in the USA where everybody owns a gun, but nobody ever gets shot.
The only point in the article was about marijauna. I can't believe something this vacuous is newsworthy here.
I intentionally leave off the YRO stories on slashdot so I don't have to read the political shilling and editorializing that goes on here. I want news for nerds and not activism.
How about instead of me removing "United States" from my news listings, you guys stop posting horse puckey? Deal? Nah.... that'll never happen.
-- Never overestimate the end user.
-jeramy b. smith
Re:Slow News Day?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There is big money in pot! American business doesn't want to be cut out of the trade.
Otherwise pot is mostly harmless!
Many commonly prescribed prescription drugs have much worse side effects than pot's alleged main effects.
Re:Slow News Day?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You aren't alone...I leave alot of these stories show on my profile out of some sense of morbid curiosity, but it basically just ends up making me really sad about things. And it's funny - it's not what the United States does that makes me sad (admittedly, it's not perfect - neither is Canada or anywhere else), it's the twisted editorizing a shilling that goes on here. After hearing the real nature of the gripes they have with any given subject, it's really hard to handle the fact that many of the idiots posting here are old enough to vote in their respective countries.
I am both a proud Canadain and a person who cherishes his freedoms but I must say... I agree with you. Slashdot should get back on topic and keep the Geeks united no matter what their political views are. Although this was a great discussion in which I saw good arguments on both sides, I would rather that Slashdot editors did not publish their political views and start up all this commotion, I can go checkout CNN and CBC for These types of discussions. We are here to talk about Geek stuff, not Leftist Geek stuff. I would hate to see slashdot loose readers because of a strong political view.
The US wants a "Pax Americana".... (hmmm, heard that one from the Romans and the Britons before).
I just wish the American people would look around and see that their government wants world domination. I'm Canadian and there is no way in hell I am living under a "Pax Americana" with Bushy calling the shots.
I like the fact that my country respects the poor and trys not to leave them for dead. I respect the fact that I get my health care for free. I respect the fact that my government is realistic about the war on drugs... if you can't win, make money at it. I would have thought the US, such a strong economic power, would have realized this first. I respect my government and I WILL NOT LIVE UNDER AMERICAN WORLD RULE!
America has a great deal of good to offer the world, but please, you are no the end-all and be-all of human civilization. That's what the Nazis thought and you are starting to sound the same.
Left and Right
by
gonvaled
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That is the difference between a left and a right government.
- A left government promotes state intervention to guarantee a minimum living standard (read taxes)
- A right government promotes state intervention to guarantee security (read limit liberties and free speech)
I wonder why normal citizens vote right parties. It's happening all around Europe, and it has been happening in the US for a long time. We are selling today the liberties we will need tomorrow, just to get a short term beneffit (some Euros in our pocket)
All governments restrict liberty in the name of security -- its the most fundamental raison d'etre of the state itself in the Western liberal tradition going back to Ancient Greece and, more recently, Thomas Hobbes.
Are there no police in Sweden, or other socialist countries? What about the Soviet Union -- you know, that police state?
--
hoser: Slashdot reader since 1987.
Re:Left and Right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The differences are more complicated than that, but the reasons for the popularity of right-wing parties are pretty evident.
In Europe, the recent rise of right-wing parties has been largely due to their anti-immigration stances.
In the US, it's more because of conservative religious values, anti-interventionist economics etc.
Re:Left and Right
by
gonvaled
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Right, it is oversimplified, but it nevertheless highlights one of the biggest differences between leftist and rightist parties: one stresses living standard, the other uses security concern to achieve class benefits.
I was talking about democratic governments, not about totalitarian governments. To the Soviet Union example, I offer you the Spanish or Italian dictatorship contraexamples: the soviets had a very strong police state, which they used to guarantee the equal distribution of richeness. The two dictatorships I mentioned had a strong police state (granted, probably no so strong as the soviets), which they used to assure that some social groups (rich, nobles and religious people basically) had economic and other kind of beneffits.
The current trend in the USA and in an increasing number of countries in Europe is to surrender our liberties to the government, so that it can guarantee our security. What the government acually does, is to use these reduced liberties to beneffit the ruling class. Long term security does not increase significantly, not even as a by-product - despite government claims of the contrary.
One wonders how do we, plain citizens, elect such governments. The only plausible explanation I find is the pressure of the media, and the control that the ruling class has over it. In the USA this can be seen in how quickly any opinion opposed to the government is immediately qualified as being "antiamerican" or "communist". I am happy that in Europe this does not happen (yet!).
Re:Left and Right
by
awol
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Left and Right == Minimum Living Standard vs Security. Give me a break. In continental Europe your argument is almost sustainable until you identify that the Christian Democratic "right" is still basically a socialist political ideology, funding unemployment benefits, health care and education. The problem is that the left and right of politics in a "civil society" (and I mean that in a technical sense) is not as relevant as the other dimension of Totalitarianism versus liberalism. A cute site to illustrate is www.politicalcompass.org.
I would quite happily describe my politics as right of centre (eg deregulated labour market and what it implies), but if someone was to call me a socialist because I believe in free healthcare, seondary education and a safety net of unemployment benfits, then so be it, however I would be deeply concenred to be classed as anything other than a libertarian because I believe very stringlky that the state has little or o place in my private life and the goal should be for the _reduction_ in power of the state as our societies expand and we become more civilised. That the contrary movement in power is true breaks my heart. But I digress.
The erosion of liberites by the state is the real fight. Forget the left and right. It is irrelevant and both sides will just as happily do the deed. To focus on the left and right will alienate those who are libertarians first and politicians second and make it impossible for the libertarian front to consoplidate and stop the death of a thousand cuts to which our liberty is being subjected (around the western democratic world)
-- "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Re:Left and Right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, right.
Democrats want to set themselves up as the new nobility in the world. There's a long history of how to do this. First, they have to manage not to piss off the majority of the people. They can achieve this by _doing nothing_. The second step is to remove the citizenry's ability to defend itself, aka more gun control laws. Finally, they have to get the pre-existing money in their corner, such as what they're doing with the RIAA/MPAA. After they've done this, they end up with a populace that can't defend itself, has a large ambivalence toward them, and thinks they're out to help them.
Re:Left and Right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The labels "left" and "right" are just over-simplifications to help voters avoid thinking for themselves.
I completely agree with you that real fight is the erosion of liberties. I happen to think that right parties are much more keen on limiting those liberties, because of two factors:
1 - Strong religious views, which constitute the center of their thinking (I am not suggesting here that religious ideas are wrong per se - just that they are bad when used in the political arena) These religious believings are very often in conflict with a widespread of freedom.
2 - Right parties, which usually deffend class interests (rich classes, of course - although they very intelligently exploit the unhappinness and misinformation of the poor classes ) do not really need freedom for their own members. If you have the money, why do you need the freedom?
If governments were not run by political parties, the difference between right and left would not be so important. As long as libertarians do not have a chance to pass laws - and offer a political programm - I think it is right to stress the differences between left and right.
> That is the difference between a left and a right government
I wonder why the terms "left" and "right" exist. There are thousands of issues where people can have an opinion, even if one allowed the unrealistic simplification of classifying each one along a single line, it's still meaningless to try and map N-dimensional space to 1D.
> I wonder why normal citizens vote right parties.
Leaving aside the idiocy of branding politics along a straight line for the moment, this is an easy question. People vote according to their perceived interests, which are largely derived from what they hear on TV/radio. Since the vast majority of media is controlled by a small number of rich people, the media favours policies which are beneficial to the owners of the media. This happens by subtle osmotic processes rather than direct censorship - editors/journalists who tend to agree with the owners get promoted, those who dont wither or change profession.
I completely agree with you. The only way to allow the citizens to express their ideas in each field of political interest would be to establish a direct democratic system - one where laws were passed as referendums. I hope that this will be achieved, with the help of technology, in the near future - although we can expect increasing pressure from the ruling class.
Regarding your second point, I have already said something along those lines in a previous post in this thread. Your 'osmotic process' image is a very helpful one to clarify this.
Re:Left and Right
by
joss
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wow. You really believe this don't you ? I never realised the RIAA/MPAA was a plot by the democrats before.
Try to get your head around this idea: there are people who consider the democrats and republicans as two wings of same party. Your fear and hatred of democrats sounds to them like a stalinist denouncing leninism when someone proposes capitalism.
I would be deeply concenred to be classed as anything other than a libertarian because I believe very stringlky that the state has little or o place in my private life and the goal should be for the _reduction_ in power of the state as our societies expand and we become more civilised.
Au contraire. Individual savageness increases when there is no powerful State to curb it back in. A great civilization is one where no one has to fear being assaulted (physically or economically) by someone else.
With a less powerful State to check that no one gets abused, the more powerful get more and more power until all the power resides in a very small numper of persons.
To illustrate my point, have you noticed how 50% of the U.S. wealth is concentrated in, perhaps, 1% of the population?
I wonder why the terms "left" and "right" exist. There are thousands of issues where people can have an opinion, even if one allowed the unrealistic simplification of classifying each one along a single line, it's still meaningless to try and map N-dimensional space to 1D.
This comes from the French (like much more things than people would care to know).
Right after the (first) Revolution, in the resulting assembly, the conservatives sat on the right side of the chamber, and the revolutionaries sat on the left side.
I see no logical contradiction in having a strong state which at the same time respects freedom of the individual. The key issue here is identifying in which areas must the state strongly intervene and in which areas must the individual left to his/her own devices. In my opinion, one area where the state does not intervene strongly enough is in the distribution of wealthness.
"I see no logical contradiction in having a strong state which at the same time respects freedom of the individual."
"In my opinion, one area where the state does not intervene strongly enough is in the distribution of wealthness."
Speaking of contradictions...
In case you don't get my point, how can you supposedly stand up for individual freedom, and at the same time advocate a system of government that confiscates the wealth of individuals who make 'too much'?
There we have the duplicity of socialism. Most socialists claim to support individual freedoms, but only if those individuals earn below a certain income level.
How can one who believes in individual freedom advocate a system of government that punishes success by confiscating wealth?
-- "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
No. Sounds bad. What if the majority of people voted to make fundamentalist "christianity" the official state religion and stripped anyone who was not a fundamentalist christian of their citizenship? Just because it's democratically expressed, that doesn't make it right. A pure democracy like this would be a living nightmare for anyone in a minority (racial, ideological, religious)
I'll take the republic with the separation of powers over a democracy like that every time.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
Astonishingly, there is no mention in the report on the United Kingdom of the IRA.
There is a section on the IRA in the appendix on "other Foreign Terrorist Organisations" which notes that the IRA "retains the ability to conduct paramilitary operations" but it accepts that "the IRA reiterated its commitment to the peace process and apologized to the families of what it called "non-combatants" who had been killed or injured by the IRA" without noting that its activities of "kidnappings, punishment beatings, extortion, smuggling, and robberies" are active and continuing.
The report does not mention that two of the leaders of the IRA Army Council were allowed to become Sinn Fein Ministers in the (currently suspended) government of Northern Ireland.
Sinn Feinn, a major political party in Northern Ireland, is acknowledged by everybody except itself as the political wing of the IRA. The name translates into English as "Ourselves Alone" - illuminating its racist basis. Sinn Fein is not mentioned in the report.
Most astonishingly, NORAID's role in fundraising for the IRA within the USA is not mentioned in the report either.
Americans should realise that many British people who are temperamentally and politically inclined to give full support to American foreign policy find it severely compromised by America's sentimental and hypocritical blindness to the IRA threat.
Re:IRA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>The name translates into English as "Ourselves Alone" - illuminating its racist basis. The British and the Irish are the same race, please try to avoid using words against their meaning.
you're omiting a bit of truth there. you forgot to mention the british military collusion with loyalist paramilitary groups. and you forgot to mention the loyalist paramilitary groups themselves and all the punishment beatings and killings they've been up to lately.
Irish *Republican* Army, dude. In case you have not noticed, republican types tend to have a propensity towards violence when they think their republic (or hopes for which) is threatened.
Besides, this conflict has been ongoing since before the US was a country. Not to mention the fact that the US was founded in part by people like them.
It's time for the Brits to submit. They need to just finally admit that they were wrong to impose their will. I guess they're proud to have oppressed the Irish all this time? I think that is why there is no mention.
It's infighting among Christians, so it's *very* touchy, especially here in the US. No way is Bush that dumb. He does want the office again, unfortunately.
Rest of the world :
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
US cares to little about liberties....
Liberties
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Until the Bush administration goons shut down Slashdot for all the liberal anti-administration conversations going on here, I think you still have your liberties.
Canada...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... Land of the Free, Home of the Braves ?
I think it is time the US population gets a Reality Check about its own situation.
Re:Pot legalization
by
zakezuke
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Phase one of possible legalization of pot in america is not complete, this being it's legalization for medial purposes. I'm only familar with some aspects of Canada's pot program, like for example legal to grew if you have a license, unlike western america where you can get a perscription for it, but you can't buy it.
But reducing marijuana posession to a ticketable offence is reasonable in my minds eye. Less reason to invade someone's privacy, and don't have extreem cases like the Eggleston in tacoma [http://goldwingtom.com/ourtake/eggleston.html]. Given that some regions do permit it for medical use, there is legit reasons why you might have it about. But how this connects to terrorism is beyond me.
But as far as canada carring more about libraries then we do, they probally do, it's one of the nice things about visiting that nation. How this relates to terrorism is beyond me as... anyone who's only means of communicating an idea is terror is not going to be the type of person who visits a library! If we had trully inteligent terrorists, the body count would be much higher!
-- There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary.
SHUT UP!
There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
some Marijuana stats
by
UnixRevolution
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't honestly understand why people get so fired up about marijuana being legalized. I think canada has the right idea here.
Disclaimer: I don't actually smoke marijuana...although i use a Mac, so that's close enough;)
Deaths from tobacco cigarettes in the US, 2002: 400,000
Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0.00
Now tell me, which one should be illegal?
--
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
Re:some Marijuana stats
by
patoco12
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Deaths from tobacco cigarettes in the US, 2002: 400,000
Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0.00
These numbers mean very little:
1. Both are carcinogens.
2. Most people who smoke marijuana also smoke tobacco; these deaths count as tobacco related deaths.
I agree that the U.S. marijuana laws are a bit ridiculous, but don't argue that it should be legal because it is "safe".
Re:some Marijuana stats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0.00
you are so full of shit you stink.
nice to see that you are as good as bush at creating lies and propaganda.
you pot-heads need to wake up. if you want it legal then you had better start telling the truth. Smoking pot is wirse than smoking a filtered ciggarette. why? because the toxic crap that is mixed in with all that belived thc that you cant stop craving is also going into your lungs.
oh yeah, it's not addictive... just like ciggaretts are not addictive....
this just proves that you pot heads are more stupid than a small salad bar.
give me some real stats, show me the gas chromatagraphs comparing the two. where are your studies?
fricking liar.
Re:some Marijuana stats
by
glenebob
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Smoking pot is wirse than smoking a filtered ciggarette.
I agree that smoking one joint is almost certainly worse for you than one cigarette. But few people smoke 20+ joints a day. Lots of smokers smoke 20+ cigarettes a day.
oh yeah, it's not addictive... just like ciggaretts are not addictive....
It's a totally different drug. Have you ever smoked enough pot to become addicted? Enough cigarettes? Can you cite real evidence that pot is addictive? Just saying that one is because the other is won't wash.
It is generally accepted that cigarettes are addictive, and being an ex-smoker I can tell you... oh hell yes they are. I've also smoked a fair bit of pot and I don't believe it is addictive, and it seems generally accepted that it is not. Some people will exhibit symptoms of addiction, but then some people will become addicted to sex, so I don't think that's at all conclusive.
While the parent poster shows his/her bias on the subject, you show equal ignorance.
Re:some Marijuana stats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Deaths from tobacco in the US, 2002: 0 (most people die of cancer and things like that) Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0 (same thing)
Re:some Marijuana stats
by
MagnusDredd
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
>Deaths from tobacco cigarettes in the US, 2002: 400,000 >Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0.00
Actually this is complete and utter fiction. I spent two and a half years on a rescue squad. A significant percentage of auto accidents are caused by drivers who are high on pot. Some are pot and alcohol (a really bad combination for driving), and some are just pot. I have seen more than a few drivers who were stoned out of their minds (and not drunk) who missed the curve and hit a tree. I dont have any real statistics on how many actual fatalities were caused by stoned drivers, however I am completely certain the number is NOT zero.
While it may be possible that not a single case of cancer has been attributed to smoking pot, I would imagine that cancer patients who have smoked a great deal of marijuana would hardly be inclined to volunteer that fact. Given the current "witch hunt" mentality of the current political establisment, I would bet that it would be hard to find anyone who may have gotten cancer from an illegal substance who would purposely also create legal issues for themselves. Basically speaking, if I smoked a ton a weed, and got cancer there is no way in hell that I would also want to face possible jail time on top of fighting cancer.
The truth is that lighting something on fire and inhaling SMOKE is damaging to your body. Then again, drinking a great deal of alcohol tends to pickle your liver, however that's not illegal.
All that being said, I think that pot should be legal for medical purposes. It's an incredible anti-nausea agent, and pain management substance, and is great in brownies... LOL. The current and previous administration's policies with regards to marijuana are stupid. I am however not recommending it's use. I know quite a few guys that I went to school with (I'm 30) who are still living in my home town, still working at Burger King, renting a shabby apartment (or living with parents), and still just "hanging out man, and smoking weed". They are functionally 15 to 17 years old from a social and emotional stand point. They have not changed a bit since high school (hint: this is not a good thing). I'm buying a house and they are sneaking around trying to score some doobage. It's really depressing for me to catch up with these guys.
Do you have evidence to support this? Do you know that a joint a day is as much of a cancer risk as a pack a day of cigarettes?
My brother is an asthmatic, whose asthma is controlled by marijuana, and who incidently is a properly authorized grower. For my brother, there's no question his life will be longer and healthier because of his marijuana use. A little bit of weed means a lot less topical steroid (yes, that's what's in those inhalers).
Re:some Marijuana stats
by
phelddagrif
·
· Score: 1
there have been a number of studies (I have none at hand right now) in which it has been proven that THC is non-habit forming and that you can't form a Chemical dependancy on it. However, you can become psychologically aclimated to being high, but that is completely different.
Furthermore, I completely agree that pot causes cancer, however I don't know many pot heads that smoke 40 joints (1.5 packs of smokes)a day. A typical hardcore pothead, smokes maybe 4 or 5 a day. So the intake of carcinogens isn't comparable even if pot is 4 times more potent than tobacco.
lastly, I'd rather be inhaling pot particles than tar, and ammonia, as I wouldn't smoke asphalt, and those ingredients seem to be common, but that's just me.
what part of "i don't smoke marijuana" didn't you understand?
I don't abuse any drugs, and quite frankly i believe they should both be illegal. Of the 2, however, marijuana is the less immediately and directly harmful.
If you want to be taken seriously, maybe you shouldn't post AC.
--
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
Although both are carcinogenic, I don't imagine many marijuana users who smoke 2 packs a day, and in small doses I'm sure something else would kill you before marijuana related cancer does.
Please don't make the mistake that a lot of Americans seem to be making; 'decriminalizing' is not the same as 'legalizing.' We're simply turning it into a civil offence rather than a criminal one; some 16 year old toking up probably doesn't deserve a 5 year jail sentance.
-- Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
how the hell can you honestly believe prohibition is a good course of action regarding any harmful drug? here are some facts you might want to consider:
1. Prohibition doesn't lead to less drug use. 2. Prohibition creates most of the problems associated with drugs. 3. Drug use is more dangerous when the drug is illegal. 4. Massive rings of organized crime surrounding drug distribution are much more harmful than drug use ever could be.
I would be more than happy to elaborate on any of these points if you are still confused.
Yes, drug use is bad. But it is not even close to bad enough to justify introducing prohibition and all of the truly bad things associated with it.
You're right. one of my favorite quotes is "when * is illegal, only outlaws will have *". In fact, i remember a quote that shows someone looking over his shoulder saying "When alcohol is illegal only outlaws will have alcohol? what kind of nonsense is that?"
Guns are a good example of this philosophy, as if they were outlawed law abiding citizens would be defenseless and the only people who had them would be criminals. Don't take this as advocacy for making all currently illegal drugs legal though.
If i say it shouldn't be outlawed, people get pissed. if i say it SHOULD be outlawed, people get pissed...what am i supposed to do?:P
Guess i'll just say "you want cigs or weed, go ahead, but it's not my problem."
--
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
Water kills most of the people who get tossed in the bay with concrete shoes on, yet people swim all the time with no ill effects.
Sunlight can burn out your retinas, causing permanent blindness, yet millions (billions?) of people walk around in the sun with their eyes open every day.
Well said.:) however, there are positive effects to water and sunlight in moderation. I can think of no real positive effects of smoke in any amount.
--
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
Uhh... what?
by
AnimeFreak
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I guess living in a country that implements laws that limit freedoms in what a consumer can do with their products, allows corporations to run the country like mad, have healthcare funded outside of taxation, go insane when two-thousand people die in one day after a building collapses when the same amount die from various diseases and other mortalities daily, and so on is much better.
Wait...
USA 2nd World?
by
mindpixel
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
No. Any country without free healthcare is second world in my book. I hate what the USA does to its poor and I hate that the Chileans copy them.
[For the record, I'm a Canadian currently living in Chile]
When you have socialized healthcare you get what you pay for. That's why no medical advancements come out of nations with such systems.
Canadianas, like Europeans, tend to think the government can provide everything and do it better than private industry. They tend to confuse quantity of services with quality.
-- --
You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Re:USA 2nd World?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canadianas, like Europeans, tend to think the government can provide everything and do it better than private industry. They tend to confuse quantity of services with quality.
This may be true, but even with the somewhat disturbing state of the NHS here in the UK, I'm glad that we have it. For all of its shortcomings, at the very least, -everyone- is covered and can receive treatment. Whereas, in the US, if I'm poor and can't afford health insurance, I would have little or no options available.
At that point, I'd have to say that someting is better than nothing.;-)
So Losec (the no1 treatment for stomach ulsers) is not a Swedish* invention..?
Then again, we didn't invend silicon breast implants, I'll give you that...
*Sweden probably has the most extensive public healthcare system in the world.
-- Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
No one has free heathcare. You pay for it in some way. We just think outside the box here in the USA and pay for it in another way. And we have better care than anyone else in the world.
Have you ever experienced another country's free healthcare system? I have, as well as America's system, and I think you're talking out your ass.
Re:USA 2nd World?
by
digidave
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Canada is among the world leaders in medical advances, including work on the human Genome project, Cancer, AIDS and Autism research. I wouldn't expect anyone in the know to put the US much higher than Canada in medical research.
-- The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
And where did you experience other nations' health care? Or are you making this up? I've experienced the US' and a more social system. I'd enjoy if you could tell me about your experiences.
We don't expect public healthcare to be as good as private can be, but it's better than having none because you are too poor. And if you have extra money or health insurance you can go to any of the many private clinics that provide as good care as any in the US (probably better, since they have to compete with free hospitals). In public healthcare may have to wait few weeks longer, the nurses may not be as pretty and food may not be as good, but at least you won't be financially destroyed if you suddenly have to spend a week in hospital because of ear infection.
Penicillin was discovered by a Scottish man Sir Alexander Fleming while in London by accident.
If you're going to try to be an advocate for your own country, please try a little harder to at least get your facts straight.
It is no secret that the US pharmaceuticals/biotech industry is many times larger than the one that exists in Canada (even per-capita).
We're talking Pfizer (New York), Johnson & Johnson (New Jersey), Merck (New Jersey), Amgen (California), Eli Lily (Indiana), etc.
Heck, Pfizer alone dwarfs everyone else.
-- The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Re:USA 2nd World?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Geez - do all americans believe you do everything in the world? Read a book
How about this? http://in-cites.com/countries/top20clinmed. html It takes the next 6 most research productive countries after the US to produce almost as much published medical research. These countries, when combined, have a 30% larger population, and spend much less money on necessaries like defense (thanks to NATO, et al), leaving more for healthcare.
There are quite frankly too many variables to say this is because of socialized medicine or not, but to not acknowlege the MASSIVE difference in productive output and then assume it'll not change with a drastic restructuring of the US health care system is arrogant and shortsighted.
We don't believe we do everything, we know we do much.
It takes the next 6 most research productive countries after the US to produce almost as much published medical research.
I don't know about the quality of most foreign medical research, but I can tell you from personal experience the bulk of what is published in the states is of little to no significance and was published just to make a publications list grow...
-- "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I checked this and Sweden + Finland counts 63000 published medical research papers compared to 630000 from USA. Both of these countries have very fine public health care system.
Population is combined 15 million against US population, feel free to do the math.
We don't believe we do everything, we know we do much.
Since others have already refuted your claims - I'll just fill in with the following:
Americans like to believe they are the "best" country in the world, with the most freedom and what not. Well. YOU AREN'T. Get it? So stop trying to impose your "american way" on countries who DON'T WANT IT. We're just fine without it, thankyouverymuch.
/me - working in the telecom industry, fuelled in full by non-american companies.
What a silly thing to say: What we "do" to our poor. And why is it, exactly, that we should "do" anything to/for the poor?
You might say, "moral imperitive". Which is alright, but whose morals? Yours? Mine?
Or perhaps the government. Well, the world I want to live in leaves the choice of "what to do about the poor" up to the community. To each individual to do as s/he sees fit. Not to have a government dictate to me what I should do with my hard-earned money (well, okay, not THAT hard-earned).
This is just a classic argument of socialism vs. libertarianism, and I much prefer the latter. That hard part is, we can never just go off and try out experimental governments anywhere... Then we could see what really works or not.
Im glad to see foreigners in Chile agreeing that our private health system sucks (FYI, im chilean).
Just four things:
- You might want to use 'Developing Country' instead of the outdated '2nd world'. Or even better, 'Underdeveloped'. The latter is more appropiate for Chile.
- This health system was brought to us by Pinochet (who itself was brought to us by the CIA (read: Helms) and Nixon (read: Kissinger)) as a way to get the money out of our pockets in a 'legal' way.
- State health system also sucks. It's not free (or free enough), and slow: if you need a life-or-death surgery, you must wait months or, if you're lucky, weeks.
- The chilean government copies US system, not the Chileans (i.e. the rest of us).
I have. It was just as good as anything in the U.S. I didn't have to wait, and even the prescriptions were free. This was in Ireland. After my X-rays, and everything, I asked where I should pay, and they laughed. A friend (another American) who was there with me and had her appendix out. Again, just as good as anything here. Didn't cost her a penny. Imagine what having your appendix out in the US without insurance would cost.
I've experienced it first hand. You can't convince me that our system is at all better.
-- The system has failed you, don't fail yourself.
--Billy Bragg
Number of civil liberties have been curtailed since 9-11:
0
Number of times Slashdot has implied the US has curtailed civil liberties since 9-11:
1512
Shocking.
-- Never overestimate the end user.
-jeramy b. smith
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
SugarKing
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah I guess those people being held in Guantanamo Bay and throughout the US without a trial or bail of any kind really isn't curtailing civil liberties.
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
niola
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It must be nice to live life with blinders on. Are you totally ignorant of what is going on?
Patriot Act made it so that in many cases law enforcement does not have to go to a judge to get a search order. There is an article in the Constitution against illegal search and seizure. This is one right being trampled.
How about the AMERICAN citizens being held in connection with terrorism and not being told what they are being charged with and not being allowed to contact lawyer or family? That is another right being trampled.
There are many other examples, but it is just too depressing to get into it.
The terrorists have won. The goal of terrorism isn't death or property destruction. That is collateral damage. The MAIN goal of terrorism is to inflict FEAR and POLICY CHANGE. Now we have the media and the war-mongering Bush administration keeping everyone afraid as they slowly strip away our liberties.
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
dick+johnson
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
While I share concerns about POTENTIAL infringement of civil liberties. I think a little perspective is in order.
Abraham Lincoln, in my opinion, was one of the greatest U.S. presidents. But he also threw out the writ of habeous corpus. You know... the section of the Constitution prohibiting the government from simply throwing people in jail without a cause.
Northern citizens who criticized Lincoln in the press routinely were thrown in prison. When the U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to stop it, he just ignored the order.
Lincoln is still remembered as one of our greatest presidents.
I understand the fear of infringement of our civil liberties. But "the constitution isn't a suicide pact."
As for our "allies" in Europe and their opinions of this mess. The reality there is, if their own freedoms had depended on their own sense of right and wrong -- and their resolve to confront evil, the French would be speaking German and the Germans would still be goose stepping throughout most of Europe.
The Europeans like to talk of freedom and democracy. But they lack the intestinal fortitude required to do anything about it for those lacking in both of the above.
-dj
-- - dj
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Lincoln is still remembered as one of our greatest presidents.
Because the Yankee aggressors wrote the history books. Lincoln began a war that cost more American lives than any other war in which America has been involved. He allowed William Tecumseh Sherman (An Indian-hunter named Tecumseh -- imagine that!) to terrorize, destroy, and conduct scorched-earth warfare against the women and children of the South, all so that the northern industrial-base would have access to cheap agricultural products. Lincoln was as evil a bastard as George Bush.
And if it weren't for the French, we'd still be paying taxed to the English. And if it weren't for the Russians, Germany would be under Napoleanic rule, and if it weren't for.... (and so on and so on and so on and....)
The Euopeans do love to talk about freedom and democracy, so does the US. But when push comes to shove, the US runs it with guns blazing to remove a dictator the US propped up and Euope tries to resolve it with violence being the very last option. Yeah, they suck.
-- Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't think the group we call terrorists will stop attack the US just because "FEAR and POLICY CHANGE" has happened.
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
Flagg0204
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Why don't you leave? If you distrust the government that much, get out. Trust me we won't miss you, nobody will miss you. Because despite all of the points you just listed, more people flock to the US then any other country in the world. We shell out more money/supplies in a day for foreign aid then most do in a year. I am not saying that we do not have our faults, no country/government is perfect. But all you people who see fit to point the finger at our government, and bitch about a policy you don't agree with, need to think about this - How did your ELECTED officials get into office?
Where were you when the PATRIOT act was being written? Did you get involved in some way? Write your congressman, get other of similar thinking to write / email / phone / IM (j/k) anything to get the word out that if you agree with this bill, you will not get re-elected. I can hear your bullsh*t excuses now "Most people do not know what the Patriot Act is all about, or the DMCA or....." Guess what? Rome wasn't built in a day, and REAL change won't either. How about getting off the/. forums and start getting the word out. You love to bitch, but $10 says all you did was sign an electronic petition against the PATRIOT Act if you even did that. Put up or shut up, all of you.
Yes, the old arguement of "what if this is abused". You know, a wiretap can be abused with or without the patriot act.
It isnt me who has his head in the sand.
-- Never overestimate the end user.
-jeramy b. smith
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I guess if you consider not being shot a "civil liberty," then you are correct. Otherwise, you are just an extremely unperceptive fuck.
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Uh, you did know that the UK was STILL paying off the Lease-Lend?
A lot of money.
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is ludicrous. Name one country or event in history that has given a jury trial, fair trial, or set bail for prisioner of war? There isn't a single instance.
Neither is there a law that states people cannot be detained, without clear irrefutable proof. In many instances, police detain people that commited no crime, but do it so they can properly investigate a situation, and not risk a real threat of someone attacking an officer or escaping or tampering with evidence, etc. Also, when people are detained that doesn't mean they will put on trial immediately either. Citizens do have a right to know if they are charges, and do have a right to a speedy trial, but these can only be applied in a sense that they must be detained and have time to remove these extra variables in the first place. The "detention" is required in a variety of situations. When the government has found evidence that someone is a link to terrorism, like has happened, why cannot they detain them? I don't understand you people that simply say he's done nothing wrong and demand immediate release... The ones in the U.S. will be charged and put on trial when they have committed a crime, those who have no evidence of being a threat won't be detained.
The difference is, with the patriot act, a wiretap can be placed legally. And without telling you, or the public, ever.
If they discover something they dont like, or really anything, they can arrest you, without a specific charge, without ever letting you contact anyone, without a trial, you just dissapear.
Now THAT is class-a opression. Good job USA:)
--
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re:Nifty Numbers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Guess what? You don't have to worry about that. You know why? Because you're NOT THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT. No one here is. Get over yourselves.
land of the free
by
koi88
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm glad that I don't live in the US, but in a relatively free european country.
This is not a joke. I wish it was.
I somehow ran out of them recently.
--
I don't need a signature.
Re:land of the free
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm glad that I live in the US, where I don't have to put up with ignorant Europeans who believe everything they read in the newspaper.
I'm not saying that some bad laws haven't been enacted in the last 2 years, and I'll be very happy if Bush gets shown the door in the next election. But my life hasn't changed at all since 9/11 and I would bet that most Americans would say the same. If nothing else, the anti-war protests that were a frequent occurance months ago shows just how oppressed we really are.
Re:canadian forces?
by
ebbomega
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Right.
Canada has had dick all to do with any military action in the last 100 years.
Learn your history before you start criticising.
You want us to take up arms? How about that time you guys tried to invade us and we burnt your White House down?
Or how about that time that we were busy bombing the crap out of the Nazis while the US was happily being isolationist for 2 years while he tried to take over the world?
Or how about the time that we organized the UN to intervene at the Suez Canal despite England's Security Council veto?
Or how about how we've supplied troops to just about every single UN mission since its inception?
Or wait. Of course none of that happened. It wasn't in the US papers, so it's pretty obvious that Canada doesn't have a military.
I knew a good number of Doctors from my hometown alone (a rather small town in British Columbia) who were working at the MASH units in the first Persian Gulf war who were risking their lives trying to keep UN soldiers alive (including a good number of Americans). But again, it wasn't in any American newspapers so it obviously didn't happen.
For those of you that haven't please please please watch "Bowling for Columbine" my god thats one scary movie.
Does anyone else feel like we're getting to the point in world politics where we have to act, I no longer feel confident that our leaders even remotely consider our best interests.
Re:Films to watch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Stop letting TV run your lives. It makes me sick when someone watches a movie and considers it "reality". Ya, I forgot, the Real world, actually was real.
Re:if the Yanks cared so much about civil libertie
by
VanillaCoke420
·
· Score: 1
Actually I've never seen the Bush regime as very serious, rather it's amusing in a perverted kinda way. It's hard to explain... But I get a funny feeling about it. As if they are parodies on themselves, perhaps?
You pussies only have the option of not defending youerselves because your neighbors do it for you. If Iraq were your neighbor you wouldn't have lasted a day. Smug idiots.
BTW, watched Strange Brew again this weekend. Just as hilarious as I remembered it.
-- "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France
- speaking truth to power
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, we up here in Canada aren't obsessed with "defence" because we haven't spent the last fifty (in actuality 150) years galloping around the world telling everybody else what to do. How many wars has the US been in since the end of WWII? How many South American escapades before that? How many nations have been subject to the covert operations of the CIA?
We have the option of not spending US$394 billion a year (!) on our military - not because we're pussies - but because nobody wants to attack us. We have more to fear from the protectionist trade policies of our "free-trading" neighbours than from any far-flung belligerent.
P.S. Why is it that whenever a Canadian disagrees with the US government (a government that we have no hand in electing but has a great deal of influence in our country) s/he is called smug or anti-American? Or labelled a weasel. Meanwhile, American Ambassador Paul Celluci has been very vocal in his criticism of many facets of Canadian policy and nobody charges him with "anti-Canadianism". I'm just wondering, does American government policy define with absolute certainty what is right? If so, I suppose I am INCORRECT, sir.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think you'll find that Canada is respected both within the UN, NATO and the Commonwealth. They'd have no trouble defending themselves, or relying on their friends for help should they need it.
If Iraq was their neighbour Canada would need to defend themselves? You mean like how the U.S props up Isreal, and turns a blind idea to the fact that Isreal has nuclear weapons?
No? How about Turkey, a country that shares a border with Iraq and yet is due to be accepted into the European Union, the worlds largest single market?
Yeah, those Iraqi neighbours were an excelent example for you to use.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Yaztromo
·
· Score: 1
You pussies only have the option of not defending youerselves because your neighbors do it for you. If Iraq were your neighbor you wouldn't have lasted a day. Smug idiots.
Who has the US ever protected Canada from? When was the last time a nation tried to attack Canada?
I'll tell you -- it was the Fenian Raids (terrorist attacks) from the US back in the mid 1800's. Prior to that, it was the US again, during the War of 1812.
I routinely hear this type of rhetoric -- that the mighty US military machine is "protecting" Canada -- but never can anyone tell me who they're protecting Canada _from_. And indeed, they seem to convienently forget that the US's military forces have _benifitted_ from Canada's contributions to continental and international security -- everything from allowing US cruise missle tests in Canada, to committing troops to the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, to intelligence sharing, to giving the US access to Canadian mutition and military technology test facilities (ref: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/canada-us/agree _e.asp).
So before you spout such rhetoric again, just remember that a) the US hasn't really protected Canada _from_ anybody, and 2) the benifit has always been two-way.
Yaz.
Canadian Jokes
by
miketang16
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I used to make so many jokes about Canada, and not even think about going there. But, after the past few years of US legislation, I'm now seriously considering moving there. I'd prefer to live in a country where police can't arrest you and keep you in jail for no reason. A good movie to illustrate the good side of Canada is 'Bowling for Columbine'. It's one of the main reasons I'm thinking about moving.
Canada is awesome. =)
-- -------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
But, after the past few years of US legislation, I'm now seriously considering moving there.
Don't do it! I'm a Canadian and it's cold up here!! Dang, the temperature in my igloo nary raises above 0 degrees C, nevermind the flying hockey pucks all over the place, the moose stampedes and the 'skeeters in the spring. Canada is a barren wasteland!! Americans, don't move here!:)
-- -----
rL
Re:Canadian Jokes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Dont let the door slam you on your way out. This country has waaaay to many people in it. With more and more non americans coming here, taking our jobs, which in turn pisses of real americans, and creates problems upon problems. I've been to canada, great place to visit. Canadians generally dont have passion, and think they know everything. Its pretrty common practice that people stretch the rules as much as possible, eventually candains will start stretching there rules to far and law after law will come. Face it canada, your pissed becuase the only thing your country ever stood for (Hockey) they suck at now a days, and frankly doesnt look to improve anytime soon. Oh thats right, you cant afford real hockey players eh?. Funny how when no one has any money things work out, but once someone has more than ther other guy it becomes a problem. We have vast numbers of people here that are either poor, rich, or middle class. I get the sense in canada this isnt as vast a problem.
I can get a food fight *lots* of other places
by
Ratatoskr
·
· Score: 0, Troll
This site is better served keeping away from hit-and-run politics. Lots of other places on the net to go and find this kind of sorry, shallow bullshit.
Context
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In the US, police have been using roadblocks to check for seat belt compliance and other violations long before terrorism was a problem. This was brought forth by the insurance lobby, not some ominous threat from terrorists.
If police roadblocks can be coaxed from our system from a mere lobbying group, it stretches the imagination of what 9/11 may have stirred within the government.
In the US, police have been using roadblocks to check for seat belt compliance
No right have been violated by that. You see, driving a car is not a right, but a mere privilege, and as such, it can be curtailed as much as the States deems necessary.
Re:Context
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In some states they roadblock for the sole purpose of aquiring fingerprints. There are plans to draw blood at roadblocks as well.
How much will you allow them to do under the name of adjudicating privilage before you start to wonder where freedom ends and privilage begins?
Don't you know we're all supposed to be pretending there's a "peace process" going on? Next thing you'll be saying that little Jimmy's kneecaps didn't just "fall off" like the nice politician said.
TWW
-- "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:canadian forces?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey! What's wrong with you? Is your underwear too tight!!!
The only people stabbing you in the back. Is you government.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0.00
Do you really believe this?
Really?
Maybe you should find better sources. I personally know/knew someone that killed himself while high on marijuana. And someone else who still has pins in his body from a car crash that happened almost twenty years ago and very nearly killed him because he had marijuana in his system. If he hadn't been thrown from the car (convertible), he would have been dead because his 4000+ pound car was turned into an accordian after he went off the highway at full speed and slammed head on into an overpass pillar.
Maybe you should ask NHTSA how many drunk drivers that are killed or who kill others also have marijuana in their systems?
Or how many have just marijuana, or a combination of marijuana and other drugs in their systems before they died or killed others in car wrecks?
Or the Justice Department of how many had marijuana in their systems prior to dying or killing others in shootouts/robberies/whatever.
Or how many spouses/partners killed their partners and/or themselves and had marijuana in their systems.
Or how many boaters/jet skiers die each year during accidents and marijuana being in their systems.
Or how many workers operating heavy/dangerous machinery die because they were high while working.
No deaths from marijuana in the US in 2002?
Time to stop smoking it yourself and face reality.
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
by
dakers27
·
· Score: 1
I'd like to see some statistics on what percentage of people who smoke pot die in accidents compared to people who dont, until you show some numbers your argument is just opinion. That being said there are some activities that aren't such a good idea when you are high, drunk, etc.... like DRIVING. So don't be so quick to blame the substance, maybe blame the person for being a dumbass. How many deaths each year can be attributed to a persons own fucking stupidity?
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
by
LHN
·
· Score: 1
Those stats can be found on the darwin awards website:)
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
by
TheWickedKingJeremy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
* Or the Justice Department of how many had marijuana in their systems prior to dying or killing others in shootouts/robberies/whatever.
* Or how many spouses/partners killed their partners and/or themselves and had marijuana in their system
* Or how many boaters/jet skiers die each year during accidents and marijuana being in their systems
I'll venture a guess... "not many."
I am sorry to hear about your friend, but its silly to think they commited suicide because of marijuana. Most people who commit suicide do so for valid reasons (or, what they perceive to be valid reasons). Was he/she depressed? The "marijuana" could just have easily been "alocohol" or "Xanax" or nothing at all. I assure you, this person was thinking about suicide before lighting up that joint. Also, people have commited suicide from ODing on myriad perfectly legal substances. What's the solution - banning everything that can be an aid to suicide? Its, unfortunately, all very arbitrary - and easy to blame something like marijuana for the suicide when the real reasons behind it are much more scary and personal.
As for your other friend - again, I am sorry to hear about what happaned... Driving under the influence of drugs (legal and illegal alike) is ill-advised. Also, you are also not supposed to drive shortly after giving blood. *shrugs*
--
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"but its silly to think they commited suicide because of marijuana. Most people who commit suicide do so for valid reasons"
Posted A/C for obvious reasons...
I think you'd find (based on what I know of my mental state) that it's a matter of not wanting to die in as bad a mood as you have to be to consider removing yourself from the gene pool. Or, more generally, if you can't live happy, at least die that way.
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Im sorry, but if you are stupid enough to go swimming, driving, boating, doing anything that you need clear judgement...then dont drink, dont smoke a joint...dont do anything that impares your memory. Just cuz some dip shit smokes a "ton" of pot and drives into a tree does not mean that everyone will do that...such as everyone who drinks wont drive. But some do. I think we all really need to look at why the illegal drugs are illegal, and why others are not.
If you want to drink, fine. I started drinking...got into it pretty hardcore. then I tried smoking pot. I stoped drinking cuz I felt like crap too often, and I learned that alchol is a poison. in any amount it is doing damage.
Smoking anything is bad. You can greatly reduce the "nasty" issuses from pot by smoking high grade stuff, smoking hash (made from cannabis THC glads) that is up to 60% THC. And trust me, I know lots of hard core smokers that would be baked for a week off 1g of hash.
Then the basterds go and rent video games and eat junk food....I hate them for stimulating the economy like that!! grrrr
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
by
dakers27
·
· Score: 1
Good one, i should have put that in my original post:)
Allied forces that invaded Normandy on D-Day infact consisted of Brits, Americans, Australians, AND Canadians
And yes, the US did remain isolated not wanting to help stop Hitler from taking over the world until the war was finally brought to them by Germany's ally, Japan.
The propaganda machines are up and running to prepare for another liberation. Tomorrows headlines: Canadian bacon is people!
Re:propaganda
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's not "Canadian" bacon, it's Freedom Bacon (tm). And then you'll see people dumping loads of meat in the streets.
How hard is it to get Canadian citizenship?
You forgot the Land Mines treaty
by
NicotineAtNight
·
· Score: 1
Most Americans have never even heard of it.
Re:Pot legalization
by
Galvatron
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Two points: First, the Supreme Court found that the states could not decide for themselves to legalize pot for medical purposes. Federal anti-drug laws override state laws, so pot is illegal for all uses everywhere in America.
Second, it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism, really, except that it happened to be mentioned in the same article. I would imagine whoever was writing the State Department report probably just let himself wander a bit when discussing impediments to US-Canadian law enforcement cooperation.
-- "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
If Bush actually said that, Bush is a moron.
Especially considering that the word entrepreneur is a freakin' french word.
Actually, on further review, Bush may just be a moron regardless.
You don't understand either
by
Hao+Wu
·
· Score: 1
What will happen when terrorists acquire a nuclear weapon.
Nor do you care, because you either want a socialist revolution, or you're naive to think they could never succeed in nuking an American city.
Re:You don't understand either
by
elmegil
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Are you really so naive as to believe that the fascism that Ashcroft and Bush are bringing us would prevent a terrorist from nuking an American city?
-- 7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:You don't understand either
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, lets all get scared about a minute possibility that someone might aquire a single nuclear weapon and use it against someone else. I mean yeah, thats worth giving up every single fucking liberty you have. Your quality of life will be fucking worthless, but damnit, the terrorists won't have won!
Well, except for the fact that the terrorists will have caused terror and imobilised its enemy, achieving their aim. Apart from that, they won't have won.
There is a reason it is called terrorism you fucking idiot. I know the education system in the U.S is having a few problems, but I sort of figured basic reading skills were still being taught.
Re:You don't understand either
by
Max+von+H.
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Would the nuking of say, Washington DC, be such a bad thing? If you ask around (I mean OUTSIDE the USA), you'll probably find a majority of people thinking it would, actually, be a positive thing.
You see, you americans have played the world game so stupidly recently with your imperialist manners you've managed to make about 5.5 Billion ennemies, not even counting the ones from within your country. The USA seem to enjoy being the thug and pimp of the planet, and they're going to pay a very, very high price for pissing on everybody else's doorstep.
When your people will be begging for food and jobs (I mean, more than you actually got) after the collapse of your debt-ridden economy, you won't find many friends around to help you, not anymore. And we'll all be looking down at you, as you lie in the graves you're digging now.
so long, yankees. Hope you guys get your act together soon, for it may all blow up in your face sooner than you can expect.
Cheers, max
-- --
It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
Re:You don't understand either
by
Jeppe+Salvesen
·
· Score: 1
If they acquire a nuclear weapon, they will blackmail. Nuking America is not going to achieve their goals.
And if they choose to use it, you can bet it will not be delivered by conventional means.
--
Stop the brainwash
Re:You don't understand either
by
Pig+Hogger
·
· Score: 1
If they acquire a nuclear weapon, they will blackmail. Nuking America is not going to achieve their goals.
And if they choose to use it, you can bet it will not be delivered by conventional means.
Re:You don't understand either
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Our quality of life will be worthless if we don't get rid of the minimum wage, social security, welfare, and numerous other wealth destroying social programs.
That's the only freedoms I have lost. But I never had them in the first place because those programs have been around much longer than I have been alive.
The left wants my guns, the right wants me to pray to their God. The left wants to destroy wealth through labor unions, the right wants to destroy wealth through corporate lobbyists.
Fuck 'em all. Vote libertarian.
Re:You don't understand either
by
schon
·
· Score: 1
Watch this movie
For the love of Jebus, no..
Read the book.
Even though Forsythe co-wrote the screenplay, the movie sucked.
Re:You don't understand either
by
HiThere
·
· Score: 1
What goals would it achieve? The people making the decisions are usually not there, or are well protected. And if you did get them, their replacements are nearly as bad, or even worse.
Some problems have a structural origin. Sometimes the only real solution is to refactor the code. Too much centralized control is not solved by switching the place of centralization.
One of the major advantages of the free entreprise system is that before monopolies appear, it doesn't *have* a centralized control system. So what needs to be done is to debug that system so that monopolies are broken up as they appear. And then include government into the system.
Free Enterprise almost works. There are just a few bug that need fixing. But currently they cause the system to crash. And many of them involve the interface with the government. So that needs to be replaced/redesigned. The current structure of taxes and regulations actively encourages the creation of monopolies. That needs to be totally redone.... Now as to how to implement the changes...
Seeing the problems is easier than seeing the solutions.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:You don't understand either
by
hesiod
·
· Score: 1
> When your people will be begging for food and jobs (I mean, more than you actually got) after the collapse of your debt-ridden economy, you won't find many friends around to help you, not anymore.
Guess what: I'll be long dead by then and I don't care. Roman Empire, British Empire, Persian Empire... Almost all of their conquest was by killing, and they had to keep going to keep growing. The U.S. finished killing people to expand its physical territory long ago, but some claim that we're horrible barbarians or something. In all reality, I think the U.S. would be better suited trying to take over all of N. America, but we aren't the terrifying conquerers that covered Europe a few times. I wonder if that's because we aren't completely evil. Nah, that couldn't be it...
Re:You don't understand either
by
mpe
·
· Score: 1
Would the nuking of say, Washington DC, be such a bad thing?
Yes since it would kill a lot of innocent people and probably not kill that many of the US government. Those of the US government left, especially the current bunch, might well start tossing nukes at any country they didn't happen to like at the time.
If you ask around (I mean OUTSIDE the USA), you'll probably find a majority of people thinking it would, actually, be a positive thing.
Many of those who dislike the US government and it's policies, including Arabs, don't have much malice towards the US people...
Re:You don't understand either
by
cybercuzco
·
· Score: 1
No one can use a nuclear bomb to blackmail america. Heres why: If they do, we will hunt them out until they are all dead. If they arent bluffing and use the bomb, we will hunt them until they are all dead. Either way we dont give into their demands. The only reason they would use such a device would be if they have no demands, other than the deaths of as many americans as possible. Think of the movie independance day, where the president asks what they aliens want, and the alien says "for you to die". Thats the mindset of people who would use a nuclear weapon.
--
Re:You don't understand either
by
Max+von+H.
·
· Score: 1
Many of those who dislike the US government and it's policies, including Arabs, don't have much malice towards the US people...
Yes, I'm fully aware of that and I don't personnaly hold a grudge against every single citizen of the USA, nor do most inhabitants of this planet, hopefully. But does the majority of US-Americans make the distinction between, say, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people and Bin Laden? Not from what I've heard and read in recent times, including (unfortunately) from rather "important" persons I happen to know. Heck, most believe Saddam and Bin Laden are/were the Laurel & Hardy of the Middle East, even though these two were sworn ennemies (OBL stated Saddam was an 'infidel', oppressor of the Chiites). When you see a US soldier screaming to a wounded Iraqi woman to "fuck off with the rest of them who attacked his country", or when Rumsfeld claims he's at the head of the "greatest coalition in the history of mankind" (and comparing the effort with those of the crusades, ahem), or when the US troops get orders to secure an oil minister and oil fields rather than keeping museums from being looted, there's good reasons to believe the USA has gone over the top when it comes to ignorance, propaganda and brutality. Please give me, in those circumstances, any reason to respect the USA? Between a fascist government and an ignorant, brutal and gullible population, what's so good to be proud about? Who wants his/her country to become "that"? When US-Americans bullshit the rest of the world brandishing their so-called freedom, even though they've long forgotten about it, solely for the profit of a very few, don't you detect a slight descrepancy in the 'plan'? I do.
What I meant was more like a lot of people wouldn't mind seeing the US-Americans having their asses kicked properly, having their country suffer the same burden they have imposed upon so many defenseless civilians over the past 40 years, and see their way of life being replaced with an alienated, mercantile one that has nothing to bring them apart from cholesterol.
Remember, you can't eat money.
Cheers, max
-- --
It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
Re:You don't understand either
by
mpe
·
· Score: 1
Heck, most believe Saddam and Bin Laden are/were the Laurel & Hardy of the Middle East, even though these two were sworn ennemies (OBL stated Saddam was an 'infidel', oppressor of the Chiites).
UBL would like nothing better than to see the back of SH. especially were the result to be Iraq to wind up under the rule of something like his brand of Islam.
When you see a US soldier screaming to a wounded Iraqi woman to "fuck off with the rest of them who attacked his country"
On the other hand you have Iraqi doctors and nurses giving a wounded American soldier the best medical treatment they can.
or when Rumsfeld claims he's at the head of the "greatest coalition in the history of mankind" (and comparing the effort with those of the crusades, ahem)
To the average Arab "Crusade" means something along the lines of "bunch of European thugs come to kill people and loot".
Dear Canadian, freedom loving fellows, if your are invaded, please feel free to come to "old Europe". There is still plenty of space and many kinds of freedoms to choose from - french, german, etc. Someone from good old Europe,
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
dick+johnson
·
· Score: 1
Yes. And ironically enough, all those various freedoms were paid for with the lives of AMERICAN soldiers.
-dj
-- - dj
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
WegianWarrior
·
· Score: 1
...and ironicly enought, you are plain wrong. The US gave good aid in liberating europe from the nazies, that is right. The best aid they offered was the lend-lease act and keeping the japs busy so commonwealth troops could be employed in Europe and N.Africa. US troops also played an important part in speeding up the figthing in Italy and France, probaly reducing the war in western europe with as much as a year.
However, Adolf lost his war in Soviet Russia... and the US wouldn't have gotten involved directly in Europe at all if Nazi germany hadn't declared war on the US just after Pearl Harbor.
The freedom of Europe was payed for with the life of allied soldiers; soviets, british, canadians, frence, norwegians, poles, US-ians*, dutch, maltese, kiwis, australians and so on.
*) Why is that people from the USA insist on calling themself 'americans'? There is a lot more to the americas than just the US.
--
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And Canadian lives as well. We were there as well, and every one of us who fought, did so because we wanted to. We had a draft, but only those who wanted to actually fought. Those who didn't were allowed non-combat roles (and labled "zombies" by those who fought). We had our own beach durring the Normandy invasion, and we took more ground the first day than either the Yanks or the Brits.
Thank-You for the invitation. Hopefully I will not need to take you up on it.
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
dick+johnson
·
· Score: 1
I believe you ought to go visit some of the U.S. cemeteries in France. Those soldiers didn't die of old age.
My uncle fought at Normandy. His best friend was obliterated by a German howitzer shell that left nothing of him but his boots on the beaches of france.
Yes. The U.S. helped our former European allies via lend lease. But without the millions of U.S. troops sent to England to create the Western Front, the Russians would have lost the war. England alone wasn't capable of doing anything but defending itself.
Place the millions of German troops who fought in the West on the eastern front and suddenly, the Nazis are right back at the doors of Moscow.
I never would have believed I could write this before the events of the last two years. But I sincerely believe it's time to end NATO. Our so-called allies have proven they are only fair-weather friends.
The europeans are like the spoiled children of rich people. They've never had to work for anything, so they take everything for granted. Everything seems rosy to them now. But perhaps if the United States would stop subsidizing their defense and make them pay their own way, they'd have more appreciation for the price of freedom.
But please, when the Russian experiment in democracy fails, please don't come crying to the United States for help.
-dj
why is it that europeans need to post inane questions like
"Why is that people from the USA insist on calling themself 'americans'? There is a lot more to the americas than just the US."
-- - dj
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
tealover
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Germany only had to have democracy and freedom beaten into it. They are surely a great paragon of freedom.
Hahaha.
-- --
You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
dick+johnson
·
· Score: 1
One last thing, Soviet soldiers had nothing to do with the "Freedom" of anything.
With the Russians, Europe would have traded one lunatic (Hitler) for another (Stalin)
-dj
>>>The freedom of Europe was payed for with the life of allied soldiers; soviets, british, canadians, frence, norwegians, poles, US-ians*, dutch, maltese, kiwis, australians and so on.
What is the relevance of the fact that 60 years ago Germany was a Nazi state with the current attitude of the US administation? May be the linkls between the JWB family and Nazi germany?
+ 30 years ago the US had segregationist laws, and today is one of the very few democracies with death penalty.
And we value and honor that. Otherwise, why would the french president invite american soldiers to parade on the 14th of july on the champs elysees ? why is the president of germany honoring on the 3rd of october the american nation for the help of reuniting germany. Historically, Europe had always problems when a republican president was in place. When a democrat is in the white house, the relations are much warmer... Let the ice age pass, and everything will be become better. And don't forget, your ancestor came from Europe. Even if mr Rumsfeld denies this.
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
tealover
·
· Score: 1
Germans have always been and will always be a barbaric people. The creation of the EU is France's way to try and contain them for as long as possible.
-- --
You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Another point to mention is that the US isn't the world's policeman. If Germany wants to invade the rest of Europe, it really and truly isn't our problem, even though we're likely to help out anyway: partially because it's the right thing to do, and partially because a misguided power like Nazi Europe would've been is a serious threat to the USA, even with an ocean seperating us. We (the USA) are simply going to catch shit for anything we do, and it doesn't help for roving packs of liberals to whine to the world because they're upset at us not having a Democratic president. It makes me feel better to think about how those countries that talk bad about us like our money too much to stop dealing with us. They also like our military might, entertainment (to a point), innovation, and our schools (some of them). Our very existance keeps the Islamic world from getting together and saying, "we want country X, everyone not a Muslim had better be out within a month," and that's one more reason many countries hate us. I don't care. I like living here, and I doubt some of those countries could allow me to turn my intellect into the opulance I can surround myself with here (I'll never smoke pot, regardless of whether or not it gets legalized here...it makes a person stupid).
Despite this, I still see a role for NATO and even the UN. We can do a lot of good working with and through these organizations by using our money. People who won't take help from the USA will take it from the UN, and NATO gives us a military collaboration with other countries that benefits us as far as training (among other things) goes; however, it's clear that when the next trouble for the USA rolls around, we won't be able to depend on these organizations for help. The countries that make them up can still help us, but the organizations themselves have taken on their own lives, and without a military or land, they never benefit from a war. In this respect, what benefits us might not benefit them. They still have a purpose, but they're not going to aid the USA unless it aids them, too.
That said, I'm growing tired of hearing the anti-USA rhetoric being tossed around. We do too much good in the world to be portrayed as some try to portray us, and them expecting us to lay down and take what's dished out to us is ludicrous.
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
Larsing
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Historical fact #1:
Before the USA, Britain and France, after a war that can only be described as "accidental", imposed a horrendously humiliating peace accord on Germany, which paved the way for Nazism, Germany was actually a highly flourishing democracy.
Historical fact #2:
The American war of independence was fought with French money, French wepons and, to a not insigifficant degree, French troops, in order to achieve French ideals.
Once again, Welcome to old Europe!
-- Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
Larsing
·
· Score: 0
With the Russians, Europe would have traded one lunatic (Hitler) for another (Stalin)
We did! Atleast some of us... though, luckily, not my own countrymen.
Still, the truth remains: The USSR defeted Hitler, not the USA.
-- Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
tealover
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Fact #1
Germany has always been a savage nation. No one is disillusioned about this.
Fact #2
The U.S. used France during the revolutionary war and we continue to pimp slap them. We have no desire to emulate the French ideals that took place in Algeria.
God bless those hundreds of thousands of innocent Algerians who were killed and tortured.
-- --
You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
Pig+Hogger
·
· Score: 1
You're an idiot. You didn't seem to have learned a single thing from history. What brings you to the conclusion that Germany 'has always been a savage nation'?
Did you know, for instance, that:
a) the german 'nation' has been founded in 1871. Prior to that date, all that existed were about 50 small independent states.
b) in its first 30 years of existence, the german nation build a diplomatic network of treaties with all surrounding neighbors that made it impossible for anyone to attack germany or one of its allys (which were, basically, everybody except france).
c) didn't participate in the imperialistic colonialism of the late 19th century (that is, until Bismarck resigned somewhere in 1890).
Germany was *not* a democracy before the WW1, sadly. The democratic revolution of 1848/49 had been fought down by the aristocratic class, 'democracy' which deserved the name took only place in a few independent cities, like Hamburg and such.
The democracy of Weimar, after WW1, was, by design, the most free society that existed in those days. But people weren't used to it, and didn't knew how to use the system. It ended in a populistic desaster which led to Hitler.
Cool, I'm barbaric. Nobody ever told me that. I'm flattered.
Now, would you be so kind to shut up and go away? Thank you.
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
dick+johnson
·
· Score: 1
Yes. My ancestors came from Europe. But they left to find the liberty and freedom that they weren't allowed to have in Europe.
They left their families, their property, everything to make a new life in America. This during a time when it took three months for the mail to make the trip back to their homes.
But they left because of the tyranny and small-mindedness of those they left behind. It's amusing that the descendants of those who created and allowed the tyranny to exist now lecture me on freedom and liberty.
This a valid argument... But I assure you that the situation improved a lot since those times.
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
nutshell42
·
· Score: 1
Yes. The U.S. helped our former European allies via lend lease. But without the millions of U.S. troops sent to England to create the Western Front, the Russians would have lost the war. England alone wasn't capable of doing anything but defending itself.
Place the millions of German troops who fought in the West on the eastern front and suddenly, the Nazis are right back at the doors of Moscow.
The German army was retreating since early 1943 as far as I know
On D-Day the Red Army had already reached the Polish border
-- Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
nutshell42
·
· Score: 1
It's amusing that the descendants of those who created and allowed the tyranny to exist now lecture me on freedom and liberty.
Well as I see it your ancestors left Europe to flee the tyranny. Not only didn't they fight against it and therefore allow the tyranny to continue, no the parents of your ancestors also stayed there and were probably indistinguishable from the rest of the people. It's amusing that the descendants of those whose ancestors created and allowed the tyranny to exist now lecture me on freedom and liberty. It's even more amusing that Americans always have to refer to events all more than half a century ago to find something they can be proud of.
(Not to mention that most emigration was for economic reasons. If you're ancestors weren't some of the original puritans chances are that they left a overcrowded Europe in the search of the land of milk and honey and not the land of the free)
-- Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
dick+johnson
·
· Score: 1
Well, I tend to doubt your interpretation of MY family history.
I am descended from John MacBean who was born in 1634 in Strathdearn, Inverness-Shire, Scotland.
He was a Scottsman and tried fighting for his liberty in 1652 at the Battle of Worcestor. His side lost. He was captured, deported to America as a prisoner. (Arriving in Boston on Feb. 24, 1652 on the ship, The Sarah and John)
He was sold there by the British authorities as an indentured servant. It was in America though that he won his freedom.
-dj
There are thousands of Americans alive today who descend from John MacBean. (one of them was Alan Bean, who landed on the Moon in 1969 with Apollo 12)
-- - dj
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
nutshell42
·
· Score: 1
1652 to 2003, that are 350 years (approx) which means about 14 generations with each generation the number of your ancestors doubles so we're talking about 2^13=8192 ancestors of yours in that time.
One of them was a hero, how many were not? =)
Other thing, did he have children in Europe? (Even if he didn't a great number of his fellow freedom fighters probably had) There are thousands of Europeans alive today who descend from them (I'm pretty sure you could find someone important among them)
-- Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:Welcome to "old Europe"
by
dick+johnson
·
· Score: 1
Sorry for the delay in responding.
All his fellow fighters who were captured in that battle were deported to America. He was in his early 20s, unmarried with no children. In fact, his brother was also captured and deported.
As for your other point, I could go on and on about my own family history. Huguenots, Anabaptists, and others. It could be argued that perhaps they should have stayed and fought
But for what gain, their own deaths? What chance did they have when the majority of the population in their home countries at least tacitly agreed with the bigoted spirit of the times.
No. Instead, they came to America seeking the liberties that were denied them in Europe.
I think the only exception that I can think of in my family would be my great, great grandfather a German who emmigrated from Posen (now Poznan province in Poland) in the 1860s. He clearly came here looking for better economic opportunities.
But as for the rest of my family, most of whom arrived here in the early to mid 1600s, they were simply seeking freedom.
-dj
>>>Other thing, did he have children in Europe? (Even if he didn't a great number of his fellow freedom fighters probably had) There are thousands of Europeans alive today who descend from them (I'm pretty sure you could find someone important among them)
so I can hop across the border, beat the crap out of three Canuks and not have to worry about going to jail.
-- "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France
- speaking truth to power
Re:Cool
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Since none of us carry guns or knives, we've over compensated with learning how to become brawlers. If you've ever noticed that most of our (canuck) bouncers are typically regularily sized guys at the door. That's because they're not hired to push you out the door, they are mostly strikers, trained make sure with a couple well placed shots to the head you're not coming back that night to cause trouble. And if you hit the ground, you can guarentee that you're going to get gunned with the boots. (it's cold, good steel toes are necessary if you want to keep your toes.) When you do get hit, don't bother with the cops. You'll only end up in the drunk tank from disturbing the peace, best to find another pub or if you got throttled really bad, feel free to check out any one of our free hospitals to get sewn up.
The only problem is that our high level of military ^H^H^H^Hhockey training would probably prevent you from getting to far. Ever get bodychecked by Grandma? Come to Canada!
First, i live in Canada and i don't know a law like this one. Second, imho, liberty is not inversly proportionnal to the number of laws... but to the way the are enforced.
-- "Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche
Are you talking about the hate crimes legislation?
IE. I cannot go and beat up a black or a native american just because they are black or native americans.
No, I am talking about hate SPEECH legislation. American has hate crimes legislation too, though I think it is mostly nonsense. If someone beats me up because I am tall and beats you up because you're Chinese... sorry, I don't feel like I am any better off than you are. I know it is different because "hate crimes" *may* have effects beyond the actual act, but I still dislike the idea of penalizing people for their thoughts. But that is not what I am talking about.
What I am talking about is that it is illegal for me in Canada, and many European nations, to say I hate you because you are a part of some protected group group. Hate Speech. This is surely a freedom I do not wish to exercise, but to take away such a fundamental component of free expression -- the expression of unpopular ideas -- is chilling.
I am no fan of the ACLU, but I am proud that they recognize that such liberties are some of the most important to protect, because someone else's banned abhorrent view today could be your banned abhorrent view tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow it will be illegal to speak out against government officials, or corporate executives, or spammers.
I am not saying the US is admirable in comparison to Canada, overall. I think it is mostly a wash (except for, perhaps, when you throw the DMCA into the mix... ugh). I'm just saying that Canada has its own problems with liberty (I mentioned hate speech, but there are many others, including in the health care business...), and I frankly couldn't care less about a Canadian's idea to lecture American on relative liberties. Attacking a specific policy is fine, but to make it a "the US is authoritarian, has less liberty, blah blah blah" is nonsensical tripe.
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private.
This makes e.g. display of the swastika, in public, illegal. The only thing to me more offensive than the ideas behing the swastika is the idea that the government should prohibit them from being publicly expressed.
It also has a chilling impact on comedians and serious public discourse. The Ayn Rand Institute had its information blocked by Canadian officials from shipment to the U. of Toronto.
The pamphlets were eventually released. But the issue is not whether a few pro-Israel writers are allowed, for the moment, to publish our ideas in Canada. The issue is that the Ayn Rand Institute had to seek the permission of Canadian customs to do so. Speech is not free if it is allowed only by permission of the state.
I can't add much more to that.
Although I will add: I realize the US has its own serious problems with liberty. I am much less concerned with what is happening now in wartime than I am with copyright and the DMCA (corporate speech vs. public speech). I am just saying that Canada has serious problems with liberty, too, and something about stones in glass houses.
I wouldn't say there's serious problems with liberty in Canada. Unlike the US there is no constitutional mistrust of the government (i.e. the right to bare arms). The ability to limit speech by the government, given to it by the people. The people have the power to effect change in the government, as we have representation from both the left (NDP) and right (PC, The alliance is just short of a SIG). Given the US and Canadian systems to choose from, I'll gladly take the Canadian one, eh?
Re:Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ayn Rand was a stupid cow. She basically took the thought process, renamed and atheized it, and was acclaimed only because of the latter action.
"Hey, look at me, I'm Ayn Rand. I think about stuff, but because I'm an athiest, I do it better than anyone has ever done it before."
I wouldn't say there's serious problems with liberty in Canada.
That's nice, but I just demonstrated there are such problems.
Unlike the US there is no constitutional mistrust of the government (i.e. the right to bare arms).
Short sleeves uber alles!
The ability to limit speech by the government, given to it by the people.
This is the same with every democracy. Every government has the ability to limit speech, and does so. It is the ways in which it is limited which are at issue.
The people have the power to effect change in the government, as we have representation from both the left (NDP) and right (PC, The alliance is just short of a SIG).
So because the people exercised their power to put the Republicans in power, the people therefore have... no power? Riiiiiiight.
Ayn Rand was a stupid cow. She basically took the thought process, renamed and atheized it, and was acclaimed only because of the latter action.
I don't disagree with the sentiment.:-) But the action the Canadian government took is chilling. The power the Canadian government asserts to censor speech it finds distasteful is a serious breach of the human right to expression.
Re:Canada
by
JohnnyCannuk
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private.
You appear to have answered you own question. You can say you hate anyone for any reason...this law does not stop that and, as indicated above, actually says it does not apply in that situation.
But you can't publish it. Publish means flyers, leaflets, newspapers (other than letters to the editor), videos etc (and possibly web sites, but this has never been tested...and likely never will since most ISP have their own rules about this ans would teminate your service).
This law is a direct result of the various trials in Toronto of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, who was formerly procecuted under an old law for "knowingly spreading false news". The law is not meant to stiffle free expresion of opinions, but to prevent propoganda that incits violence and hatred against identifiable groups and minorities (or even women, who in Canada are a minority of 52% of the populace). You should have provided a link to the purposes of the act. BTW, even if this was challenged, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would prevail.
BTW, the law you've quoted is the Human Rights Code of the Province of British Columbia from 1996. It does not apply to all of Canada nor is it a criminal law.It applies only in the province of BC. This law is a private law sanction requiring an individual or group to file a complaint with the provincial human rights commission for investigation within 1 year of the incident. Therefore there is no prior restraint of an individuals actions. This act also has nothing to do with or no affect on the University of Toronto, which is a different province!
Canada Customs has been quite "overzealous" in it's holding up of shipments of various forms of "porn" (gay literature, occasionally some pro-choice literature, and, of course, the kooks from the aynrand institute), but the information has almost always get through (as in the case you quoted).
In other words, no-one's liberty was taken away without due process of law...perhaps we could ask some of the prisoners at Gitmo or Jose Padilla and his ilk about due process, habeous corpus and fair trails, if we or their lawyers were allowed to meet with them.
As for displaying swastikas publicly, you've clearly never been to Toronto when the Heritage Front or when the Church of the Creator/George Burti and those pin heads are marching.
Canada may not be perfect, but it does a hell of a lot more for individual and group liberties and rights than is the current norm in the US. And next time, please at least get you facts straight before spreading your right-wing, libertarian, Ayn Rand-ish FUD.:)
-- Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
You can say you hate anyone for any reason...this law does not stop that and, as indicated above, actually says it does not apply in that situation.
As stated, the statement above is false. You can only do it if it is private, not if it is public. The law very clearly says a public "statement" is illegal.
The law is not meant to stiffle free expresion of opinions, but to prevent propoganda that incits violence and hatred against identifiable groups and minorities
I know what the law is for. That doesn't make it right. I didn't link to it because I consider its purpose both obvious and irrelevant to my complaint.
Therefore there is no prior restraint of an individuals actions.
Technically true, but I never said there was prior restraint, and I never used the word censorship. Allow me to use the word now, however, to note the fact that such laws cause people to be censored in effect, because of the fear of prosection, even without prior restraint.
This act also has nothing to do with or no affect on the University of Toronto, which is a different province!
Right, they have different laws to accomplish similar censorship.
Canada may not be perfect, but it does a hell of a lot more for individual and group liberties and rights than is the current norm in the US.
In your misinformed opinion.
And next time, please at least get you facts straight
Interesting thing to say, since you've not noted one thing I said that was incorrect.:-)
It also has a chilling impact on comedians and serious public discourse. The Ayn Rand Institute had its information blocked by Canadian officials from shipment to the U. of Toronto.
And rightfully so. Ayn Rand is nothing but a shill for those monied barbarians who want to gut the state of all power so they can rape and plunder the people to their exclusive benefit.
Perhaps that kind of "philosophy" worked well then were less than 1 billion humans on the planet, but right now, when we are close to 6 billion with only perhaps 10% eating properly every day, it is time to curb the capacity of a little rapacious minority to accummulate wealth at the expense of majority.
Please enumerate specific incidents when this provincial Human Rights Code, the Human Rights code of any other province or territory (apart form Bill 101, we know about that) or the sections in the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with Hate Crimes have:
1) Resulted in someone being sent to jail. 2) Resulted in someone loosing their property. 3) Resulted in someone self-censoring hateful thoughts. (yeah I know this is tougher to show but I'm making a point) 4) Been applied in the past 2 years.
I note that you present to our American cousins a law that they have no way of knowing about, that represents only one part of Canada, and you represent it as the law of the entire nation. You imply in your pleadings that the police are running around arresting people for saying "I hate (your favourite minority here)" like some kind of Stasi, which is simply NOT TRUE. Back on the farm, we call this type of intellectual dishonesty FUD.
I am willing to bet that the "chilling effect" you talk about doesn't happen since most ordinary Canadians don't know what is in their provincial human rights codes, so they express their opinions as always. So which has a greater "effect" on personal liberty, some Provincial Human Rights legislation that few Canadians know about and a rarely used section of the Criminal Code, or the "effect" of criminal sanctions that can result in arrest and detention without charge or trial, finger-printing and registration of any Arab-looking men entering the US (including the Canadian-born legislative assistant to the Minister of Immigration!) or the unilateral declaration by a leader that a citizen is an "enemy combatant" and therefore deprived of all liberty without due process of law (think Padilla)?
Thus I will stand by my opinion, informed by my own study and experience in Canada and the experience of my relatives currently living in the US. And as a former Customs Officer with CCRA, I can tell you with absolute certainty that Customs if far more worried about getting tariffs and taxes on traded goods and preventing illegal handguns and drugs from entering Canada (mostly from the US, I might add) than from wasting time censoring your poor, deluded pamphlets about Ayn Rand....
-- Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
So because the people exercised their power to put the Republicans in power, the people therefore have... no power? Riiiiiiight.
excerised their power? If you mean it was done so by checking A instead of B, then yes. But is there *that* much of a difference of opnion between democrats and republicans?
A man was fined in 2001, and the ruling was upheld this year, in Saskatchewan for saying he didn't like gays in a newspaper ad, by posting some Bible verses.
I note that you present to our American cousins a law that they have no way of knowing about, that represents only one part of Canada, and you represent it as the law of the entire nation.
I never intended to do so, and I conceded readily that it is only the law of one province.
You imply in your pleadings that the police are running around arresting people for saying "I hate (your favourite minority here)" like some kind of Stasi, which is simply NOT TRUE.
I implied no such thing.
Back on the farm, we call this type of intellectual dishonesty FUD.
No worse than your insistence that I implied what I never did.
And to speak of intellectural dishonesty, one of your main arguments is that the law is rarely applied, which is also the case with the US laws you are complaining about. How many citizens have been named enemy combatants? That's what I thought.
And perhaps more importantly, the point is not what the President says, but what the government can get away with, and the courts have not allowed the administration to get away with what it has wanted to in regard to Padilla (such as restricting his access to his attorneys). I've always disagreed with the treatment of Padilla in this regard by the administration, but I've never really cared, because I am confident the courts will do what is right, as they usually do in such cases. And so far, they've not disappointed me in Padilla's case, unlike the Saskatchewan court that upheld the fines for expression of free speech.
And rightfully so. Ayn Rand is nothing but a shill for those monied barbarians who want to gut the state of all power so they can rape and plunder the people to their exclusive benefit.
Perhaps that kind of "philosophy" worked well then were less than 1 billion humans on the planet, but right now, when we are close to 6 billion with only perhaps 10% eating properly every day, it is time to curb the capacity of a little rapacious minority to accummulate wealth at the expense of majority.
And because the ideas are ones you dislike, they should be censored. This is exactly the kind of restriction of liberty I am bemoaning; thanks for helping out.
Is there a huge difference between Gore and Bush? Yes. Between Elizabeth Dole and Erskine Bowles? Alfonse D'Amato and Chuck Schumer? Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio? Yes. There are huge differences between many of these candidates. There are also significant similarities.
It depends on how you mean. The ancient symbol the swastika is based on has existed for thousands of years, though its prongs were pointing in the opposite direction in most (though not all) depictions, IIRC.
But that was a different symbol, even if it looked exactly the same. A symbol is more than a physical depiction, it is a symbol of something. The swasitka differs from its ancient cousin in that it refers to Nazism. In that sense, no, the swasitka did not predate Nazism.
Anyway, I am not sure what prompted your question, or whether my answer is instructive, but I hope that helps.
Re:Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
yeah it's really chilling to have laws against calling someone say.. a filthy nigger, or greedy rotten jew that should burn in an oven... man I hate living in a country with common sense. the guts to call racists racists and punish them from inciting hatred and violence. Chilling..
yeah it's really chilling to have laws against calling someone say.. a filthy nigger, or greedy rotten jew that should burn in an oven...
Yes, it really is. Because the next unpopular views they come for will be yours. A Canadian court has already sa
man I hate living in a country with common sense. the guts to call racists racists and punish them from inciting hatred and violence. Chilling..
Incitement to violence is a separate crime, and is already on the books in the U.S. As to hatred, the freedom to hate others is absolutely fundamental to the idea of free speech and free expression. That you and I find the hatred distasteful is the very reason why it is so important to protect it, because popular speech does not need protection.
Re:Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ya..in "your" opinion.*rolls eyes*
Re:Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and thus we come up against the fundamental difference between the way canadians and americans view government. we're an educated culture with socialized education, large percentage of the population is university educated. we read, we feel that our politians are picked for different reasons, they are sometimes competant sometimes they aren't but we place a higher trust in the ability for legislation to be mediated by common sense. we are significantly less policed here and find that our legal system and policing systems trend toward professional discretion when it comes to the use of power to incarcerate.
there's no feeling of urgent need to be rabid in the protection of obvious freedoms and there is a high degree of dedication to protecting the disenfranchised or any person or group that can be abused easily. I think america has proven itself a contentious, turbulent environment that's rife with people who are intolerant and require obvious laws that are hammered in stone so that fundamental freedoms aren't wiped out in religious or socio-economic zealotry. I've never found that here, at least not yet, and if so then perhaps the day when canada requires a less limber judicial system will come.
I think the fundamental difference here is that I am willing to state openly what I believe, while you are so confident in the reasonableness of your beliefs that you post anonymously.
Re:Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
oh dear, well maybe it's due to the fact that I lost my password and email account around the same time and I don't give a damn about karma whoring, I used to be Sal-Paradise. Does that that matter to you? is that part of the argument or just some sort of standard slashdot bullshit? never descend into some attempt to impugn someone unless there's some relevance to it. or you look stupid. why not go after my spelling, it's poor. or grammar;)
Seriously, though, my complaint about your being an anonymous coward was more relevant and interesting than your "Canada is great and America sucks" transparent propoganda. Like the part about how America needs rules to prevent people being wiped out by zealotry, when it is Canada that actually HAS rules prohibiting hate speech. That's a nice bit of revisionism there.
But hey, if it helps you sleep better at night to think America is repressive and Canada is enlightened, go for it.
And while I didn't slam your writing, I find it interesting that you say Canadians are relatively educated, in spite of your poor writing. Hey, I am not the one who said it, you did.
Re:canadian forces?
by
ArcticCelt
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
We were in Afghanistan and indirectly with our patrol and defense ships even if we did not officially supported US on the Iraq war we helped much more than any other country (except for Britain). But whatever....An occasional "thank you" instead of the usual stab in the back would be appreciated once in a while...
We were in Afghanistan and indirectly with our patrol and defense ships even if we did not officially supported US on the Iraq war we helped much more than any other country (except for Britain). But whatever. Reading this distorted vision make me just happier to live in Canada and please just change your Commander in chief as soon as possible he is an insult to all the great accomplishment of your great nation. (Yes, Canadians can recognize that other nations can also be great.)...An occasional "thank you" instead of the usual stab in the back would be appreciated once in a while...
An occasional act of courtesy and respect for other nations will be needed first and on many occasion it's us who are still waiting for the thanks. Like when we received all those planes on September 11 because you diverted them all to Canada and that hundreds off US citizens were living for a couple of days in Canadians family's who just decided to take them as guests. At the same time many Canadians where guiving blood and collecting founds for you. I remember that your Commander in chief did not even mentioned Canada in is thanks speech a couple of days latter but did mentioned numerous insignificant country's.
--
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
"If we had trully inteligent terrorists, the body count would be much higher!"
Exactly. Terroism is not about how many people you can wipe out. It is about big noises, large press coverage and fear. One wacko intelligent person could potentially be 100 times more dangerous than 100 meatheads.
"This is the devilish thing about foreign affairs: they are foreign and will not always conform to our whim." - James Reston, New York times, 1968-06-12.
Back in July 2002, a group of us crossed into Canada at the Blue Waters Bridge in Port Huron/Sarnia for a bachelor's party trip to Toronto. We were pulled over and thoroughly questioned and searched (vehicle, clothes, etc.) on the Canadian side after crossing. However, on the way back in to the US, we were waved on through.
And did these Canadian border nazi's have guns drawn and force you to lay face down on the road while handcuffed while they were searching you?
No?
Right.
From experience, if as a foreign devil you were to enter the US in a large group of youngsters like you did to Canada, you will likely end up with that treatment.
A dog smelled a trace of something in my backpack a few years back (no, I didn't have any of said substance)...after being kept in the company of Canadian Customs officers for ~2 hours, they sent me on my way with a warning that if I'd been detained by US Customs (I was on my way back from Miami), things would have been very different.
Actually, the Canadian border guards were quite pleasant; we had nothing to hide and cooperated fully. The guards were indeed armed, and we were told exactly where to stand at all times. However, the youngest in our group being 31, we were not the typical band of youngsters crossing the border for a night of "ballet". They did seem to be quite interested in my Filipino friend, since he flew from San Franciso to Detroit before driving across into Canada.
Right, and my point was that you would get no such plesantness from US Customs if they were even slightly suspicious of you:)
Walking across Rainbow(?) Bridge between Canada and the US at niagra falls.. at the US side, you enter a small room, the door locks beind you, you present your papers (Australian passport with valid US Visa waiver) to the armed Customs goon behind a bullproof glass counter, who, if you're lucky and answer his questions correctly (Name? Occupation? Reason for visit? duration?), will unlock the other door for you and let you out into the crap that is Buffalo-Niagara.
Going back into Canada.. wave Australian passport with stamp in it at Customs guy sitting behind a 1970s era desk, reading the paper and listening to the radio.. Get asked if you're bring drugs, alcohol or weapons back in.. nope? Have a good day..
If pot is legal in Canada, then we (the US; I'm American) are going to have to radically overhaul the way we monitor US-Canada border crossings. It would be an absolute nightmare (even more than it already is) for the US to have pot illegal and for Canada to have it legal.
s/pot/booze/
It's been tried before... didn't work that time either.
It's also awfully reminiscent of a cold-war partitioned Germany. Put up all the razorwire you like (and it would be a hell of a good contract to supply it), people will still want the freedom of the West^WNorth.
--
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
... If pot is legal in Canada, then we (the US; I'm American) are going to have to radically overhaul the way we monitor US-Canada border crossings. It would be an absolute nightmare (even more than it already is) for the US to have pot illegal and for Canada to have it legal.
Why do you believe it would be a nightmare? The Netherlands have a very liberal drug law for several years and there are no border controls at all between Germany and The Netherlands or Belgium and the Netherlands, both of which have much stricter drug laws. I wouldn't say that there are BO problems, but actually the problems have not increased much since The Netherlands liberated their drug policy.
What you tell us is IMHO very symptomatic for USians as of lately. Spread panic (or "FUD") in order to restrict civil rights.
Sebastian
Re:Works in Europe
by
BrainStop
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
To add some more words about the Dutch case...
The president of France once decided to call the Netherlands a drug country, accusing them of being the source of all drugs coming into France. He happily forgot to mention the harbour of Marseille from which the bulk of French drugs actually comes. But it's always easier to blame someone else instead of fixing one's own problems.
As for borders, don't tell me the US would actually start patrolling every single mile of the Canadian border. Just look at the Norwegian case. Because of the 2,500 kilometers of border they share with Sweden, they are working on joining the Schengen treaty (free circulation between member countries, one visa for all member countries,...) even though they are not part of the European Union.
Repression doesn't solve the cause of any problem, it just hits the symptoms. If young Americans all smoke joints, it's not because they can go buy it in Canada. Some people who live close to the border might take advantage of it, but for the majority of people, the trip to Canada is too long when you can buy your joint around the corner in Smalltown, USA.
Yes, there is some drug tourism to the Netherlands, but the "drug problem" in the Netherlands is actually much less of a problem than most other European countries.
It's like booze... if you are not allowed to drink by your parents, the day they are not there, you get totally wasted.
Cheerio,
BrainStop
Everyone here should read the report carefully
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Some US law-enforcement officers have expressed concern that Canadian privacy laws, as well as funding levels for law enforcement, inhibit a fuller and more timely exchange of information and response to requests for assistance. Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from Government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations. "
Notice that this paragraph is phrased differently from the other paragraphs. This paragraph merely notes the view of some law enforcement officials, and does not actually represent this view as the view of the state department.
Re:Everyone here should read the report carefully
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's just what government bureaucrats say when they are afraid to take personal responsibility!
You have no rights in Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
U.S. Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties
Bull. You have no rights in Canada. The "Charter of Rights" says that you can be deprived of your rights anytime if it is a reasonable deprivation. What does "reasonable" mean? What ever the Supreme Court feels is reasonable.
Canada...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
..is far away from Texas, right?
Evolution vs Development
by
Inexile2002
·
· Score: 1
In my understanding, evolution happens when a new generation has new traits that give it an advantage. There is an implication that the previous generation dies off. States CAN evolve and the modern western ones might. But evolving means siring new states that are better than what came before.
Developing in the terms of a state means that the existing state gets better (pick your criteria to define better, doesn't matter for the point I'm making). As soon as I realized the distinction, I also realized that most of the west (probably most of the world really, and I'm definitely including but not singling out the US here) is either going to 'evolve' or 'develop'. Odds are, an evolutionary process is going to be bloodier. I think the decisions that the public makes and allows to be made on its behalf are going to decide which advancement type is the better analogy.
Anyway, just thinking aloud.
Re:Evolution vs Development
by
Larsing
·
· Score: 0
...evolution happens when a new generation has new traits that give it an advantage. There is an implication that the previous generation dies off...
That's what revolution is all about! Something most European countries have experienced more than once, one way or the other...
-- Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
It wasn't a year ago that we were lamenting the Canadians for their govt being out of control with the crazy gun-control laws & such.
Wow! Times have changed!
Franks and Karimov
by
KjetilK
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Scroll to the bottom of Eurasia Overview and you'll see Tommy Franks cheerfully shaking hands with Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan. Here, you see why people really do not believe that the war in Iraq has anything to do with freedom.
In the early 1990-ties, Islam Karimov was a cheap Soviet-style dictator wannabee. But he worked hard, intensive surveillance of pro-democracy workers, rigged elections, and eventually, political assassinations, extensive use of torture, etc., gaining real, dictator power.
Most political dissidents have fled, notably, Mohammad Salih, who ran against Karimov in one of the elections. He was the subject of an assassination attempt, that fortunately failed.
Salih is a member of the Erk Democratic Party.
After 9/11, the US has given Karimov all the support he needs to grow from a dictator wannabee to a full Saddam/Hitler-style tyrant.
There is hardly any serious democratic opposition left in Uzbekistan. What there is, however, is a bunch of extreme muslim fundamentalists, so, should Karimov loose power, it is not going to be the democratic opposition taking over, it is going to be the religious extremists (which is a development we're unsurprisingly seeing in Iraq too).
When I see Tommy Franks shaking hands with of the worst tyrants on the planet, it makes me wanna puke... It is history repeating itself, it is a reminder that Saddam too was a dictator wannabee before Donald Rumsfeld went to shake hands with him in 1984.
If the US wants to have any credibility whatsoever with the war-for-freedom rhetoric, they should at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet.
-- Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
If the US wants to have any credibility whatsoever with the war-for-freedom rhetoric, they should at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet.
I really *sarcasm* like */sarcasm* the following comment: The Government of Uzbekistan continues to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure security, especially during significant national holidays, against terrorist acts.
See! They admit the place is a dictatorship; they just don't word it quite that way.
Thanks for making Monday even more depressing than it usually is.:(
Re:Franks and Karimov
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Duh. Be a dictator and support the US and get support. I think that's simple enough right now because of the situation of getting support for ousting dictators right now we have to be selective as to which poses the most threat to us. If the world wants the US to oust dictators they should give unconditional military support for troops and airspace. Instead of us having to go around states or pay people off. If the world is going to keep using that argument against us I think they should join the coalition instead of being silent. No major polititians have mentioned Uzbekistan and gottten major press about it.
Re:Franks and Karimov
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If the US wants to have any credibility whatsoever with the war-for-freedom rhetoric, they should at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet.
And support the best ones? Dictators are easier to control (one person who pathologically clings to power), then a democracy. You would have to manipulate public opinion (costly media campaign), forge election results (not that it didn't happen in 2000:( ), pay off the elected officials. It's just more efficient and rational, no matter how absurd is sounds, to support a dictator. I am a permanent resident of Canada (not citizen yet), and am proud that the goverment here doesn't have the same twisted logic applied to its foreign policy. And it would make me puke to see a policeman on every street corner to ensure my safety, I came from similiar country. I prefer having friendly people (regular folks) - sitizens or not - around me to ensure safety. You cannot have security based on fear.
Re:Of Marxist tree huggers & french fuck pm's.
by
WhiteWolf666
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You, sir, are an idiot.
Your right on arsenic. You must have read that somewhere.
Modern oil extraction techniques are 'generally' safe. That doesn't mean that every oil company out there uses state of the art technology.
Trust me, they don't---its a question of properly regulating their operations in certain areas to ensure that undue harm isn't caused. I have no idea whats going on in Canada---but I have a fair amount of knowledge of small/medium oil extraction operations.
The war on drugs is a success? Har Har Har-- you must be trolling.
You might like the idea of sentencing 'druggies'. This is stupid, for a number of reasons.
From your failure to demonstrate any sort of indepth knowledge, I'll surmise that your an alcoholic, and have already fried all your neurons.
Maybe you want to bring back prohibition, 'cause that worked out fine and dandy.
Not to mention Tobacco----There is research to suggest that nicotine is the most addictive substance know to man.
But Tobacco gets to be the second largest cash crop of Kentucky. (Obviously another success of the drug war. Black market prices have made Marijuana the LARGEST cash crop of Kentucky. Not only do we have a great deal of property damage/life lost in the OPEN WARFARE between rich growers and heavily armed DEA agents, it has become an artifically huge sector of certain areas of the U.S., driving a significant percentage of domestic transactions into an untaxable, and impossible to regulate industry.) This, of course, is strange, because the street price to potency ratio, in dollars adujsted for inflation, has declined over the years.
Not just Pot. Cocaine. Heroine. Ecstasty. LSD.
Drugs have gotten stronger, and cheaper.
Hey---maybe it is a success---After all, the way the government 'regulates' the controlled substances industry has produced both reductions in cost and increases in quality. It's the American Way, baby---Where there is demand, supply will improve, given free market conditions.
The only problem is we now send 'young punks' to jail. In droves. And pay for court costs, jail fees, and vast law enforcement budget. For commiting a victimless crime.
Beyond that---The Office of National Drug Policy says drug users fund terrorism. Well, guess what, bub-- Why does the black market use money laundering? Why are all those funds untracable and impossible to regulate? And why are there such large profits, anyways?
Prohibition.
[i]Wake up, dumbass.[/i]
If Drug Money goes to terrorism, its the Government's fault. If Drug Money funds innercity, its the Government's fault. If Drug Money kills your son, its the Government's fault.
The DEA has so much as admitted that usage rates continue to increase. Approximately 35% of Americans have tried Marijuana at least once. Extremely high levels of highschoolers consider themselves regular users (this has tapered off slightly since '98, but only because it would have had trouble getting ANY higher).
Hell, nearly every political candidate has had some degree of experimentation with various illegal drugs.
And their children (Bush's daughters, who got caught try to buy ecstasy, trying to buy pharmaceutical opiates, and possession of marijuana; Ashcroft's Nephew, who was GROWING pot, and dealing POUNDS---escaped the manditory minimums of Mississippi (When Ashcroft was state attorney general) because of political pressure)) are ALWALYS high.
Grow up----Not everything is as it should be in the Drug Way. For 60 years now our drug policy has been nonsensical, permitting two drugs, but banning other ones indiscriminately, without any amount of review or common sense. Crimes rates continue to rise, Usage rates continue to rise, billions of dollars are spent, and the industry GROWS.
Even if I thought it was a good idea, the failure of drug prohibition to acheive even minimal success in either detering dealing, reducing usage rates, or decreasing avaliability is incre
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:the US, Canada, and weed
by
conteXXt
·
· Score: 1
no need for
1.5 ???
-- The truth about Led Zep should never be told on/. (Karma suicide ensues)
How to immigrate to Canada
by
privacyt
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
At the risk of getting myself declared an "enemy combatant," I urge my fellow Americans to bookmark this site if you are interested in finding refuge in the free state to our north. Canada is looking for skilled workers. Take this handy self-assessment tool to see if you qualify. You get points for having an advanced degrees. Also, knowledge of French gets you some credit.
You have to act fast, however, since Canda is tightening its immigration requirements. A few years ago you could score a 70 on the test and be admitted. Today the threshold is 75 and rising.
Why would you want to immigrate to Canada? Because not only do Canadians have civil liberties, but people in the bottom 55% of incomes have higher after-tax incomes than the bottom 55% of Americans (which is most of us). Indeed, the average after-tax income for the middle class of most industrialized countries is higher than in the United States. (SOURCE: Up From Conservatism by Michael Lind.) Americans in the top 10%-20% are by the most affluent in the world, but the rest of us have fallen behind, since our jobs have gone to India and Taiwan. Not only do we have lower after-tax incomes, but we also have more crime (which is paradoxical since US law enforcement is dangerous and out of control), worse public education, and far costlier health care.
Don't bag out the US so much
by
maroubra
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm not an American...
I'm not even Canadian......but it always intrigues me the number of Americans who love bagging out 'their govt' like it's a weird-god-like-outer-body-experience-type-entity or something...
Intriguing.
I reckon America's tops. I also live in a democracy (Australia). In a democracy, the people are the govt.
Sure, I don't always agree with the Aussie Govt of the day on heaps of issues, but on the whole, I reckon they do a top job. Australia has been built up over 100 years to be a top place to live! And, every two-four years, I get to give our govt their performance appraisal. Pollies are just like us.
They're tops. The system's tops. And if I don't like it, I got the right of protest, so I can change it, or I can move somewhere else if it's really **THAT** bad, which is isn't. It's tops.
Don't be so hard on your country mate, it's a top place.
This Canadian comment in the report is just some temporary pettiness between long term mates. Mates sometimes fight, don't worry. You guys will kiss and make up.
Enjoy your day! M.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
banzai51
·
· Score: 1
It is our Constitutionally protected right to bitch about our government. It is one of the few rights that is consistently exercised by our nation. We're good at it and we're not giving it up!
The Canadians are proud of their country and every so often like to take a pot shot or two at their neighbors to the south. That's ok. We're stealing all their hockey teams.:)
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That one hurts too... grumble... bastards... grumble...
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
realdpk
·
· Score: 2
America isn't a democracy - it's a republic - huge difference. On top of that, the US representatives more often than not serve the corporate interests (investors) rather than the individual constituencies.
There's no way to give a performance appraisal, since so much of the votes that go on in Congress are done anonymously (such as in the case of the DMCA).
You can protest, but you can also be shot with rubber bullets for doing so (see Seattle), as well as arrested (also see Seattle).
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 1
> This Canadian comment in the report is just some temporary pettiness between long term mates. Mates sometimes fight, don't worry. You guys will kiss and make up.
Eew!
Could we please set it up so that we have Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Condoleeza Rice when that happens?
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
matt-fu
·
· Score: 1
The US isn't a democracy. It's a republic.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
America isn't a democracy - it's a republic - huge difference
Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them
Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives
Can somebody kindly tell me what this "huge difference" is?
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
ozzee
·
· Score: 1
I reckon America's tops. I also live in a democracy (Australia). In a democracy, the people are the govt.
Are you kidding ?
Hate to prick your bubble but Australia is a puppet to the U.S. Look at the copyright and other nonsense laws that have been passed lately.
Those pollies you speak of play a game to highlist the least important issues and make you think they did well. Why did John Howard send troops to Iraq ? Do you REALLY think it had anything to do with WMD - heck no. He knows that there is no way that Australia is able to defend itself and if someone decided to attach, he'd call in all his favours on the US. So you see, Australia is just an extension of the USA, politics or not.
Keep on living the dream that you pewny vote every coupla years does anything meaningful. Most of the voters are too snowed by the media to really understand what's going on. This "government for the people" you speak of is just another snow job.
Look at how the Australian corps are doing - check out AMP. Whose palms got greased on those f-ups ? There is a string of them.
Besides all this disingenuity, it's still not so bad. But, it COULD be a whole lot better.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The US is a democracy executed in the form of a republic, dumbass. Why is it that know-nothing turds like you have to offer up this one little bit of "wisdom" everytime we have these discussions? Quit just regurgitating what you heard and go look up the damn words next time.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
csguy314
·
· Score: 1
Democracy huh?
1975: Australia - The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use ofthis archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.
http://www.thelawparty.com/CIATimeLinePage2.htm
-- This is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A single word has never, in the history of man, desribed any specific incarnation of a Government. Well, except perhaps, the name of the nation itself.
The devil is always in the implementation.
Anyway, the "huge" difference is that here in the US we are generally taught in high school that there is a diffrence. Hey, if our all holy educational system says its so, then it must be God Own Word of Truth, right?
Anyway, you've selected the one definitional aspect of each word to suit your post. If you read the range of meaning behind each word, I think you'll sense a slight difference.
Anyway, in the context of the US, the historially correct selection for 'Republic" is...
'An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.' Republic
The modern fact is that the US republic is long since dead, as the states are no longer autonomous in any serious sense of the word.
Nor am I sure we are a Democracy any longer. If you put a man in an isolation chamber and tell him the building is burning, then ask him to vote between fighting the fire, or planting corn in the field next door -- he'd probably vote for fire fighting. Yes, he is voting in self-interest (as he should), but in this case the Feds just told him there was a fire -- all they needed was to send money to their fire truck making friends (there wasn't). Got their vote, sure - but was it Democratic?
This is the state of the US. When the Government lies, the media lies, and the population is left in the dark save for "marketed information" can the process we go through really be called voting at all? Surely, just by looking at the current state of affairs, the people of the US are no longer the "primary" political power.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
sexecutioner
·
· Score: 1
Look.
What would happen if some dirty fucks came walking into Oz, killing and maiming and raping your mother and family.
We know we don't have what it takes to defend ourselves.
But what if we didn't have allies in the US (or elsewhere) because people like you kept saying that it's bad to have friends more powerful than yourself, it's bad to live in this big wide world and make friends with other countries.
Because I think it would be BLOODY IRRESPONSIBLE for us NOT to be chummy with the USA. We need the support to defend ourselves and you're just being a naive little prick if you think wars don't happen. They do. Accept it, and go make yourself useful by working in foreign policy, or for/with the government to help prevent it.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
rifter
·
· Score: 1
The difference is that our government is representative (like Rome) and not a direct democracy (like Athens). People do not vote for laws and issues directly in a republic, they vote for people who they hope will defend their interests. In a true democracy, all voters are called upon to vote directly for laws, etc.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The US is a democracy executed in the form of a republic
So it's like those chocolate bunnies, where it's chocolate in the form of a bunny?
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
ozzee
·
· Score: 1
We need the support to defend ourselves and you're just being a naive little prick if you think wars don't happen.
Now now, violence never solved any problems...:)
All I'm trying to say is call a spade a spade. The snow job of modern politics is letting the worst things happen. The US snow job is far more dire than that in Australia. The Europeans governments are much better at giving their constituents the things they need.
For all the wealth the US has, it has far more poor, it's prisons are overflowing, the legal system is trigger happy and the shools are political agents and underfunded at that. Yet it just wrote a $US3000 check to each Iraqi for getting rid of Saddam and his yet to be found WMD's ! I've written some pretty big tax checks or cheques but I have yet to see anything but a tax refund.
Enough is enough. Get rid of the media conglomerates. Let no-one have more that 2% control of any media nation-wide. Kill the politics of blurring the issues and raise the education level, don't dumb down the populous. Make college and university education available to everyone.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
sexecutioner
·
· Score: 1
Yes, you are right.
Based on your first post I imagined you as one of those speak first, think later, loud mouthed student politicians that I have to put up with about uni at the moment.
For what it's worth, I thought your reply was the bomb, good work.
PS: Sorry about the aweful pun.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
ozzee
·
· Score: 1
Democracy huh?
Do read on. The next thing that happened was an election. Mr Whitlam got whipped by that same populous that was so stunned.
Good 'ol Gough was a great guy and WAAAYY ahead of his time. He was also naieve. Seems like they go hand in hand.
Re:Don't bag out the US so much
by
quax
·
· Score: 1
Being not American but having the privilege to live in a free democratic society I can't get my head around why Americans feel compelled to stand up when their president enters the room.
I figure this is what you are supposed to do for a king or something of that kind, but for an elected representative? Nobody bothers to stand up for our the head of state in my country. The fellow got his job from us, and better lives up to our expectations. No reason to show him any more respect than any other human being. Just don't get it. Would any American care to explain to me why you are supposed to stand up for your president?
accentuation of the positive isn't for politics
by
js7a
·
· Score: 1
I like Noam to a degree, but beyond that, he reads more like a tinfoil-hat nut job. People like him criticize everything the U.S. government has done but never look at the brighter side of the results. When pressed, Noam will say something dismissive like, "oh sure, the USA has done lots of good things and there's no place I would rather live, but that's not my bailiwick."
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you believe, as you appear to, that critical dissent is essential for securing corrections and improvements to government failings, then why waste time with back-slapping and jingoism?
Do you have some psychological need to see dissent tempered with praise? You don't need to tell a politician when he's done something good -- he will see to it that you and all the other voters are pummeled with that information come re-election time.
I think the people who have the hardest time with dissent are often those who are the least confident in their positions.
Make *him* your president if you want to suffer.
Yeah, elect Chomsky and before you know it our taxes could double. Like Sweden, where Volvo, Ericson, and Ikea all grew (in revenue and jobs) over the past three years under such a crushing burden. What suffering!?!
Re:accentuation of the positive isn't for politics
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow, a few countries in Sweden grew, DESPITE the tax burden. I think it just attests that there have been a few very enterprising people running those corporations. It doesn't mean that overall wealth isn't being destroyed in the long run. You can find little pockets of evidence that support anything, but it will never represent the overall picture.
Oh, and Noam Chomsky is a tool.
Re:accentuation of the positive isn't for politics
by
js7a
·
· Score: 1
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Sweden funds education such that literacy after elementary schooling is very high, almost everyone who wants a college education can get one, unlike here in the U.S. where we are presently laying off tens of thousands of teachers.
Re:accentuation of the positive isn't for politics
by
kapok_tree
·
· Score: 1
Was it not Jefferson who felt that a well-educated populace was a crucial ingredient in a democracy (or republic)?
If the current trend of inadequate education continues for too much longer, we might as well have a dictatorship - we'll have no worse a government than we get when the mobs elect whoever has the best hair.
Re: [1] : J-Day outside the Cop Shop
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT
by
Joe+the+Lesser
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Seriously, Moore is a nice guy, who just asks tough questions.
I don't see why the Right has to search for 'inaccuracies' and then claim he's worthless because some facts or assumptions may be off.
He's ideas are still correct, and if you are trying to disprove him, you're missing the point of what he does.
But then, if someone challenges your ideas, it's best to try and discredit them or shut them up isn't it?
-- "I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Re:MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh shut the fuck up and go kill yourself.. There are already enough naive idiots on this planet to get us all killed.
Re:MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT
by
TummyX
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Moore is a guy who lives in a millionaire apartment in Manhatten. Whether he is nice is to be debated. He certainly tries to play on that "illusion" that people have that he's fighting the tough fight.
He doesn't ask tough questions noone else hasn't asked. When the asks the "tough" questions he ruins it all by resorting to misinformation and fear. If his points were valid (and many are) he wouldn't need to lie about the facts. Just tell it like it is.
Moore is no better than the fear mongering media he talks about. I find it rich that a guy who gets his agenda across by using the very tactics he despises. To me, the only name for Michael Moore is "hypocrite". He makes us left-ists look like idiots.
Opinion, not fact. And I don't trust anyone, no matter what his stated motives, who'd rather see a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose rather than defend herself with a gun.
Gun control fanatics are dangerous sorts, who think that outlawing guns will somehow reduce violence, never admitting that laws aren't obeyed by criminals - by definition. The end result of their kind of oppression is to deny law-abiding the citizens the means to defend themselves from harm. They never ask the question: does gun ownership do more good than harm?
According to the National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 49, Number 12, the number of homocides in the U.S. amounted to 16,137 people at the end of 2000. Most of these homocides were committed with 'weapons of opportunity', which means 'whatever was handy' - e.g., usually a blunt instrument of some sort, or a sharp instrument like a kitchen knife. Despite these 'high' numbers, you were more likely to die in a fall (down stairs or a ladder) or from drowning (in a back yard pool or recreational area). So clearly the odds of being murdered were extremely low, and the odds of being murdered by someone with a gun were even lower.
The FBI, in a 1999 study, determined that somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 violent crimes were deterred because the victim was armed. In less than 1/10 of 1% of these cases was the firearm actually discharged, usually into the air (warning shot). The reason why these statistics vary so widely is because in most cases the intended victim was a woman, carrying the weapon illegally concealed. Quite obviously, these women have no interest in reporting the crime as they will go to jail if they do. The FBI says that the *minimum* number is 200,000, while the likely number is probably much, much higher than this. BTW, a 'violent crime' in their report is an attempted rape, robbery, assault or murder.
So while people can go on and on how terribly violent Americans are, the simple fact is that gun ownership doesn't contribute to violence - indeed, it seems to deter violence. Even the FBI, a rabid proponent of gun control (they *hate* armed citizens), reluctantly agrees with this.
Note: the FBI originally commissioned the study in question to prove that armed citizens were dangerous. The results were the opposite of what they expected, or hoped for.
Michael Moore doesn't give a damn about any of this. He's on a religious crusade to disarm all Americans and to hell with the facts. Like any fanatic he sees what he wants to see and ignores or distorts all the rest.
Before you get the idea that I have a beef with Moore, I don't (I loved TV Nation). On just about everything except for gun control I think the man does good work. But when it comes to gun control, he turns into a glassy-eyed loon.
Max
-- My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Huh? So have we officially decided to throw empiricism out the window?
There's a difference between discrediting Michael Moore and discrediting Charles Darwin.
Re:MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, violence is mans second nature. But it's still a defferance to violance and killings. Is it worth to kill a person because you can't get along with him and have to fight? I feel that the value of a human life is desapering.
How can someone hold the bible in one hand and the gun in the other nother, what did the ten comandmants say again?
Of the 16,000 homocides committed, greater than 11,000 were committed using a gun. Sometimes the weapon of opportunity is a gun. Also, though your chances of being murdered (by a gun or otherwise) are fairly low, they are significantly higher than in most other countries.
I agree with most of your other points, though. Moore's ideas would do more harm than good if they were made into policy.
Re:MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT
by
Aapje
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The thing I liked about Bowling for Columbine was that Moore was willing to be convinced. He started out believing that gun ownership/control is the major issue, but he later becomes convinced that a culture of fear is the main reason for the gun violence in America. If you really believe that the movie is simply advocating gun control, you should probably see it again with a more open mind.
Actually, 10,417 were committed using a firearm. Although this number also includes homocides due to gang wars and wars between criminal organizations. It should be noted that the greatest percentage, by far, of firearm-related homocides is committed by criminals *against each other*. According to the FBI, this accounts for somewhere in excess of 80% of all homocides where a firearm was used.
Among non-criminals, the 'weapon of opportunity' often isn't a gun but a blunt object, followed by kitchenware. Why? Because when a non-criminal commits murder it's usually in a violent rage - the 'heat of passion' - which means they pick up whatever's handy and beat the other guy to death with it. It's spur of the moment, something a personal wouldn't normally do, nor would do if given some small measure of time to think about it.
So, if you're a criminal, especially one in the drug trade, your chances of dying by firearm are much, much higher than if you're an average Joe or Jane on the street. If you are that Joe or Jane, you're far more likely to be beaten or stabbed to death, especially by someone you know (or are married to).
Max
-- My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
> because some facts or assumptions may be off. Not because they are off, but because they are lies. BIG difference.
> Seriously, Moore is a nice guy, who just asks tough questions.
I have no reason to think otherwise, except that he lied to the viewers. He said his film was a documentary. A documentary is a film (or other medium) that shows ACTUAL EVENTS, or talks about actual events. Moore, OTOH, spliced parts of speeches together to get the speech he thought they should say. He lied about the dates and locations of interviews and events that were fed to the viewer AS THE TRUTH. If "He's ideas," as you say, are correct, he either 1) should not have claimed it was a documentary, or 2) told the truth -- if the truth is so horrible, why lie about it?
> it's best to try and discredit them But in this case it's so easy that it is hard not to laugh at him.
Other countries have crime too.. drugs, gangs, etc. And they don't see as many gun related murders.
Take Toronto (where I happen to work). We had somewhere near 80 murders last year in the GTA. An area with around 5-6 million people.
Toronto has gang problems (not on the LA scale). Toronto has drug problems. Toronto has race problems. But we don't have the same number of murders, gun related or not, as an equal sized american city.
The proliferation of guns, and the 'shoot first, ask questions later' of *some* of the gun totaling american people is the issue - not the fact that the guns are there.
I was 23 years old before I saw my first gun. (other than on a policeman) I've NEVER fired a gun. And where did I see this gun? It was in Ohio, and I was scared to death of the stupid thing. All my american friends played with it, shooting it, passing it around... my Canadian friends all shied away.
The only reason pistols exist is to kill people. Thats all. I see no reason why Americans feel the need to carry around a device capable of killing many people with a simple flick of the finger.
But, it's a cultural difference. You all belive that you must protect yourselfs from each other. We just believe that people aren't going to hurt us. Therefore, we don't carry guns, and don't have nearly the gun murder rate, because they simply aren't available.
Anyways, my $0.02 cents. The point is, America has a disproportionate rate of gun homocide for their population.
-- We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us.
- Douglas Coupland
The only reason pistols exist is to kill people. Thats all. I see no reason why Americans feel the need to carry around a device capable of killing many people with a simple flick of the finger.
You apparently didn't read my post. In the United States of America, the mere possession of a firearm is enough to prevent at least 200,000, and possibly 800,000, crimes a year - most of those against women, who for the most part aren't capable of physically resisting the average man.
You can talk all you like about how violent America is, and I won't gainsay you. But quite clearly, it is a matter of record, a matter of fact, produced by one of the most anti-gun law enforcement agencies in the U.S., that the possession of guns by intended victims prevent crime. This isn't open to interpretation or word play, it's simple truth.
Wail, gnash your teeth, do whatever you like. But don't sit there and tell me that pistols are only good for killing folks, and that their mere possession somehow casts doubts upon the humanity of the possessor. Those 200,000 folks or more who defended themselves are proof enough that such a statement is utter bullshit.
As for your claim of 'disproprotionate rate of gun homocide', that's a lie. We have a very high murder rate overall; how a person is killed is of no consequence - they're still dead, whether you shoot them, stab them, or beat them. And banning guns would have no effect on the murder rate *because guns aren't the cause of violence*. That is so self-evident I can't begin to imagine the pathetic self-loathing required to claim anything to the contrary.
Your reasoning on the Canadian ban on handguns is ludicrous. People don't deprive one another of weapons because they trust their neighbor not to use them; they do so out of fear their neighbors *WILL*. If anything, the ban on guns shows that Canadians are even more afraid of each other than Americans are afraid of other Americans.
Max
-- My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"And I don't trust anyone, no matter what his stated motives, who'd rather see a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose rather than defend herself with a gun."
WHERE, I said WHERE did he say anywhere in the entire movie that guns should be banned? He didn't try to pick apart the second amendment, he didn't say that all guns are evil or unnecessary.
Re:MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, they're running the government and watching Fox News.
How about a woman with a gun versus a rapist with a gun? Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you will have the opportunity to get it out when you get into one of these situations. Not that I have a problem with the idea of a woman blowing the brains out of a wannabe rapist, that sounds like a pretty good idea. But, arguing from the most emotional standpoint doesn't really help the debate.
Re:Then Leave...
by
conteXXt
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Canada's health care system is by no means FREE.
When I send my checque to the government every year, the payment for my health insurance is in there.
When you send your check to the government, regime change and prison building and liberty stripping is in there.
It's a matter of choice for both nations as to what is more important.
If a federal election candidate (in Canada) ran on the platform of lower taxes (ala bush) at the expense of healthcare, they would have their careers abruptly terminated.
If a federal election candidate (in America) ran on the platform of lower taxes at the expense of healthcare, they get elected.
It just illustrates what is important to the populations. We are WILLING to pay taxes to not have to deal directly with (and pay) private health insurance (when it can be afforded in the first place).
just my $.02 CAD (or $.0170 US)
-- The truth about Led Zep should never be told on/. (Karma suicide ensues)
Remember that to make a fair comparison you need to add Health Insurance to the American tax rate. In Canada health care insurance is rolled into our taxes.
Point to clarify
by
etherlad
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I just want to point out for those of you it may have missed...
Canadian government not falling in line with the American government is one thing.
Canadians not liking the American government is another thing.
Americans not liking the Canadian govenment is yet another thing.
None of the above say that Canadians hate the US. The vast majority of us don't (although, granted, many of us may think of US citizens as a whole as "arrogant").
So please stop with the "Blame Canada" rhetoric. It's been said a billion times, and was only funny about the first four.
-- Soylens viridis homines es
Re:Point to clarify
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
> So please stop with the "Blame Canada" rhetoric.
OK, so the UK plays on the same dirty level as the IRA and caps a few IRA heads. How does this compare to van bombs that kill/maim 100s of people at a time on the mainland ?
Re:Dirty tit for dirty tat
by
The+Herbaliser
·
· Score: 1
I don't have stats in front of me, but I remember seeing a while back that more catholics were being killed than protestants.
And when the IRA declared a ceasefire, didn't the protestant paramilitaries just start fighting each other over the drug business?
Re:Dirty tit for dirty tat
by
kevin+lyda
·
· Score: 1
you're saying it's acceptable for a police force to collude with criminals to kill citizens - sometimes completely innocent civilians?
wow. that's pretty horrifying.
and i can't find a reference to any bomb in britain - by loyalists or republicans - that killed even 100 people. there was a bomb at harrods that injured 80. that was the largest i could find.
And we all know that most Americans are sentimental mush-heads who can't tell reality from entertainment.
P.S.
To all non North Americans: "The Fighting Irish" is a nick-name for a well known American football team!
Talk about confusing stereotypes with reality!!!
The defenders of liberty...
by
Art_Vandelai
·
· Score: 1
are criticizing other countries for caring "too much about civil liberties" Is this some kind of weird parallel world we live in?
Definition of Terrorism
by
Apostata
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Is anyone else sick of the word "terrorist attack" being tagged onto any tragedy that, pre-2001, would've been called a "politically-motivated attack"? To describe every act of destruction (against "us", as it seems) as "terrorism" is negating any inspection of why the act took place, politically or otherwise. It's an instant demonification without need for inquiry...and thus, no lessons are learned.
--
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it.
- Dorothy Parker
Canadians, on the other hand, just refuse to live like that. The first step Canadians do: be friendly to others. Respect the difference, accept other's value. No matter how inefficient or stupid Canadian governments sometimes are, Canadians still can live peacefully.
I swear, this is a true story, and still cracks me up today. My wife and I took our honeymoon through the Canadian Rockies (hiking, 2-day train ride, whale watching, etc). It was really awesome, and everyone was really nice. As the train pulled out of Vancouver, there was graffiti on the overpasses. Just your normal tags, people's names and whatnot. As we started to get to the edge of Vancouver, there was a big graffiti mural on one of the overpasses. What did it say?
"Welcome to Vancouver"
Even the damn graffiti is polite! I still can't believe it, and it cracks me up every time I think of it. I wish I would have gotten a picture of it.
--
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Whale watching in the Canadian Rockies? Wow, you must have great eyesight, to see so far.
Vancouver is not in the Canadian Rockies.
Very good. Now let's see how long it takes you to figure out why your previous conclusion that I was whale watching in the mountains makes no sense.
--
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Gullibility Alert!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You really do believe EVERYTHING that big brother tells you, don't you?
Tell me, have you ever been prescribed a tranquilizer? Now, there is something that can truly wipe you out, and it is perfectly legal!
And that's just a start! There are commonly prescribed opiate drugs, just as powerful as heroin, and perfectly legal! There is one that has even become known as the "trailer park heroin".
Drug addicts, to avoid the heavy penalties for illegal drugs, have taken to breaking into the homes of cancer sufferers!!!
Isn't the law wonderfully fair and even handed?!
Re:canadian forces?
by
RickHunter
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not to mention Vimy Ridge. Or the invasion of Italy during WWII. Or the Korean War. Or this little operation called "Operation Overlord". Or the Battle of Britain. Nope, no Canadian involvement in any major military operations in the past century at all.
sorry that was last week when $2 CAD bought $1.40US.
I haven't really had a need for $US since they decided I was a persona non grata when I forgot to turn my green card in at age 15 (like I was going to skateboard to Buffalo from Toronto to hand it in:-)
-- The truth about Led Zep should never be told on/. (Karma suicide ensues)
Well, resisting the temptation to make the usual slew of Candian jokes...:)
If Canada allowed people to own actual firearms, didn't have even higher tax rates than the US, and didn't force you into crappy socialized medicine, I might consider moving there to avoid the War on Drugs (80s), Save The Children (90s), and The War on Terrorism (00s).
Until then, I'll keep voting Libertarian and writting my congress critters.
I assume all of you bitching about the US don't vote republican or democrat, and thus aren't part of the problem, riiiiight ?
PS: Since I know some Canucks will respond:
1) Your total average tax rates are higher than ours, although it appears that by 2005, that might change.
2) It's about being FORCED into your medical program. That's not freedom.
Hey, we (Canada) allow people to have guns, we just don't consider it a sacred right. I think that mentality actually seems to benefit us, since we don't live in perpetual fear of being robbed or have metal detectors at high schools.
Also: we might have higher taxes, but yet somehow our economy is experiencing considerably stronger growth than yours. I suppose it helps that we weren't broadsided with terrorist attacks, but that wasn't exactly unexpected if you know the long-term history of US involvement in the Middle East.
And I don't think that socialized medicine is exactly some kind of tyranny. Why shouldn't we EXPECT good treatment if we're sick, rather than have to shop around or (in a worst-case scenario) go without? It's not as though you're buying a car or your clothes, we're talking about basic survival here. Besides, you probably wouldn't like the direction privatization efforts (mostly by conservatives) go here. They're usually geared more towards satisfying the business partners of MPs than making sure that everyone can get proper health care.
1) Your total average tax rates are higher than ours, although it appears that by 2005, that might change.
And we get SERVICES in return. Not just catering to the richest croporations.
2) It's about being FORCED into your medical program. That's not freedom.
The ability to choose one's doctor is the cornerstone of the canadian public health-care system.
The people in the US without medical coverage, as well as those who are under HMOs CANNOT CHOOSE which doctor to go. That's not freedom.
3) We like guns. You guys used to.
We ceased to like them when we realized that they are used to kill people. Oh, you're allowed to have guns to kill animals, but not guns that kills people (who'd use an UZI for hunting???)...
Actually you're wrong. I am under an HMO and I chose the PCP (Primary care provider) that I go to. And guess what, when I needed a specialists help (gastro) I looked one up, and asked for a referral, and I got it. So your "CANNOT CHOOSE" arguments falls quicker than a dress on prom night. And as far as guns are concerned, "who'd use and UZI for hunting?"......
For your standard moose or elk i probably use a 12 gauge. However for Canadian Elk, I believe an M-16 is in order. You see, Canadian Elk/moose tend to be much more stubborn than others, I've heard its because of the French blood the courses through their veins. But I am probably just speculating.
Re:Hmph
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Check that again would you?
1/3 of Canadians are armed. We've just wasted Billions trying to facillitate a registration for guns... $$ obviously == numbers.
The only difference between Americans and Canadians on guns is that Canadians don't seem to use them to kill people (do some reasearch on how many people died due to gun-related injuries last year)
just animals.
Love thy neighbour. Even if he doesn't know how to pronouce the english language without someone holding his hand.
Actually you're wrong. I am under an HMO and I chose the PCP (Primary care provider) that I go to. And guess what, when I needed a specialists help (gastro) I looked one up, and asked for a referral, and I got it. So your "CANNOT CHOOSE" arguments falls quicker than a dress on prom night.
Lucky you! The same cannot be said for those who can't choose which doctor they go to under their HMO rules, and to those who aren't insured at all.
Besides, you probably wouldn't like the direction privatization efforts (mostly by conservatives) go here. They're usually geared more towards satisfying the business partners of MPs than making sure that everyone can get proper health care.
The same goes with privitizing other things. In BC the Liberals (Who are actually conservatives) are talking about privitizing BC Hydro (Power company) experts say the price of power would go up by about 4x. They are talking about privitizing ICBC (Car insurance) and they cite some study like "Look, the rates are lower in Washington State, and THEY are private!" but the numbers they gave were NOT IN THE SAME CURRANCY. Seriously, they actually gave the US numbers in USD! If you take Albera as an example, car insurance will double to triple if ICBC goes private, and teenagers will experience even HIGHER rate hikes.
Finally, those who say that health care in Canada is great, are wrong. The waitlists are huge for any sort of surgery, and there isn't enough money for doctors and nurses, especially in small towns. And the system is broken, and people are not getting the services they need. But privitization is NOT the answer. All studies I have seen rank Canadian health care as better that US health care. Because as long as the wait lists are, they are LONGER in the US, unless you are rich. We don't need private hospitals, we need MORE hospitals, and MORE doctors and nurses in them.
Speaking as a Canadian, the whole gun thing kinda bugs me, while I generally lean more towards the anti-gun side than the pro-gun side I still have no illusions that there aren't guns up here, nor do I beleive that guns don't have legitimate purposes.
You can still have guns in Canada, the main difference is that it isn't a constitutionally protected "right" which I think is a good thing, almost anyone can still get one, they just have to make some minor amount of effort to show that they aren't planning a shooting rampage first. the person who has a gun because it is their right truly frightens me, the person who has a gun because he/she enjoys hunting, or visits the shooting range on occasion doesn't worry me nearly so much.
personally, I don't like guns, I don't want one, and I see absolutely NO situation where I could ever be better off having one at home, whereas I can see MANY sittuations where it is a really bad idea. (having one around greatly increases your chances of accidentally killing someone you mistake for someone else. also if your gun is stored safely, than there is no way you could have it in your hand ready to use quickly enough to stop an armed invader, and if it is NOT stored properly than there is a good chance of an unarmed invader becomming armed by your own gun, or of a loved one using it accidentally.)
Canada Beats USA - But Loses Gold to Sweden
by
Larsing
·
· Score: 0
I hate to be a show-off, but...,-)
-- Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
by
ianscot
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There is no "culture of US corporatism" stomping around evilly destroying foreign victims.
Oddly enough, you know, the people who're presently bitterly resenting our foreign policy are decrying exactly such a culture. And I'm not just talking about in Iraq, or Syria, or Egypt -- I'm talking about in France and in our closest ally, the UK, too. Out of passing curiosity, had you ever considered actually listening to the nature of the criticisms against us? Or are you completely isolated in your solipsistic echo chamber?
Because we have the freedom to pursue whatever business we like, Americans have gotten very good at supplying what people want... It seems like simple logic to me that any human being would naturally gravitate toward systems that bring greater satisfaction. There, no complex motives required, just basic human behavior.
It's the echo chamber, then... Talk about your "propoganda (sic)." The Arab world hates us because our businesses are so efficient at giving people what they want. It's all just basic human nature.
Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say? Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919? Were the British also exceptionally good at giving the people the satisfaction they wanted? Or does this explanation of yours float in a totally ahistorical fantasy universe where you don't need to deal with comparisons like that?
More to the point: supply us with one clear case in which this has motivated a specific terrorist act. We know a fair amount about the 9/11 hijackers. Were Mohammed Atta's attitudes toward skyscrapers born of this way of thinking you describe? They seem to fit the "corporatism" critique much better, to me.
Please, please, look into how the educated Arab world feels about US foreign policy. There are many, many people out there whose desperate desire is to bring secular, democratized states to the Arab world, but who also seem to understand the sources of terrorism. They do understand the despotic regimes out there -- they seem particularly aware of ones like Egypt, and of the Shah in Iran. You know, the ones the US props up? Like in Pakistan, where Bush W. applauded the military coup that brought Musharraf to power back during the 2000 election? (Those regimes really don't fit into your idea of leaders oppressing the people to preserve the status quo, incidentally. The people resent our backing their leaders. Ever notice that? Ever hear of Anwar Sadat?) Those people aren't living in fantasy la-la land where "The terrorists hate us because we provide the people with more satisfaction." They're saying things about how US foreign policy is counterproductive. You might want to try listening.
-- "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Before the US whine about Canada...
by
Chocolate+Teapot
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...they should consider who supplies most of their water. Just the thought of all that water makes me want to go pee in a reservoir.
-- Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Europeean Citizens Says U.S.A. Government Is A Modern Communist Society Under The Cloak Of Democracy Much Like Germany In World War 2.. and we all know what that lead to dont we..
ixxo
Wasn't it researchers in Vancouver, BC who completed the mapping of the genomic sequence for the SARS virus, about 48 hours before the American CDC were able to complete their mapping.
The Canadian health care system is equally advanced, at least scientifically. It just lacks the ability to attract the best nurses and doctors away from private facilities in the big U.S. urban centres that can pay substantially more to the best practitioners.
This is the same Canada that couldn't even contain the spread of SARS and had Toronto quarantined from the world, whil at the same time SARS has been irrelevant in the U.S. ?
That's some kind of healthcare system up there.
-- --
You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Re:A recent example
by
Art_Vandelai
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think Canada was a victim of poor timing on this one - almost all of the confirmed cases could be traced to a single individual visiting Canada from the far east, which occured before any warnings about travellers from those areas were ever made public.
Some of our political leaders and media overreacted, and as a result, the crisis was made to be worse than it really ought to have been. Toronto was not quarantined - just a few of the hospitals. I work downtown, and some precautionary moves had to be made - mostly to prevent a situation where a whole department would be taken out for 10 days due to a precautionary quarantine. Life went on, business as usual, except for the tourism and convention business which were hurt badly by the fearmongering.
I've often suspected some deliberate economic motivation behind the WHO's advisory on travel to Toronto - given that the Canadian economy has seriously ourperformed the U.S. for the last 6-12 months. First the softwood lumber, and now the Durum Wheat fiasco, the U.S. has been hitting us hard economically, yet we still seem to be doing incredibly well despite the headwinds. Americans only seem to believe in free trade when it benefits them.
So in other words, the WHO is controlled by the U.S. and is prone to issuing health advisories based on the state of the U.S. economy.:)
At least you're able to get the best seats at lunch now.
-- --
You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Not Legal, Decriminalized
by
alteridem
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There is a difference. What Canada wants to do is decriminalize pot so that it will be more like a speeding ticket. Also, larger quantities will still be criminal (trafficing will still land you in jail.)
The argument is that we (Canadians) do not feel that people that have been caught with small amounts of pot should end up in jail or have criminal records ruining their lives. A kid that smokes a joint at a party shouldn't have his/her entire life stripped away for a stupid mistake.
Think of it more like drinking under-age (illegal, but not criminal), you get caught at a high-school party being stupid (who hasn't), your life isn't over.
Pullleeez. Spare me all of this stupidity and backbiting. Here's a solution: let's have the whole world gather in a pit somewhere, say some valley near the dead sea, and just duke it out. Then when whatever blast occurs, it'll all be sorted out and we don't have to cry over who sucks at doing what.
take care.
Can't believe this got modded up to 5
by
thatguywhoiam
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Michael Moore is one of the sleaziest documentary makers/authors around. Almost nothing he says is true.
Once again, prove it. Your silly stats - which vary only marginally from the actual atats in the movie - do not do the job.
Clearly Moore touched a nerve in the US populace, which is what the film was intended to do. Tell me, do you really think they'd give an Academy Award to such a 'blatantly obvious hack job'? Or a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes?
Oh, right. You hate the French. Never mind.
-- If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Re:Can't believe this got modded up to 5
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
No, the French hate Americans, no wonder there was a standing ovation at a movie that blatantly ripped on us.
Want a real link? There you have it. Real facts, real commentary on why Michael Moore's movie is hack job. Might not be 'blatantly obvious', but it was definitely meant to be misleading. Check out the comparison of the first speech Heston gives. It's not about statistics, it's about unethical and sometimes fraudulent misrepresentation of another groups's words and actions. You complain when Microsoft uses the same mislead tactics against Linux. But when it's against America, that's in vogue, must be okay.
Re:Can't believe this got modded up to 5
by
hesiod
·
· Score: 2, Informative
> Tell me, do you really think they'd give an Academy Award to such a 'blatantly obvious hack job'? Or a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes?
Umm, you've got to be joking? It wasn't a blatantly obvious hack job. I applaud Mr. Moore for his very good directing skills, I couldn't come close. The problem is that they gave it to him for being a documentary, which it is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being.
That's the important bit. If you reply, reply to the previous, 'cuz the following will be construed as a troll or flamebait (what the hell's the difference anyway):
Liberals, who are always up in arms about conspiracies, don't surprise me as much as they should when they don't say anything about this crap -- a "documentary" full of lies and deceit should be discredited immediately. But a strange thing: when the lies & trash follow their line of beliefs, they are noticeably quiet. Don't think I'm picking on Liberals, I'm sure Conservatives would do the same if they ran Hollywood.
You have to admit (unless you lie) that both the Oscars and especially the Cannes "Film Festival" are mostly run by extremely left-wing people. Amazing that this one slipped through the cracks, eh? And before you start attacking my as one of those bible-kissing, GWB-loving Republicans, I am not. By a long shot.
Re:Can't believe this got modded up to 5
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Araft gets standing ovation in Arab world. Is he a good guy then too? Hitler got standing ovations in Germany. And Bush gets standing ovations when he speaks. So what does that prove? That you are an idiot? What a dumbass argument you make.
Canada, the true country, and the real land of the free and brave. USA somehow has lost that title.
Robert
re: Does Canada have any oil?
by
shking
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Canada supplies 9 percent of overall U.S. oil use and 15 percent of overall U.S. natural gas use. Canada, not Saudi Arabia, is the single largest supplier of oil and gas to the United States.
sources:
US Energy Information Administration, Canada Country Analysis Brief, February 2002.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, "2000 Statistics, Key Facts."
-- --
"At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
Re:Don't bag out the AUS so much
by
mgblst
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How can it be a Democracy when we hand over the decisions to the so called government. I too am an Australian, and if you can't see the fact the many Australians are also unhappy with our government, and express that unhappiness loudly and often, then you are blind to the world around you. The present Australian government is crap, just like in the US. The Australian gov is trying to scrap medicare, in their ever so suttle manner, so that poor people have as much access to medical assitance as they do in the US.
yeah, they are tops, the system is tops. You can always protest, unless they don't want you too, which is what happened in a number of the anti-war protests in this country. You need to apply for a permit to protest, and if they say no, then they have no quarms about sending in the horses, and riot police.
Wake up...
When US will let others think what they want....
by
initnull
·
· Score: 0
I think this is basicaly a good question. According to the last events, which are Iraq war and this thing about Canada liberties, US only wants to extend their supremacy all around the planet. Im a Canadian and i personnaly think that US (in general) must leave other country do what they want and care about their own problems before ours.
Who pissed in your wheaties?
by
NicotineAtNight
·
· Score: 1
The British and the Irish are the same race, please try to avoid using words against their meaning.
Technically all homo sapiens are the same race. I wish people would fucking remember that.
--
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Re:and...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>Technically all homo sapiens are the same race. No, they are the same species. A race is "An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits", execatly the same biological mechanisim lays at the root of the diffrences between eg.: a dalmatian and a husky or caucasian and mongoidal >I wish people would fucking remember that. I wish people wouldn't make comments when they lack appropriate knowledge.
I really don't understand why Americans think we want their tax rate.... but I sure as hell wish someone would copy the tax-deductible mortgage structure;)
Re:canadian forces?
by
Darlock
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You're such a troll but I will bite anyway.
> Let's not get into WWII. If you think the US > didn't do dick or spill blood in WWII, then you > have a real problem.
Yes, you are correct, Americans did die in WW2. Lives lost is not a good thing, no matter when and where it happens. That was not the point though. The point was that the U.S. sat on the sidelines for 2 years while the rest of the "free" world was getting their asses kicked.
> Supplied troops to every single UN mission?
Yes. If you are referring to the current war with Iraq. That is not a UN mission. That's why were are not involved.
> How many of anyone in your hometown gave their > lives to depose today's hitler?
None. Because there is no equivalent of "Today's Hitler" in the world. Calling Sadam Hitler must be something that CNN came up with. Don't get me wrong, Sadam is bad but he isn't the equivalent of Hitler.
> After all, we deserve it, don't we? You are > morally superior to us, aren't you?
Nobody said we were morally superior. We have our problems. We make mistakes. We're human. We just don't FORCE our views on everyone else.
> And as for the "riding the backs of the US > military", I suggest you look within your own > country for the criticism. Because I've seen it > come from your own country more than anywhere > else. From canadian news letters to the > editors, from canadian news pundits, from > canadians being interviewed on the street, from > canadian politicians.
Yes, every country in the world rides the back of the US military. You know why? It's because the U.S. is too busy being the bully of the school yard and sticks it's nose in everything. Someone has to go in and clean up your mess.
Do you really want to know why Canada didn't join your war against Iraq? We all agree that Sadam is bad and should have been removed. There is no argument about that. We didn't join in because we do not want to be a TARGET. That's right, a TARGET. Just think about this in a logical fashion. Look at the possible chain of events.
- We join War on Iraq (tm) - Terrorists attack Canada (ie Toronto) - Canada turns to U.S. for support. - Canada changes privacy policies to help fight "terrorism" - Canada becomes part of the U.S.
See, you are correct. We ride on the backs of the U.S. military enough as it is and we don't want to. The more we rely on you, the more indebted we are. That's not good.
If a federal election candidate (in Canada) ran on the platform of lower taxes (ala bush) at the expense of healthcare, they would have their careers abruptly terminated.
This just happenned in Québec, where Mario Ducon's party, the "action 'démocratique'", whose platform includes gutting the public health care system, was destroyed into oblivion in the Québec election three weeks ago...
We're #3, down from the smug #1. We may be #2 or #1 again this year, unless there's more poor people in our country... again... taxes are down..again... tuition will rise 20%... again... My blood boils when I think about the future of Canada.
Re:Respecting Canada...random thought
by
A_Non_Moose
·
· Score: 1
I'm a brit...
[snipped to take this out of context:) ]
Why do I keep getting passing thougts of "The (Tony) Blair Witch Project"?
wierd.
Carry on.
-- Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK?
(and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
No, you're wrong...
by
RedCard
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Bull. Canada never had nuclear weapons. There were American weapons & bombers stationed in Canada, but there never were Canadian nuclear bombs.
Nope, you're the one who's lacking in history class.
Canada had nuclear missiles on a number of CF-18 hornets (note: CF = 'Canadian forces').
Here's a link....It wasn't hard to find. The relevant information is near the bottom of the page.
Re:No, you're wrong...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sorry, you are also lacking historical knowledge on several counts:
When Canada agreed to deploy the Bomarc air defense missile in the late 50's, it was supposed to carry a nuclear warhead (all the better to put the BFG treatment on those massed hordes of Soviet bombers). However debate in parliament made the prospect unlikely and Canada eventually took 66 used F-101 Voodoo fighters for interception. These were equipped with the Genie Air-to-Air, non-guided, nuclear tipped missle (only need a near miss). The Bomarcs were delivered with sandbags for ballast and eventually scrapped.
The CF-104's deployed in Germany were equipped to carry tactical nuclear weapons
"CF" in the case of CF-18, CF-101, or CF-100 does not mean "Canadian Forces" rather in is a designation that is added to the "F" or "fighter" prefix that signifies equippment that was designed, built, or modified to Canadian requirements.
The CF-18 was ordered to replace the Voodoos and 104's and not specifically equipped to carry NW's (we have much more accurate guided ordnanace now).
If you read the link you provided carefully you'll discover that.
"New CF -18 Hornets acquired in 1984, were equipped with conventional rockets and not nuclear missiles."
Re:No, you're wrong...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't know whether that quote was simply wrong or very misleading. Try looking here: http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume 6/298-303.htm
Canada has had a nuclear programme since the 40's. It has never had nuclear weapons. It was one of the original signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which froze the nuclear weapons club at five states: US, USSR, Britain, France and China (of course, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are now resiling from these obligations...) If I understand correctly, Canada does have the unique distinction of being the only state to have nuclear-powered weapons (i.e. subs) without being a nuclear-weapon state.
And despite Turdeau's posturing, the last nuclear weapons were not removed from Canadian soil until Mulroney took office...
--
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
Speaking of Moore: Obligatory Canadian Bacon quote
by
cryptochrome
·
· Score: 1
From http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/canadian-bacon.ht ml
"Think of your children pledging allegiance to the maple leaf. Mayonnaise on everything. Winter 11 months of the year. Anne Murray -- all day, every day. The Canadians. They walk among us. William Shatner. Michael J. Fox. Monty Hall. Mike Meyers. Alex Trebek. All of them Canadians. All of them here."
Or how about that time that we were busy bombing the crap out of the Nazis while the US was happily being isolationist for 2 years while he tried to take over the world?
And not only that, but actively supporting the Nazi government of Vichy, too!!!
...is that now Independance day in the US is no longer billed as being about a people's uprising to overthrown an unpopular and (arguably) tyrannical gov't. Somehow the 4th of July has now become a celebration of "America" and "Freedom" and military victories.
-- These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
They're not legalizing it. They're trying to 'de-criminalize' pot. It is still illegal to grow and traffic, but possesing small amounts (less than 1 oz) will be a ticketable offence. Like jay-walking. Or letting your dog shit in the park (which should be punishable by imprisonment).
This is in sharp contrast to some US states where you can go to PRISON for carrying small quantities of marijuana.
...sort of like many states have in the states...oh wait, that doesnt matter because the FED couldnt give to shits about what the people and their state gov't want to do.
Damn you state gov't for deciding to stop wasting money and police time charging and putting on trial these evil pot heads...they are the devil!! Grrrr.
Seriously...for a capitalistic society that doesnt like the gov't messing with your lives...you guys sure let them mess with your lives...I mean, people...there is profit to be made....why do you think the CIA runs cocane
Stop this crap
by
WildBeast
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I am Canadian and I'm quiet offended by how some Canadians all of a sudden see this subject as a reason to tell the US how better we are at liberties and stuff. Grow up, everyone thinks his country is better than everyone else's.
With the wrong political party in power we could experience the same problems. So please have some respect.
We are not so different and we should be supportive of each others rights to freedoms and liberties. Saying that Canada is better than the US or that US is better than Canada, really doesn't address the subject at all, au contraire, you'll all try to justify some bad law your country have and as a result, it says that you approve of such laws.
I am a Canadian living in the US, and I think that in most ways, Canada is better than the US.
I also hate how the US bullies Canada constantly. I really hope that Canada starts legalising dope (and does whatever it wants to, without regard to US trade threats). Deefenbaker was a big weenie to give in to Kennedy about the Avro Arrow, for example.
The US needs Canadian goods (lumber, metals, electricity, etc) way more than Canada needs US goods. Bring on the trade sanctions - Sascatchewan and Alberta can feed the whole country easily. Restricted trade might help Canada, as it would foster industry there.
But I live in the US because of the lower taxes on rich people, and the fact that my wife thinks that North Carolina is too cold 8-)
You're not a real Canadian! A real Canadian takes secret glee in any article or story (no matter how obscure) that makes Canada look better than the U.S.
Please report to the Canadian Cultural Assimilation Centre to have your Canadian Content checked, eh?
-- The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Actually this kind of petty fighting serves an important purpose: that of exposure to others opinions and prejudices (the really raw ones) and an opportunity for self analysis. While the debate is a dumb one, points being raised against both parties helps people realize a lot of things about their own countries. In the end its all good...
so little time...
by
sjanich
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Representatives from upper and lower Canada including Ontario were originally part of the continental congress during the American revolution but backed off when the declaration of independance was signed.
Not true.
It was then when loyalist for England moved north into Canada while freedom loving rebels stayed in the states or moved south from Canada.
About 1/3 of the colonist were loyalist. I am not sure what % moved to canda, england, or elsewhere.
How is it that today Canada is more free then the US?
That is not really true. It is not true that they are less free. It helps that Canada seems to be going for a free ride (WTO, US Defense of the West and North America). Creeping socialism in Canada is starting to have a negative effect.
Americans love freedom and credit the revolution but support the president and look at anyone non conformist as unpatrotic.
This is a very simplistic statement. It is simply not true.
Guess what? Bush is the one who is unpatrotic.
In what sense is he un-patriotic?
Many Americans are becoming wary of not only his economic record but his horrendous foreign policy.
The poll number they show on National Security issues on the news do not back this up.
...many are upset and look at Bush as reckless and a threat to global stability more then anyone else.
The anti-American left and the supporter of militant Islamic dictators feel this way. To them stability means, dictators stay in power, and terrorism against the West continues. To them stability also means the US does nothing .
He really could overreact and create a nuclear war if he is not careful.
In what sense has overreacted? What scenario are you considering here? China Russia? North Korea?
I think Powell definitely acted inappropriately in Syria yesterday.
In what sense? If anything, the US is taking a soft line to Syria. Are you upset that they were asked to expel Iraqi leaders they may have given sanctuary too? Are you upset that Syria was asked to stop supporting multiple terrorist groups?
Sorry...the correct phrase [and system] is Universal Healthcare.
Re:canadian forces?
by
sjanich
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The current candian military is a pale shadow of the force that fought so well in WW2.
Re:canadian forces?
by
sjanich
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Do you really want to know why Canada didn't join your war against Iraq? We all agree that Sadam is bad and should have been removed. There is no argument about that. We didn't join in because we do not want to be a TARGET. That's right, a TARGET. Just think about this in a logical fashion. Look at the possible chain of events.
The above is a pretty good example of the appeasement mindset. Unfortunately, on the international stage, this is what Canada has become.
Loyalty Day
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It should be noted that Bush made May 1rst Loyalty Day. That's right, Loyalty Day.
Mod the parent up. That is one of the most hilarious and scary things I ever read about the US.
-- Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Learn some economics
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You live in fantasy land if you believe that there is an unjustified price differential between crude oil in Eastern Canada and Western Canada. Crude oil consumers the world over essentially pay whatever the current spot price is plus transportation to their locale.
Self righteous FUD Example: The REAL Jessica Lynch
by
RedCard
·
· Score: 1
What people HATE is the self-righteousness FUD that your government spews, smearing everyone else in the process.
Here's a good example. Remember Jessica Lynch the female US private that was 'rescued' by US forces from iraqi 'imprisonment'?
Turns out that there were no troops in the hospital at all. And the hospital staff befriended her. And her injuries were not battle-related, they were more likely from falling off of a truck.
And the hospital tried to deliver her to the US troops, but when the AMBULANCE got within 300 metres of the US troops, they were fired upon.
that's some link.
by
thatguywhoiam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Want a real link? There you have it. Real facts, real commentary on why Michael Moore's movie is hack job.
Okay; I read that link. It's an interesting read, to be sure. I think the author is missing the point.
References to things like the the missile plant in Littleton are moot; I believe that there is no way of actually knowing what Lockheed Martin builds there, no matter what they - or Moore - says.
As for the Heston speech, the author of that site seems to think that the editing is some kind of trick. Moore did not re-construct sentences, as the author opines (in fact, one might point out that he starts to delve into the same kind of misinformation tactics that he is accusing Moore of); cutting to a picture, then cutting to a different sound byte does not constitute some sort of fraud. It was clear to me that these are snippets, in the way they were presented. Heston said all those things. Doesn't matter where he said them - remember the point of the film. The use of phrases like "my cold dead hands" were used at multiple points in the film, to illustrate a certain mind-set.
I surely think there were things exaggerated in Bowling for Columbine. I live in Toronto - I don't know many people who leave their doors unlocked. (I do know more people who do, to my surprise, after asking some friends when the film came out.)
But you are missing the point of the film. The point about the USA being a gun-crazed, fear-induced culture of what are probably honest people, whom are being manipulated in nasty ways. Do you dispute the gun death stats? That's the real point.
Lissin up! There are more than a few US states that have done just what our LEGAL System is going to do if our government doesn't: Decriminalize Pot or Legalize entirely. The whole reason our Prime Minister is using his powers to change the law is so that some left wing judge doesn't go puff on his hookah before swinging the gavel in favor of any of the dozens of Supreme Court of Canada Pot cases which will swing the law sooner or later in favor of actual justice; Do any of you know why weed is illegal to begin with? Do you think there was medical evidence that proved weed was dangerous in the wee hours of the superstitious era when it was prohibbited?
The government of the US is restricting freedom. They are detaining people without cause. I say we should liberate these americans. They need our help. Fight the Axis of Opression!
You are already a target. What makes you immune? You think just because you didn't get front stage and center and announce you were fighting, that you are safe? Furthermore, people don't ride the back of the US military because we are a bully, they ride our backs because everyone else wants a piece of the pie. And because we have the most powerful military in the world, so it is a pretty good back to ride on.
Re:When US will let others think what they want...
by
Flagg0204
·
· Score: 0
This seperatists attitude will not work in the world today. We are a global economy, we can no longer afford to "let other countries do what they want" However this applies to the United States as well. In a perfect world every nation would know what the other is doing. In fact, in a perfect world, we would share knowledge and information, unofortunately that is not the world with which we live in.
This country
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
This country is bullshit. We're powerless to do anything about it, too - admit it! Don't keep denying that the American public has been completely cowed into submission by propaganda and lies.
Our current government is Machiavellian in the sense that it believes it can preach freedom, truth, and justice while practicing tyrrany, duplicity, and corruption.
If we're told that this is the "land of the free" thousands of times, we might believe it. But you and I both know that is NOT TRUE. I am ANGRY! Are you?
I'd prefer to live in a country where police can't arrest you and keep you in jail for no reason.
I'm a proud Canadian, but I'm bound to say, in fairness, that we've had our own share of troubles.
Particularly if you talk to a Quebecer, you will probably get an earfull about the FLQ crisis of October 1970, when Quebec sovereignist terrorists kidnapped (and subsequently killed) a Canadian minister. In response, the federal government invoked the War Measures Act, suspending certain civil liberties, and many people suspected of links to the FLQ were detained without good reason.
Now, in fairness to the Canadian government, the act was invoked at the request of the Quebec government... But I'm sure you'll hear other sides to this story.
Switching back to "proud Canadian" mode, I do feel that our governments (at all levels) have done a pretty good job at balancing security against liberty.
-- Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
They were fighting the British in 1812. Until 1867, there WAS no Canada.
--
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Taking the "me" out of politics.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say? Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919? Were the British also exceptionally good at giving the people the satisfaction they wanted? Or does this explanation of yours float in a totally ahistorical fantasy universe where you don't need to deal with comparisons like that?"
Because having a US presense interferes with their own plans. Similiar in some ways to Afghanistan. Alturistic thoughts and motivation really is a rare thing, regardless of what society your talking about.
Re:Taking the "me" out of politics.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Because having a US presense interferes with their own plans. Similiar in some ways to Afghanistan. Alturistic thoughts and motivation really is a rare thing, regardless of what society your talking about."
You'd think that thought would have spread to more than just applying to "others."
> The above is a pretty good example of the > appeasement mindset. Unfortunately, on the > international stage, this is what Canada has > become.
I would rather have the leaders of my country being pacifists than war mongers. Odds are that sooner or later we will have to join some war (human nature and all). We just choose not to fight in this one because it does not server our international needs.
Note: Whether or not the war is ethical is a debate left up to scholars that are much more informed than me.
I know that I will sleep much more soundly the day that Ashcroft is forced to clean out his desk.
You'll have to wait until 2008, I'm afraid. With responses like those against the Dixie Chicks (I detest them, btw... but they have been very public lately) for speaking their mind, it's all too clear that a great deal of Americans support their oil-baron president, and would re-elect him in a heartbeat. Those same Americans are among the growing number of Republicans who appear to be the majority among the few people who vote.
If you want Ass-croft out, I reccomend you vote to impeach.
Few suggestions for Slashdot
by
Moschaef
·
· Score: 1
I find it hilarious that you perceive Canadians to be hypocrites for simply staying out of all the bullshit. The United States benefits significantly from our lumber, minorly from our oil, and (although they seem to enjoy slapping tarifs on it) a good deal from our grain. That doesn't mean we have to, or DO agree with America politically. We support various trade decisions when we agree with them (and in the case of FTAA, some that we don't), and we support actions that we approve of. We also give help, regardless of whether we're in a good mood politically. Remember Gander? Bush certainly doesn't.
Don't call us hypocrites for playing it safe and trying to keep peace while making a modest profit. That's called growing up and playing on the world stage instead of bullying it around to get what you want.
Re:Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Oddly enough, you know, the people who're presently bitterly resenting our foreign policy are decrying exactly such a culture. And I'm not just talking about in Iraq, or Syria, or Egypt -- I'm talking about in France and in our closest ally, the UK, too.
The response to the French not doing exactly what the US wanted was all sorts of infantile French bashing. Anyway Canada is also usually considered to be a strong ally of the US.
Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say?
It really is very simple, just because they didn't like Saddam Hussein does not mean they want a foreign army in their country.
Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919?
Lebanese Shiites cheered when Israel invaded Lebanon. Then when these soldiers overstayed their welcome they formed themselves into "The Party of God" to get rid of them.
More to the point: supply us with one clear case in which this has motivated a specific terrorist act. We know a fair amount about the 9/11 hijackers.
But also plenty we don't know about these people. Especially given that at least a third of them were using identities stolen from innocent Arabs.
Please, please, look into how the educated Arab world feels about US foreign policy. There are many, many people out there whose desperate desire is to bring secular, democratized states to the Arab world,
In order to have a stable democratic state any such government, its structure, powers and constitution must be decided by people who live there. It simply cannot be done by foreigners or ex-pats who havn't set foot in the country for decades. The best outsiders can do is advise, but this is a job for political historians rather than soldiers.
They do understand the despotic regimes out there -- they seem particularly aware of ones like Egypt, and of the Shah in Iran.
The Shah being especially relevent as a tyrant installed by the US and Britain at the request of the oil industry. Which didn't like the idea of a democratic Iranian government acting in the interests of the Iranian people. The only people in Iran capable of opposing the Shah were the Shiite clerics (Iran having been the home of Shia Islam for several hundred years.)
They're saying things about how US foreign policy is counterproductive.
It rarely appears to be counterproductive towards the corporate lobby who appear to be in the driving seat. Also when it is counterproductive this tends to be long term, long enough that the current US executive can say "we didn't do it".
Re:Canada is no place for a family.
by
leoc
·
· Score: 1
I, for one, hope you Zapdos come over the border gun in hand to teach us a lesson so that I may be the one who blows you away. Go ahead, loser. Try us.
-- STFU about slashdot bias.
Travel as a privilege?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's something to wave a flag over.
*chuckle*
Since when was the US government in the business of converting freedom to privilege? Is this kind of like knighthood?
"I knight you Traveler. And in accepting this privilege you agree to leave your American citizenship at home when you travel within the US. Leave your constitution at home also, because it does not apply to you when enjoying the Privileges of the Homeland"
Re:Canada is no place for a family.
by
leoc
·
· Score: 1
For the record, being a good Canadian, I'd have to buy a gun first!:)
-- STFU about slashdot bias.
Re:Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
by
Marc+Desrochers
·
· Score: 1
The complaint I hear from middle-eastern immigrants (Me living near Montreal) is that "how can the US sanction others, and thereby restrict what others may have, whilst the US can't even provide adequately for themselves. It seems to be the US way,Do things our way or we will lead an enforced, US-lead boycott of all goods in and out of your country.
Food for Oil my ass.
How can anyone believe the US when they say they aren't doing it for the oil, wile all you hear on CNN is "The oil fields are now safe"
While I'm on a rant, why does the US want to ban WMD when they have the most? Or has the US dismantled it's entire arsenal of nuclear weapons recently? They are also the country who has in history used the most WMD. Let's just ask the Japanese how they feel about that?
It's starting to look as though the US is far more dangerous to world stability than Iraq was.
The world isn't blind, we see what is happening. Dubya is a dangerous man!
Man, I wish I had mod points. You make a good point.
Canadian and American differences
by
ekc
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I grew up in Canada and still live there, but my dad and wife are both from the States, and I maintain a dual citizenship. What I have noticed is that Americans tend to express strong opinions on various issues and are frank and open about most things. Canadians tend to be a little more reserved and fearful of offending others.
America was founded by people who broke away from an oppressive regime, which makes Americans tend to explore their opportunities to their fullest potential and seek to change the world. Canada was founded by two groups who had been at each others throats throughout history, which makes us a nation of diplomats, all trying to smoothe over our differences and find common ground and compromise.
I remember attending a debate in Toronto between an evolutionist and a creationist. At the end, when the audience was encouraged to speak up, people kept saying things like "must evolution exclude the hand of God" or "couldn't evolution be a part of God's creation plan"? The evolutionist (who was American) looked at them like they were from another planet, but this is how Canadians tend to think.
That's why this Iraq war was so hard on the national psyche. It's not so much that we were opposed to the war as it was that we couldn't stomach the rift that was forming between the US and its allies. We spent all our energies trying to find a position that would placate the US, France, and others which was, of course, futile.
Anyway, that's just my spin on things as a Canadian, but if you all have different views on the subject, I'm sure I can find some way to accomodate them.:-)
"All that being said, I think that pot should be legal for medical purposes. It's an incredible anti-nausea agent, and pain management substance, and is great in brownies... LOL. The current and previous administration's policies with regards to marijuana are stupid. I am however not recommending it's use. I know quite a few guys that I went to school with (I'm 30) who are still living in my home town, still working at Burger King, renting a shabby apartment (or living with parents), and still just "hanging out man, and smoking weed". They are functionally 15 to 17 years old from a social and emotional stand point. They have not changed a bit since high school (hint: this is not a good thing). I'm buying a house and they are sneaking around trying to score some doobage. It's really depressing for me to catch up with these guys."
I think the much better question is why humans feel the need to take drugs period? Does a healthy well-adjusted body (mental and physical), really need drugs? Will one live longer, have keener eyesight, gain the ability to calculate PI to the n'th place in one's head, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? It seems that drugs exist to avoid (mask?) our deficiencies. Can't deal with society? Go smoke something. Can't deal with the train wreck that is one's life? Go drink something. People are dying somewere in the world? Go inhale something. Someone said they didn't love you? Go shoot up?
You can freely protest. It's those big groups of anti-war people that block traffic and ambulances (this really happened in San Francisco) that they're trying to avoid.
There's a time and a place.
-- "Sufferin' succotash."
BZZZT! But thanks for playing.
by
RatBastard
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That was the British Army, not the Canadian Army. Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.
At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.
-- Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
France and French Canada will Rule EU and US
by
OldHawk777
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
There appears to be
a new French Foreign Forces emerging.
No, they are not associated with the honorable French
Foreign Legion.
Frances' policy of sharing foreign diplomatic and military
information with foreign organizations/groups appears to imply a French
government global political agenda of some sort.
The agenda may be to provide assistance to politico-religious
leaders that justify murder in the name of god using the warriors of a false
prophet/god to fight and in a Jihad (clandestine war) against an undeclared
enemy (EU and US [sounds like in English]).
I am just not sure, ?HUM?, would the French government seek
destruction of others more powerful and influential in global culture and
international relations? Now that the Russian Bear has been bankrupted, maybe
the French government is using the Panda Bear and Ali Bear to destroy the American Eagle,
marginalize the Celt/Anglo-American cultures in EU affairs and then France can
retry WW-2 with Germany (who ain't got nukes).
THEN: La France, La France, terminé toutes autre! EU knows
well the tune... sing along if you want and enjoy Jerry Lewis
(dubbed or sub-titles) reruns forever, and forever, and forever, even the
French Government will learn what hell can be for the US (dominated by French
controlled Canada [I know very funny]) and the EU dominated by France. The
French Government (not the people) has met the enemy Face to Face
and it is them.
Sad to say, this scenario is no longer really beyond the imaginable.
Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. Though you may hold paranoid delusions about the government's evil plans, the rest of us realize Saddam needed to go.
And therein lies the source of your frustration, like with most of those so-called anti-war protesters. You're not anti-war or anti-policy. You're just anti-Bush. Get over it. Bush won and will likely win again.
-- "Sufferin' succotash."
BFC is very biased.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://gunowners.org/opmoore01.htm
BFC is a work of fiction then of reality. At best it is his opinion, but then again numbers stories are selected and represented only to support his views. He is just believing his own lies when he thinks he is impartial. I did think he has very interesting points like "Should we blame bowling for the death?" but a lot of it what he showed was just to prove his point and biases. Interesting reflection on how he see the world, and not what or how it is actually is.
Moving to Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is interesting that so many Americans (i hear this from lots of ppl here in the U.S.) talk about moving to Canada.
I'll agree sometimes that the grass in Canada seems greener. (no marijuanna jokes:oP)
But it is also my understanding (from the small number of Canadians i know) that we (the people of the United States) aren't particularly welcome in Canada.
Canada might be a great place to live, but it may not be a great place for transplants to live.
Just my $0.02USD
-phaeton
Re:Moving to Canada
by
RobinH
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But it is also my understanding (from the small number of Canadians i know) that we (the people of the United States) aren't particularly welcome in Canada.
I'm a Canadian. When I meet an American who's moved to Canada, I feel like they're about to start brow-beating me, "well, in America we would do it this way," etc. Some Americans I've met who moved to Canada actually claimed that we had too many immigrants!!! That's a good one!
Honestly, Canadians are just uncomfortable with Americans' self-righteousness and willingness to offend other people at otherwise calm and social events, like dinner. Americans who are polite and considerate with others' feelings are generally very well received.
Just remember, everyone is entitled to an opinion (even in Canada), but I'm entitled to be offended if you start insulting French people (my wife is French), and I might make you feel unwelcome. Don't take is personally. Actually... take is personally. If you're a racist, stay where you belong in the U.S.;-) Otherwise, welcome to Canada.
-- "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Re:Moving to Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I agree 100%.
Sometimes i'm quite ashamed of the "Stereotypical American Abroad"/ World View of US Gov't. etc...
I hate blanket judgments on anyone, but this is the one i have to live down all the time.:o)
-phaeton
Get your head out of your butt...
by
WebCowboy
·
· Score: 1
...and take notice of ALL the taxes Canadians pay. I'm surprised it's not even higher than 50% of income.
You are only looking at FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Take a look at your return and see how much income tax additionally goes to the province you live in. That will add a few percent on top of it.
Don't forget the other payroll deductions either. They are essentially taxes too. One deduction is called "Employment Insurance", however just like auto insurance you pay and pay and only get back when you are between jobs (and you meet all qualifications). Not only that--EI takes in WAY more than it pays out and the surplus is "invested". The crooked Canadian federal government has (on more than one occasion) has passed bills and regulations to raid the EI fund to cook the books and achieve a "balanced" budget. The other deduction on your cheque (CPP) is for the pension plan, which has been badly managed and is far from guaranteed to pay out (most analysts say that NOBODY under 50 will EVER receive all their pension contributions after retirement--that is unless they live to be 100).
Now there are municipal taxes. All property owners pay municipal taxes (and that means so do all renters, as landlords pass those costs onto them). Where I live, for a modest home such as mine, that amounts to around C$1500.
Last but not least, there are sales taxes. All Canadians pay at least 7% for the federal GST on damn near everything they buy (it seems only most grocery items are exempt). Add up the tax on all your utility bills, snack foods, booze, auto fuel, clothes--all of it (even YOUR HOUSE and USED ITEMS ON CONSIGNMENT and USED CARS--yes the government recycles those for taxation purposes too!). Even the poorest pay more than they get back in GST rebates. Unless you're from Alberta the province chimes in with their sales tax, bringing up the tally to an average of %15. Don't feel left out Alberta, your province dings you too (though perhaps not to the same extent) with the Healthcare Premium tax (yes--it IS a tax).
And "things aren't enforced nearly as much"?! It's pretty damn hard to avoid paying sales taxes--you can't give the glerk 7-15% less and expect them to be happy. If you owe income tax on your return--try not paying it for awhile. They don't toss you in jail in Canada, but they will garnishee your wages and freeze your bank accounts until they have your money. If you stop paying your Alberta healthcare or municipal taxes for long enough they will send a private collection agency after you and your credit rating will be downgraded. When it comes to getting money to spend...Canadian government most certainly DO care. And they make sure they get a hell of a lot more than 30%.
Re:Get your head out of your butt...
by
Rob+Simpson
·
· Score: 1
Well, I pay $420/week in Canada Income Tax (federal and provincial are lumped together), $25/week in CPP, and $33/week in EI. Divide the total by my gross pay* and I pay 31.5%. Not that bad, really - especially since I got back almost $4000 since I didn't start working until I graduated. I'd pay less if I made RRSP contributions, but I'm going to finish paying off my student loans first.
While you also whine about municipal taxes and sales taxes - those exist in the U.S., too. I'm not sure how much, but you can't act like they only have to pay income tax. (And don't forget health insurance - whoops!)
*Which I'm technically not supposed to state, according to my contract. Solving this simple math problem is a violation of the DMCA, which probably applies to Canada by now.
Re:Get your head out of your butt...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you stop paying your Alberta healthcare or municipal taxes for long enough they will send a private collection agency after you and your credit rating will be downgraded.
Are you the secured party? A publican, who's entity is registered on the public side upon the UCC, knows how to grind the bones of their adversaries under their feet. I suggest you file your corporate sole, setup your patents, recognize that you are operating under a privilege through a corporation registered by Canada. Revoke the trust, then be the grantor to your own trust, and crush your adversary's attempt to tax you without rendering services. You do know the common law of the land, don't you?
Lafayette's French army helped win Yorktown
by
byoon
·
· Score: 1
and the French navy kept Cornwallis' army from retreating, forcing his surrender. You are aware the French fought on the colonists' side in the US Revolutionary War, aren't you? Hardly "their own pointless war".
Re:Lafayette's French army helped win Yorktown
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And the French were given monetary compensation for their help, thanks! Not to mention that they were in the war largely because they hated the British, not as much because they loved us. I'm not saying I hate the French at all, but I've had enough of this "The French gave us our freedom, so we owe everything to them" when the French is saying on the other hand "Thanks for liberating Iraq, now get out, kthnx"
Damn proud to be Canadian
by
xQuarkDS9x
·
· Score: 1
For one thing we do not have the Patriot ACT like you americans do and all the other legal crap like the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA and god knows what else that the american politicians are cooking up to further strangle the american citizens rights and freedoms.
Also if the UN would have approved the war on Iraq instead of the US going in regardless of the UN's say on the matter, Canada would then likely have sent some support.
-- You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Re:Canada is no place for a family.
by
xQuarkDS9x
·
· Score: 1
Ah yes the American way. Have a family and keep a gun or two in your sock drawer so your young child can find it and blow him or herself away. Uh huh...right.
-- You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
America, Heal Thyself (an open letter)
by
DeadVulcan
·
· Score: 1
I am Canadian and I'm quiet offended by how some Canadians all of a sudden see this subject as a reason to tell the US how better we are at liberties and stuff.
Fellow Canadian here... And I agree.
I think the U.S. currently is stricken with a range of almost intractably difficult social and political troubles. It's shameful that some people seize on the opportunity to laugh at them when they're down.
Myself, I feel heartbroken about the problems in the U.S. I would urge all Americans to act. Take your nation back from your government. Involve yourself as much as you can.
Above all, VOTE. Educate yourself and vote for the party whose ideals you share. Maybe you should even start a new party. Believe in your democratic system and make it work for you. And remember that you are the current world superpower; it behooves you to educate yourselves about world events and foreign policy. The internet is here - use it.
Again, I'm not saying Canada's perfect... but it's clear you're having problems, and you must all work to heal yourselves.
-- Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
sense of proportion
by
Gandalf1957
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
725 killed worldwide huh ? and what does www.fbi.gov have to say about annual murder statistics in the US ?........
how does that old saying about putting your own house in order go ?
Aren't you making a case for less freedom and more govt. intrusion with this point? You're basically saying the govt. should spend less time worrying about foreign terrorists, and more time enacting laws to restrict guns, provide more surveilance, etc. to reduce murder in the US.
-- Vote for Pedro
The farce that is American "freedom"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I dunno...smoked any pot or Cuban cigars lately? How about enjoying anything that happens to come from France? What if you happen to agree more with Jello Biafra, Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore, instead of Charlton Heston, Rush Limbaugh or Baby Bush himself? What if you happen to be muslim, or even friendly with a muslim? What of you're black or Hispanic? Or non-christian? Gay, lesbian, transgendered? Even female? What if you just like to dress differently or wear your hair in a certain manner? What if you happen to like computers and science fiction, instead of football and baseball? What if you run a Mac or a Linux box? Starting to get the picture? Americans really haven't the slightest idea what freedom and liberty really mean.
Re:The farce that is American "freedom"
by
coke_dite
·
· Score: 1
(picture me laughing hysterically at my desk whilst all my coworkers gawk at me in fear and amazement)
-- Visit us at http://www.iblist.com!
Re:some Marijuana stats-Chemical "props".
by
Abcd1234
·
· Score: 1
I think the much better question is why humans feel the need to take drugs period? Does a healthy well-adjusted body (mental and physical), really need drugs? Will one live longer, have keener eyesight, gain the ability to calculate PI to the n'th place in one's head, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? It seems that drugs exist to avoid (mask?) our deficiencies. Can't deal with society? Go smoke something. Can't deal with the train wreck that is one's life? Go drink something. People are dying somewere in the world? Go inhale something. Someone said they didn't love you? Go shoot up?
Hmm... clearly you haven't experienced weed or other substances (nothing wrong with that, BTW, it's a personal decision), and hence don't understand the drive behind its (and many other substances) use. Why do people feel the need to jump out of airplanes? Climb mountains? Hangglide? Drive fast cars? Bungee jump? People do things, sometimes, just because they enjoy it. And the same can be said of the various substances people use. The stigma that people who use substances (weed, alcohol, etc) are doing it as an escape is mostly fiction. Yes, *some* people do it for that reason, but from personal experience, I can say that most people consume various substances because it's *enjoyable*.
Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?
Re:Canada is no place for a family.
by
leoc
·
· Score: 1
Nothing wrong with that, my American friends tell me all the time I should be more like them. Just kidding guys, really! No don't shoot me!
-- STFU about slashdot bias.
The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
bri_n33
·
· Score: 1
It's interesting that the same people who question our government and its laws are the same people who don't care about freedoms in OTHER countries (Iraq).
Our government is a bloated piece of crap that violates the principles on which it was founded.
That said, I would rather die than buy into what the liberal media says.
Although most people look at the US Gov. critically, they NEVER question the media, as if the media isn't built off of profits.
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
Amiga+Trombone
·
· Score: 1
It's interesting that the same people who question our government and its laws are the same people who don't care about freedoms in OTHER countries (Iraq).
What you're missing here is that our government isn't charged with running other countries and ensuring their freedom. It's charged with running this country and maintaining our freedoms.
And no, I'm not a Liberal. Actually, I'm probably to the right of Attila the Hun.
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
bri_n33
·
· Score: 1
So I suppose trying to create peace and pro-Americanism is the wrong thing?
Men, women and children getting slaughtered by the thousands every year, and you don't care?
And who said the government isn't concentrating on domestic policy? We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
I don't mean to be rude, but you're believing all of the crap that comes from the media. Remember, if nothing is wrong, then they don't have a story.
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
Amiga+Trombone
·
· Score: 1
So I suppose trying to create peace and pro-Americanism is the wrong thing?
By bombing the hell out of foreign countries? If we've gone into the business of "liberating" countries from brutal dictators, we could have started a little closer to home. Fidel Castro has been pulling the same crap for nearly half a century, 50 miles off of our coast. I haven't seen an invasion plan for Cuba yet.
And as far as creating a spirit of pro-Americanism is concerned, if you haven't noticed, we've managed to piss off most of the planet.
Men, women and children getting slaughtered by the thousands every year, and you don't care?
What do you think we just did in Iraq? We just killed over 7000 people there.
And who said the government isn't concentrating on domestic policy?
Bush ran on a platform that included reforming Social Security, reducing the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of government, and a "humbler foreign policy".
Government spending has increased (and that includes discretionary spending, not just non-discretionary spending), I don't see Social Security reform anywhere in sight. For a reduction of intrusiveness of government we get the Patriot Act, and don't get me started on the "humbler foreign policy".
Any conservative with sense ought to be screaming his head off. The last I heard, conservatives stood for limited, constitutional government and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
Apparently not.
I don't mean to be rude, but you're believing all of the crap that comes from the media.
So where are you getting your information? Are you privy to sources the rest of us aren't?
Perhaps you need to take a break from the neocon punks at the National Review and spend some time getting familiar with some real conservative philosophers and scholars.
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
bri_n33
·
· Score: 1
We pissed off who? Do those jubilent Iraqis look pissed off to you? We killed many, but Saddam would have killed tens of thousands more if we let him stay.
Spending has increased? Of course. Our military was crap before (thanks Clinton) and we have to spend to stimulate the economy during recessions.
I agree that Bush hasn't been adhering to his platform of small government (of course, who has?)
The crap you're spouting off to me is the same spin I here in the liberal media sources...
Look, I think we have the same view on the government, but I still think that we should have liberated Iraq. If we shouldn't have, then give me your plan for ending that kind of crap in the world.
Furthermore, the big picture is... that we're sending a message - We don't F*ck around when it comes to countries not obeying the rules... and by doing so, we heavily influence other countries (N. Korea)
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
Fjandr
·
· Score: 1
It's not about caring, it's about it not being a power delegated to the American government. The federal government is not authorized to exercise powers that aren't delegated to it, period, period, period. Just because some group of people wants it to step outside the bounds of delegated authority doesn't mean shit from a Constitutional standpoint. If you want to make a difference, pick up a firearm and travel to your favorite pet civil-war-torn or brutalized-by-a-totalitarian-government country and get fighting. But don't try to make others join a cause they may not support. That is the point, my friend.
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
Fjandr
·
· Score: 1
Now who's believing the media. Obviously you haven't watched the reports on the fall of Baghdad, where there were 50 or so Iraqis who were coached, surrounded by marines and reporters. Pictures from outside the square showed that Marine tanks had sealed it off to anyone not chosen to participate in a staged media event. Then there were the underreported instances of anti-american protests where protesters were shot and killed. Then people protesting the shootings later were shot and killed. Funny how you don't see that on the nightly news. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Influence North Korea my ass. North Korea has been getting more belligerent the more we posture. You know why we haven't invaded? Because they actually have weapons of mass destruction. You know why we invaded Iraq? Because we knew they didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
Oh, and where in the US Constitution does it authorize the federal government to enforce a set of rules (oh, and what are these rules, and where in the Constitution are they enumerated?) on foreign powers who are not invading or threatening to invade US territory?
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
lord_nightrose
·
· Score: 0
Both the media and the government run off of their profits. End of story.
-- This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
bri_n33
·
· Score: 1
First of all, there's about a billion things that the government does that's not stated in the Constitution.
Secondly, it's not just the Constitution that gives the government its authority, it's US too. This isn't a dictatorship. If I want some of my tax dollars to go to freedom, then I'll have it. I don't feel like sitting around like a lazy, fat, oblivious American.
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
Amiga+Trombone
·
· Score: 1
It's not about caring, it's about it not being a power delegated to the American government. The federal government is not authorized to exercise powers that aren't delegated to it, period, period, period.
Wow! A Slashdoter that actually understands the Constitution!
Sir (or Madam), you've just made a friend!
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
bri_n33
·
· Score: 1
Is the Consitution some kind of Diety or something that cannot be challenged?
Do you think that it might be possible that if the framers knew how powerful we turned out to be, they might actually lobby the government to help people?
I think that if the framers of our constitution knew that you were speaking for them, they would roll over in their grave.
Every day I eat, drink, and sh*t politics. And when I'm done with that, I watch the History channel. I grew up in a small town, with teachers who made the problems with our government well-known. If anyone knows about the principles to which our government was founded, I'm one of them.
But to speak on behalf of the people who created the constitution at THIS DAY is flat-out disrespectful. If they were alive now, I suppose they would still support slavery, too? and no suffrage for women? What things have changed in 200 years???? Bringing freedom to an oppressed people with relative ease was not possible in that day, and also, TOTALLY UNHEARD OF. It's not about conquering countries and gaining land anymore.
I suppose if you were living in Iraq in poverty, you wouldn't want help?
Beside that, wasn't this government created on the principle that everyone should have a say in it?
I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone, but I am SO SICK of people thinking that they know everything. Especially when it comes to interpreting historical figures in a present-day context.
It's obvious that our government is violating the constitution in many ways (and no one is doing much about it). But, I would stop short of saying that freeing other people is not an implied right which was given to us if we chose.
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
Fjandr
·
· Score: 1
You've apparently never read any of the writings of the framers who strongly opposed involvement in the politics of other countries. They wanted to leave others alone and in turn be left alone. That is abundantly clear by the historical records left.
A right held by us, yes, a power delegated to the government, no. I stand by my comment that you should pick up a firearm and go help liberate the country of your choice. That is your right under the 9th amendment. But there is no such power delegated to the government to enter the armed forces of the United States into a conflict that does not otherwise involve our national defense.
For all of your protestations against people who (apparently implicitly, as I never saw a single explicit claim) claim to know everything, you sure give a lot of reasons why we should believe your factually unfounded argument.
Re:The sheep have Invaded!!.....
by
Fjandr
·
· Score: 1
That would be "sir.":)
Unfortunately,/. suffers from the same maladies that ails most of the rest of the U.S.: ignorance and/or laziness.
Re:BZZZT! But thanks for playing.
by
MagikSlinger
·
· Score: 1
You mean like the fact that President Madison campaigned on stealing Canadian land and giving it to American farmers?
And yes, it was Canadian land because that was the name of the colony even if we weren't a nation yet.
Also, did you forget that almost every Indian tribed aligned with England against the U.S. invasion?
-- The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Re:Canada is no place for a family.
by
xQuarkDS9x
·
· Score: 1
Yeah those yankee's might shoot you up the ass ^_^
-- You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Ha Ha Ha
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You are 14 years old.
To those who think Health care is free in Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then you need to actually VISIT and live in Canada.
Go live in British Columbia. It has the highest provinical taxes in Canada (14.5% PST and GST Combined) the highest health care costs (prescription prices are sky high) and you still pay a LOT of money to BC Medical and Pharamcare.
Hell I moved out of British Columbia last year into Saskatchewan where health costs are cheaper to say the least.
So Health care isn't "free" in Canada. You still pay for it. Goes to show how much some of those "yankees" know about Canada.
Keep out.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We don't need fairweather fans like you polluting this great land.
USA is a free country. Get over it.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Im sick and tired of morally righteous individuals who sit behind their monitors and spew out some philosophical masturbations about the evils of USA. Govt in USA now is representative of American people, like it or not it is elected and there is a high approval of what it does. Attacking that US govt as saying it is fundamentally wrong, because you disagree with the way it does things is the same thing as saying American peopleand constitution are at wrong as well.
Yes get over the fact that Bush won, and in the same time get over that Clinton got impeached. Get over the fact that economy under Clinton was not because of him(we still feeling after effects of the bullshit "new economy" that happen then) and get over the fact that marijuana is illegal in USA. Just because you think it should be legal, doesnt mean everyone else thinks the same way. Get real that to the fact that USA JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS PROTECTING ITS OWN INTERESTS. And dont give me shit that Republicans dont care about privacy and democrats do. I can give you numerous example of Democratic and Republicans who vote for security or who vote for privacy. As I recall FDR did a lot of things which a lot of people choose to forget, during the time of war. You also forget that US govt for better or worse is representative of American people and like it or not calling the govt stupid is calling Americans stupid. And no one can make everyone happy in the same time. We all know communism failed. And Im sick and tired of people telling that Republicans are hawks and Democrats are not. Hiroshima/Nagasaki drop was authorized by who? Bay of pigs? So don't give me that shit either. Don't divide people into Republicans and Democrats and Green. You are just falling for stereotyping which only helps to propagate your biases.
USA IS the country of the free. Tell me ONE thing that is going on now which is not JUSTIFIED or not been voted in by American people? You cant because all things done are done people by people elected by the office to represent them by FREE WILL so they are instruments of American will. And that is our freedoms that they are protecting.
Re:USA is a free country. Get over it.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"..USA IS the country of the free..."
AHahhahahahahahaha ahahahhaha hahahahha a ahahahaha ahahahahahhah ahahahahahhahahahahhaha ahahhahaha aáhahahahhahahaa
Dumbass !!
Re:canadian forces?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Couple of notes about D-Day. There were 5 beachheads, 2 British, 2 US, 1 Canadian. I've read in several places that the Canadians were the only force to achieve all of their objectives in the first day. (can anyone confirm)?
And as for the US, i think its unfair to critcise their isolationist policy...most of Europe pursued appeasement (except for France -- don't forget that!) until it was too late. FDR used his executive powers to prepare the US for war despite a lack of pulic support or congressional approval...that's called forsight.:)
In any way the war on irak and the afterwards apropriation of their oil resources is interfering in their business. OMFG, i forgot you were saving all the poor iraki people!! It's also interesting to note the way people justify terrorists' motives. We interfere with everybody! Yeah, that means it's okay to blow people up.
You people seem to forget that the no.1 people blower in the world is the USA, i meen, 9/11 was bad, but a mere few thousand people is nothing compared to the massive homicide in Irak, Kosovo, etc. Oh wait but theres a justification: women in irak have their faces covered (!!!) lets go get this sons of bitches!!!!!
WAKE UP!
-- My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
You mistake is an understandable one.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Irish Republican Army is a terrorist organization of white people. They are freedom-fighters, underdogs, patriots!
Promised land...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Canada has long been a haven for those opressed by the US government:
During the slavery years, canada was referred to as the "Promised Land" by blacks in slavery. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincolns/slavery/es_u nderground.html
And thousands fled the US when being forced to enroll in the military during the mess that was the Vietnam War.
It's nice to live in the promised land that believes in peace.
Canada has had dick all to do with any military action in the last 100 years.
I think you need to restate that to "58 years". Canada was heavily involved with WWI and WWII. At the end of WWII, Canada had the fourth largest military in the world, and then did the unprecedented and unilaterally disarmed. It was also a very large air-force training centre and an enormous weapons factory during WWII.
You want us to take up arms? How about that time you guys tried to invade us and we burnt your White House down?
It was British forces straight from Britain that burned down the White House.
Or how about how we've supplied troops to just about every single UN mission since its inception?
I think that one needs to draw a distinction between merely "supplying troops" and actually supplying a decisive force. All significant wars waged by first-world nations are U.S.-led in recent decades.
Re:Canada is no place for a family.
by
Zapdos
·
· Score: 0
Perfectly understandable....
by
Stonan
·
· Score: 1
The idea of a government that actually cares about it's citizens rather than seeing them as just revenue would be quite strange and scary to the US.
-- The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
Re:Canada is no place for a family.
by
Zapdos
·
· Score: 0
The American way is a varied as the people that live here. I do own several guns, and like 99.999999% of America gun owners keep my guns in a concrete reinforced fireproof gun cabinet.
Allot more children will drown in the backyard pool this year then will be shot. I think we need to ban pools.
As a Canadian, I have never been able to figure this out. People living outside the USA tend to label any American a Yankee, but when you travel within the country, opinions seem to vary. Some say it's anyone from New England, but within New England, they say no, it's someone from this state or other. I have a feeling that by the time you get to the bottom of it, the only true Yankee is some guy who lived in a small village several hundred years ago. (Well, or a member of a certain baseball team, I suppose.)
Re:So what is a "Yankee" anyway?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've always understood it as a somewhat derogatory term for those Americans who know literally nothing about Canada. It's still funny as hell when some Americans think Canadians live in Igloo's LOL!
I think they'd change their minds if they came to Vancouver or Toronto or any of the other large cities in Canada.
I'm not worried.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If Mexicans can do so well as illegal immigrants, why can't an American? It would be....ironic, too.
San Francisco and public transportation
by
jemele
·
· Score: 1
Thus explains the natives behaviour... fascinating!
First of all, "war" does not mean "military action."
It used to.
I've noticed this trend accellerating - getting around legal restrictions by just making up new terms with the same meaning, but claiming that since the word is different, the law doesn't apply.
War doesn't mean "military action against an enemy". Afghanistan prisoners of war are actually "unlawful combatants". The invasion of Iraq is a "liberation", and purely "pre-emptive defense". Nerve gas and bio-weapons are "weapons of mass destruction", even though they kill without the destruction of anything. And the U.S dare not declare any war ever "over" (not even in Afghanistan), lest they be expected to live up to their obligations as the owners of the new territory - it's just the "end of major hostilities" now.
And apparently "losing an election" means something else too now.
What the hell is any official statement supposed to mean now anyway? Bush himself refers to the war against Iraq as a "war" in speeches. What makes it not a war?
A long time ago, world leaders were expected to be honest. That's why such international treaties and convencions never bothered to define all the terms - nobody would deny what they meant, would they?
Afghanistan prisoners of war are actually "unlawful combatants".
Nothing changed about definitions to make this the case. The Al Qaeda combatants, because they are not fighting for a country, but are in effect mercanaries, are not granted all the protectsion of the Geneva Convention. Now, as I understand it, if there is a question as to their legal status, some sort of court should determine their status. But even if the US is blocking such a move (I've not heard of it, but let's assume it), even if it is not properly applied in this case, the definition the US is using -- distinguishing certain prisoners from prisoners of war -- is perfectly legitimate.
The invasion of Iraq is a "liberation", and purely "pre-emptive defense".
It is a liberation. Sure, some of the people don't feel liberated, but most of them seem to (if not from the US than from Hussein, and hopefully the US will leave soon). And no one in the Bush Administration has ever said it is a 'purely "pre-emptive defense".' It never happened. They never said the war was purely about one thing, whether it was self-defense, liberation, terrorism, or enforcement of the Gulf War cease-fire.
Nerve gas and bio-weapons are "weapons of mass destruction", even though they kill without the destruction of anything.
Apart from people, plants, animals, etc.? Uh huh.
And the U.S dare not declare any war ever "over" (not even in Afghanistan), lest they be expected to live up to their obligations as the owners of the new territory - it's just the "end of major hostilities" now.
So? That's a smart move. If the US says the war is over, they need to turn over all the prisoners they are currently questioning. That wouldn't be very smart.
And apparently "losing an election" means something else too now.
Did the proper legal procedure get followed in the vote count in Florida? Yes. You can disagree with the court's ruling, but there is no room for disagreement that they have the final word, and they gave their final word. Proper legal procedure was followed, and Bush won the Florida electors properly and legally, and Bush had the most national votes for President. He therefore won. Please stop making stuff up.
Bush himself refers to the war against Iraq as a "war" in speeches. What makes it not a war?
Don't blame Bush, if you are looking at historical trends. This started in 1950 with President Harry S Truman in the Korean "War". The point is that there is nothing new about this, and a long history of the courts and Congress saying that this interpretation is reasonable.
Look, this is exactly what I'm talking about - fiddling with technicalities to make things fit. Bush won the election process, not the election - the majority in Florida (counting everybody - isn't that novel?) voted for Gore, the majority in the U.S voted for Gore.
And I won't even touch your complete abuse of "liberate", other than to suggest you certainly wouldn't want your property and bank account "liberated" in the same way.
I don't blame the Bush administration for this. Marketers and spinners have successfully been doing high-intensity redefining of terms for a long time, making even clear technical terms like RISC now mean CISC, or calling employees "resources" instead of people. Heck, "global purchasing habits tracking system" is now called a "shoppers club", and people can't get their names and personal details into it fast enough.
I just miss the days when people would say what they mean, and defend it on its merits, rather than trying to use spray-on glitter in the form of misleading imagery like "PATRIOT Act" (or the height of stupidity, "Freedom Fries").
Though I think it's the political deceit that is the most damaging.
Look, this is exactly what I'm talking about - fiddling with technicalities to make things fit.
The point is that they are not technicalities. I didn't go to technicalities to shoot down the things you said, I spoke plainly. Everyone captured in war is NOT a POW. Gore DID lose the election. Those weapons DO cause mass destruction. Those are not technicalities at all.
Bush won the election process, not the election
There is no distinction. They are one in the same, and always have been.
the majority in Florida (counting everybody - isn't that novel?) voted for Gore
That is false. A vote that is not properly cast and counted is not a vote. If you want to complain that Florida's counting and elections procedures suck, go ahead -- I'll join you -- but that doesn't change the fact that the legal procedure was followed and *therefore* Bush won the election. (Note also that if the count had been done as Gore wanted it, he still would have lost.)
the majority in the U.S voted for Gore.
There is no meaningful sense in which that is true. First, no one except for electors voted for Gore, and a majority of electors voted for Bush; there is no popular vote for President (nor even a Constitutional right to popular vote for electors, that is done by state legislation).
Second, even if you want to say "a majority in the U.S. vote for Gore electors," that cannot possibly be meaningful. It's like saying that your football team should have won because it got more yards, instead of more points. If that number were meaningful, the campaigns would have worked differently, and people would have VOTED differently. Many Republicans stayed home in Massachusetts because Bush had no chance to win the state's electors. The same thing goes for Democrats in other states. The number is absolutely meaningless, except as a curiosity.
And I won't even touch your complete abuse of "liberate", other than to suggest you certainly wouldn't want your property and bank account "liberated" in the same way.
Since, were I an Iraqi, I'd likely be dead or in jail or exile... I don't think that's interesting.
Were you an Iraqi you'd be a very different person with a different set of values formed by the culture that you were born into. I find this though experiment rather interesting.
All the arguments you provided aim to preserve the status quo. You carefully avoided referring to any ideals or 1st order values to justify the current state of affairs. Maybe that actually derives truly from a pre-determined aspect of your character. In the latter case you'd probably would have argued for whatever status quo in Iraq and would have neither been killed nor thrown in jail as long as things stayed the same.
All the arguments you provided aim to preserve the status quo.
That is worse than false, it is a lie. I specifically noted that I think Florida's election process should be modified from what it was in the 2000 election (apparently they improved it for 2002, I don't know how much work it still needs).
You carefully avoided referring to any ideals or 1st order values to justify the current state of affairs.
I did not defend the status quo, I defined it. It is a fact that the election process was properly followed. It is a fact that we do not have popular election for President. Nowhere in that post did I say those things were how they should be, just that it is how they are. You are making things up, and it only makes you look stupid.
Can we agree that a lie implies the intent to say/writte what is clearly false? If so you do not grant me the benefit of the doubt that I missed the one tiny bit were you offered a glimpse of your own stance in the matter:
If you want to complain that Florida's counting and elections procedures suck, go ahead -- I'll join you
I apologize for having missed this line and are very happy to see that you feel that way. Although it seems to me that you are very narrowly referring to the mere technicalities of the election process within Florida. If so, changes in this area will still very much cement the status quo. I am much more concerned with the question if the federal election process as such is still adequate for the modern day US. IMHO it is utterly antiquated. A living fossil for other democracies to marvel at and wonder how their constitutions could have spawned from such a strange system.
Nowhere in that post did I say those things were how they should be, just that it is how they are. You are making things up, and it only makes you look stupid.
Maybe I was chasing ghosts, but after you laid this all out so neatly, I very much would like to know how you think things should be. Are you happy with the status quo or not? Do you see the need for improvment on a biger scale than how Florida should go about counting votes?
Although it seems to me that you are very narrowly referring to the mere technicalities of the election process within Florida. If so, changes in this area will still very much cement the status quo. I am much more concerned with the question if the federal election process as such is still adequate for the modern day US. IMHO it is utterly antiquated.
You are entitled to the opinion. I disagree with it (for complex reasons, mostly to do with state vs. federal power, that I am unwilling to discuss at this time, as I am too busy to do such a conversation justice).
If you want to condemn me as "being for the status quo," I have no problem with that, except that I am not for the status quo because it is the status quo, but because I happen to think that in this case, the status quo is correct.
Are you happy with the status quo or not?
Am I happy with an electoral college selecting the President? Yes. Am I happy with all of how we select the President? No. I want significant and far-reaching reforms in how our candidates are selected, everything from the pre-primary debates up through election day. I want more public accountability of the parties and the media. I want to dissolve the the CPD and open up the debates to every candidate who is on enough ballots to win enough votes to be President.
I am not happy with the status quo at all, as a whole. But I do like the electoral college.
Do you see the need for improvment on a biger scale than how Florida should go about counting votes?
I couldn't care less how Florida selects its electors. They can do it by vote in the legislature, by governor's fiat, whatever. But if it is a vote, it must be done -- including any recounts -- with the equal protection clause in mind (Amendment 14, Section 1). But equally important is Amendment 14, Section 2, which says, in part:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States... is denied to any of the [voters of such state], or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced...
Paraphrased: people do not have the federal right to vote for electors for President, but when they are GIVEN that right by the state, certain rules must apply. And Florida didn't follow them. All this just to say that I don't care how Florida selects its electors, because I don't live there, but if it is by vote, they need to do it fairly.
nice one, fruitcake
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Best paranoid raving I've seen today!
I want my freedoms back!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Ok let's look at the numbers. Terrorist Attachs: "The number of terrorist attacks dropped to 199 in 2002 from 355 the previous year. Still, Mr. Powell noted, assaults occurred in every region of the world, claiming 725 lives."
Car Crashes: "The raw number of people killed in highway crashes last year was up only slightly, from 41,945 in 2000 to 42,116 in 2001" (From www.chase.com)
Hum, maybe we need to look at our priorities! At the end of the day, is lossing all our rights worth saving 725 lives World WIDE! When 42,116 people die each year from people that don't know how to drive!!!
Re:I want my freedoms back!!
by
xQuarkDS9x
·
· Score: 1
Considering how I have seen some Americans drive I can't say I blame you. Makes me wonder what the hell the driving schools in America are doing or in the case of a new driver not going to a school, what the hell the parents teach a new driver who just turned 16 and wants a fancy speeding car so he can go kill himself and his friends...
-- You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Lmfao
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I will say a lot of Canadians sure as hell don't want to live in the US. Not with your rampant crime in the big cities, pollution, guns everywhere and now the Patriot Act, not to mention garbage like the DMCA, RIAA, MPAA and more it's a wonder you Americans can walk the streets at day time and have a sense of "freedom".
The farce that is parent post
by
errxn
·
· Score: 1
Do you actually believe that? Put it this way, I disagree vehemently with the viewpoints of both Chomsky and Moore (Biafra, I can't speak to, not being as familiar with his views). I consider them both to be self-important blowhards who are more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to push their one-sided and flawed agendas.
That having been said, I firmly believe that they have every right to have their say. I wouldn't want it any other way. So, how is it, exactly, that they have been prevented from expressing their viewpoints? How do they have any less right to their opinion than the Limbaughs and Hestons of the world? I see no evidence of their having been arrested or threatened with any sort of government-backed legal action which occurred as a direct result of their having publicly stated their views.
Also, since when has it been a crime to have a Mac or Linux box, or to like science fiction, or to be a Muslim? Or to possess things that were made in France?
I think that you're confusing popular opinion and preference with the concept of rights. Just because people may be angry with Michael Moore for his comments, and may boycott him, does not prevent him from being able to say these things.
This reminds me of the big speech that Tim Robbins gave about the "chill wind" or whatever, where he referenced McCarthyism and all that good stuff. Well, guess what, Mr. Robbins, you can say whatever you like, but, sorry, despite all your grandstanding, the fact that people decide that you are an ass for saying your piece does not mean that the SS is at your doorstep.
-- In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Re:The farce that is parent post
by
mr100percent
·
· Score: 1
You're forgetting that 8,000 Arabs and Muslims were rounded up and detained. Also, they made everyone from a middle-eastern or muslim country show up at the INS for fingerprinting and photographing. The government detained hundreds of people, for unclear or bogus reasons, releasing them sometimes hours and sometimes weeks later. During that time, the government refused to name some of the people or notify the families. Many claim they were denied access to lawyers, or were beaten by prison guards or served ham.
Let's not forget, on several occasions, Arab and Muslim Canadian citizens who had a stopover in the USA, were arrested at customs, and deported to countries like Libya and Pakistan. They were Canadian citizens on their way home! Canada protested, but the US had already deported them.
Re:The farce that is parent post
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What does that make Rush Limbaugh and the other right wing idiots that hounded Clinton for eight solid years, while other issues went unnoticed? Who's really the blowhard? Limbaugh and his ilk are the epitome of one-sided! Did he ever have a leftie on his show that he didn't make fun of? If he wasn't one sided, perhaps he might learn something from the Left. Maybe he and his big business buddies might actually have a conscience!
As for the public opinion thing, where do you think a good deal of laws come from? How many laws came from public opinion? How about Prohibition? You might dismiss it, but today's public opinion is tomorrow's law.
As for McCarthy, well, his little Kangaroo Court of public opinion cost people their jobs, their families, their lives! How free is that? Public opinion just means that your so-called rights have been de-facto removed, rather than de-jure removed. Practically, it means the same thing.
Re:The farce that is parent post
by
jasonditz
·
· Score: 1
hmm... he might not have forgotten about that, but I still don't see where Linux fits into all this...
Re:The farce that is parent post
by
errxn
·
· Score: 1
Who cares what that makes Rush Limbaugh, et. al.? You're missing the point entirely, and that point is that whoever has a right to speak out about whatever, whenever, and the fact that a large number of people decide on their own, WITHOUT any government coercion, to boycott or otherwise distance themselves from said speaker, is NOT the equivalent of a government-enforced "code of conduct".
And yeah, sure, McCarthy destroyed lives and careers in the most evil of ways. He also wound up getting the colossal beat-down in the end by people who were fed up with his shit. He's lucky he pulled that stuff fifty years ago. These days, he'd probably have been shot.
-- In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Re:The farce that is parent post
by
errxn
·
· Score: 1
I'm assuming that you have documented evidence to back this up....
-- In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Re:The farce that is parent post
by
mr100percent
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I have dozens of links. Here's only a few for brevity.
After Oaklahoma City, the US passed laws allowing the use of "Secret Evidence" to detain or deport. It's been used almost exclusively on Arabs and Muslims.
Re:The farce that is parent post
by
macdaddy357
·
· Score: 1
Today McCarthy would have a job in the Bush administration if he weren't President himself. Hate sells, and fear sells even more.
Having lived in NYC at the time of 9/11, and hearing the rhetoric that has occurred since then, I have found myself wordering whether we are winning this 'war on terr'a'. Here are the things as I see them.
1. OBL attacked the US because of his dislike of the US presence in Saudi Arabia. Within the last two weeks the US government has issused a press release (reported as news) that the military will leave Saudi Lands.
2. We have attacked two countries, one of which we have created a new government. yet even in that one (Afghanistan), US troops are still being attacked. I thought the war in afghanistan is over.
3. Bin Laden, Dead or Alive.... Anyone remember this? What happened to him? What about Saddam?
4. We now have a bunch of Shiites who dislike us in Iraq, because the US government will not let them have the government THEY want ('Muslim Democracy') but rather what is in 'The US's Best Interest'. Does this make us more or less secure?
5. Patriot Act II. This could deny Linus of all rights that we in the US take for granted. Penguins don't belong at gitmo.
-- "the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad"
-Salvadore Dali
Wrong use of the term "2nd World"
by
lommer
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it should techinically be the other way around. First World Countries = Capitalist (Western) Nations Second World Countries = Communist or Soviet-Bloc Nations Third World Countries = The rest of the world, which happens to be very poor
The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world classification is an outdated system of classification that is left over from the cold war, and it really shouldn't be used in a modern context. It was initially meant to describe political structures, but it has come to be interpreted as an economic scale. The problem with that occurs when you try to classify countries like Cuba which could be considered either 2nd world or 3rd world. It is a pretty convenient structure otherwise, but one should know about its origins and keep that in mind.
Sadly, the Progressive Conservatives have won the last two elections in Ontario and continue to gut health care and education.
I decided 4 year ago that I wanted to do computer science in university. At the time tuition for that program was $4000 a year. Now it's $12,000 (plus incidental fees) and it's going to keep rising.
The current leader of the party (Ernie Eves) says "Ontario supports the war on Iraq" despite polls to the contrary. This province is a disaster! Stay away!
--
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Re:Not in Ontario
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Progressive Conservatives? Isn't that like "black snow" or "smart republicans"?
Re:the US, Canada, and weed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I prefer 1.25's myself.
Re:Don't bag out the AUS so much
by
dbrutus
·
· Score: 1
None of the countries called democracies are actually democracies, they are called republics. To be specific, democratic republics (where the republican representatives are chosen via democratic means) are the formal name for all our systems, US, Canada, Australia, the EU states and others.
Thank your local education establishment, media, and political class for creating the confusion. Wankers.
Re:Welcome to "smelly old Europe"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
old europe smells like old poop(seriously)
You Are Forgetting Something!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...parrotting a supposedly witty anti-Bush viewpoint and immediately begin modding all who agree with first five words of article as "+5 Insightful", as opposed to actually addressing the concerns which the supposedly unbiased reporter mocks.
[Like how Canada lax immigration policies are a notorious waystop for Al Queda terrorists like the Millenium bomber on their way to American targets.]
Pathetic. I wonder what all those Canadians who have been prosecuted under "hate speech" laws by its "human rights" commission think of all that Canadian Freedom? Anti-gun laws? The freedom to get healthcare when you need it (other than a ticket to the states?)
Now mod this down as flamebait, all you all-too-predictable "freethinkers" who happen to always agree with anyone who expressess any historically revisionist anti-U.S. opinion.
hey...you paid for them(Bin and his merry crew)...they're just making sure you get your moneys worth;)
Re:Remember why 9/11 happened?ya I do actually
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
9/11 was an operation carried out by the "Shadow Government" that is actually in control of the US.It is a tool being used to shape the future in whatever ways they deem fit.Much like the Bible was used as a tool to impose a moralities on people(not all but a lot).Not all is as it seems...
Shadow
Re:canadian forces?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...So we recommend you steer clear with your yacht when we're pulling out of port on a friday night.
A libertarian government promotes lack of state intervention. So where would they fall?
Re:Don't bag out the AUS so much
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
*ahem* UK *ahem* - last I heard Elizabeth Windsor (Or Saxe-Coburg, depending on how old-fashioned you are) is not, was not and never shall be President of the United Kingdom.
You might find a few other EU states that are at least nominally monarchies (but they all act the same anyway, so I'm being more than a tad pedantic)
When I send my checque to the government every year, the payment for my health insurance is in there.
The thing is, this way the distribution of health benefits ends up closer to the ideal of being based on need instead of wallet size, which results in a happier, healthier society overall.
Not that I like the inefficiencies that tend to seep into anything the government gets involved in, however, there isn't another way around this one, as far as I know. It does mean we have to keep a careful eye on the system to ensure the money goes where it's supposed to, efficiently.
Not quite true. Oil sold to the Irving Refinery in Saint John, NB is purchased at an inflated cost from Irving Oil Bermuda, which in turn purchases it at market cost.
The refinery makes no profit, and Canadian taxes are appropriate as such.
Irving Oil Bermuda (consisting of one desk, one phone, and one semi-retired individual) makes a mint and does not pay any tax, per Bermuda Laws.
Be that as it may, it's a different issue from what the original poster was complaining about. The Irving situation (assuming it is as stated) is a well-known tax dodge used to shift a company's profits from one tax domain to a lower tax-rate tax domain. It is not specific to oil and it is not specific to Eastern Canada.
Except that, when you think about it, there is already a fair bit of Canadian Green, BC Bud, etc flowing across the border. Decriminalizing won't necessarily increase production, or exportation (they're currently looking at making use not criminal, which is different from making production legal).
Yes, you'll probably get more Americans crossing the border to grab a toke or two, but hopefully most will be smart about it and also remember not to bring the product back.
Also, keep in mind that Canada has a lower generall legal age for drinking, sex, and many other things (=16 for sex I believe, and =19 for drinking - depending on province). You don't see a lot of people dragging underage girlfriends across the border, or a big impact on American drinking (it could cause some problems with a 20-yr-old having an 18 girlfriend across borders though, I've heard of this happening).
This is something that really fits well here.....every nite...and for hours and hours every weekend, there are a ton of americans that cross the boarder to drink. 19-20yr olds that cant legaly drink in the states. They come like black flys to Windsor...I know this, Ive dealt with this for years. I cant beleave that all these border states havent lobbied DC to demand the drinking age be uped in canada. Im serious about that.
Frankly, this arguement is old. Basically because you have one group thats for it with good points backed up by scientific data (Lots of reasurch done by many non-gov't agencies in europe), an other group that is against it because its illegal now, and then everyone else (both for and against) running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
I cant beleave that all these border states havent lobbied DC to demand the drinking age be uped in canada
Probably because there's no chance in hell that they would change the local drinking age because of a DC demand. Not to mention that fact that in Canada, drinking age is by province, so while my province is 19, the adjascent province allows drinking at 18 (which used to make trips East a special treat for those just a little shy of age).
Top Ten Reasons To Live In Canada
by
Preylude
·
· Score: 1
For a summary, check out this list I made outlining some key differences between Canada and the United States.
No terrorism in USA...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The section, "The Western Hemisphere" has no mention of terrorist groups in the USA... such as the KKK and the folks who planned the Oklahoma City Federal Building Bombing.
Also... didn't the 09/11 people learn to fly in the USA...? Does the USA harbor and aid terrorists...?
I guess there are no terrorist born and operating in the USA. They are not terrorists, they are "criminals", I suppose. We couldn't very well bomb and invade ourselves.
Re:No terrorism in USA...?
by
CaptIronfist
·
· Score: 1
The only terrorists operating in the USA imo are the ones running the country, iow the lobbying corporations. Criminals are the ones employed by such entities and involved in obvious criminal actions. How do you call employees of such entities who are not involved in criminal actions ?.. Ignorants ? Sheeps ? Dolls ? Workers perhaps...
Personnaly i don't think there's ever going to be a pacific exit to the USA problems. The problem resides within the application of the "Democracy" philosophy and it started wrong.
my 2 cents, not meant as a flame..
If you cannot travel without identifying yourself
by
geekotourist
·
· Score: 1
then you are being obstructed by others, aren't you? (I'm curious, would the Fourth Ammendment be about liberty or about a claim right, by these definitions?) For more on Canada's positions on this, or at least the Canadian Commissioner on Privacy's take on privacy as a right, read his well-written overview. A couple of relevant quotes:
"With regard to all these initiatives except street video surveillance, Government officials have repeatedly told me privately that pressure from the United States government is a strong motivating factor.
Let me be blunt: "The United States made us do it" cannot be a sufficient or acceptable justification for the Government to intrude on a fundamental right of Canadians.
Canada is a sovereign country.
Throughout our history, there have been important instances where Canada has found it necessary to take a position different from that of the United States on matters involving rights or values. It is surely no exaggeration to say that if our leaders had instead consistently succumbed to U.S. pressures to adopt that country's approaches as our own, there would today be no distinct Canada as we know it.
The same is true with regard to appropriate respect for fundamental rights in the wake of September 11. If the U.S. government is indeed exerting pressure on Canada to take steps that cannot be justified on their merits in accordance with our Canadian values and rights, then Canadians are entitled to expect that the Government will remain steadfast in meeting its responsibilities rather than trample on their rights out of fear of U.S. retaliation. "
"... The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom... But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy -- the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us -- is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being..."
"...The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada. But that is where we are inexorably headed, if the Government's current initiatives are allowed to proceed. "
Denmark's submarine - I thought it was brilliant
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
I can understand the Dane's uneasiness over Denmark's support of the US invasion, but as a Canadian I must say that I thought sending a submarine to a desert war was a stroke of pure diplomatic genius. No fear of US reprisals for not 'supporting' their 'war on terrorism' and yet the actual support provided was essentially nil.
I am proud that Canada didn't support the invasion of Iraq, but part of me wishes we'd sent a few of our 50 year old SeaKing helicopters to 'help' the Americans so we don't have to worry about the economic fallout of not 'helping' the US invasion.
Personally I score 1 for the Danes.
(BTW, if Denmark sent ground troops as I read your post to suggest please excuse my ignorance, our news tends to focus on US, UK, and Australian troops)
Ontario: $60,000 = $19,000 in federal tax = $3,800 in provincial tax Income tax return = $1,500
Now sit down and figure out how much you pay all year around.
In ontario, your paying GST and PST 15% this is ofcourse triple or more taxation.
The property taxes on the house here in town were $5,000 this year. No I live in a small down, ~28,000 people.
What am I pushing in just paying federal provinal and property taxes so far? $26,300(counting this years return) in taxes just to the goverment at this level. What percentage does that work out to being on $60,000? How much more do you think it would take to push it over 50%? $3,700 in Ontario when I'm 15% tax on almost all my goods it doesn't take long to add up.
And on and on it goes. Canada is the most heavily taxed in the world.
-- Om, nomnomnom...
Too many damn guns in the U.S.
by
Megawatt-hour
·
· Score: 1
Why such high murder rates in the U.S.?
Enter any U.S. home, fish around in the sofa cushions, and you find two or three forgotten sidearms. Look down the heating vent and you'll find a dozen types of ammo. And in Junior's room? Colorful books on precision reloads and bench-rest shooting, as explained by cute teddy bears. I would start to exaggerate, but I don't really have to.
As a Canadian, what I would really like to see are some good Canada jokes.
actually pot isn't currently illegal in canada!
by
Deadplant
·
· Score: 1
Not long ago our Pot law got struck down by the courts because it unlawfully restricted medical pot users from procuring their meds.
Thus there is currently no law in canada that makes posessing/smoking pot illegal! yipee!
In fact there have now been several pot possesion cases thrown out of court because of this!!!
So, until this new law comes into effect pot is actually legal here.
If you don't believe me here's a link to one our our most reputable newspapers:
Judge strikes down pot law
US is afraid new Canadian Pot Policy might work.
by
debiant_minded
·
· Score: 1
US is afraid new Canadian Pot Policy might work and not that as they are warning Canada that it is doomed to fail.
Because if it works then Canada can add itself to the list of Countries that have tried something a little less Draconian than the US way and are doing just fine.
After six decades there is enough of a record to say that the US War on Drugs is a monumental failure and waste of valuable resources.
It is no longer enough to whine "If we just had more money, more resources, more training , more intelligence, " then we could win. Even Republican's like New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson are in favour of facing the obvious.
Yes, but in all the examples you gave. They all are done in part because there's a "natural high". That's why I said a well-adjusted healthy human. Your body if properly cared for (all around, not just physically), will take care of you.[1]
Artificial stimulents are "Bungee jumping","Hand gliding","Parachuting","Racing", without the accompanying physical danger. Although one shouldn't think drugs are totally risk-free.
"Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?"
I'm sorry but the "If we can, we should" argument has been shown to be a weak one. There's a lot of receptors in the brain. They didn't evolve for the purposes of supporting a drug industry. Nature isn't that vain.
[1] I suspect most aren't aware what a well-adjusted body is. Considering how we physically and mentally abuse (eat wrong, I'm worthless), and allow to be abused (advertisizing, you're a bad person). A lack of reference is understandable.
sure come on up
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I love to fight.
Re:BZZZT! But thanks for playing.
by
Daniel+Phillips
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That was the British Army, not the Canadian Army.
You'd probably like to claim those were British indians fighting on our side.
Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.
The war of 1812 was one of the defining moments of the Canadian nation, every bit as much as the British North America Act Act of 1867, "An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick". As you can see, Canada already existed by that time.
Upper Canada was created by the Constitution Act of 1791. If you want to get picky, Canada remained a colony of Britain until the Constitution Act of 1982. So when exactly was the nation of Canada born, according to you?
At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.
Would you like us to aspire to your grammatical ability, as well?:)
Our guns have to be registered, thats it.I still enjoy going to the range and obliterating targets with my Glock and my.308.As for healthcare...if you want to be anally raped by your completely outrageous way-the-fuckin-hell overpriced medical costs then fine go right ahead and bend over and enjoy it.
Re:some Marijuana stats-Chemical "props"-II
by
Abcd1234
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but in all the examples you gave. They all are done in part because there's a "natural high". That's why I said a well-adjusted healthy human. Your body if properly cared for (all around, not just physically), will take care of you.[1]
Artificial stimulents are "Bungee jumping","Hand gliding","Parachuting","Racing", without the accompanying physical danger. Although one shouldn't think drugs are totally risk-free.
Sounds like a *better* deal to me... all the fun, without the inherent physical risk. Sounds great to me!;) Although, I'd question the comparison between this "natural high" and what, for example, THC induces. They really are vastly different effects, and are enjoyable for different reasons... risk-taking behaviour triggers an endorphine release in the body, which is connected with pleasure. THC (and other chemicals) produce much different (and often pleasurable) effects. So, no, I don't think a "well-adjusted" human body "will take care of you", because it's simply not the same thing.
"Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?"
I'm sorry but the "If we can, we should" argument has been shown to be a weak one. There's a lot of receptors in the brain. They didn't evolve for the purposes of supporting a drug industry. Nature isn't that vain.
Yes, it was probably a bad choice of wording on my part. The point is that, generally speaking, many recreational drugs are relatively harmless (weed being an excellent example of this), so what's wrong with enjoying them on occasion? I happen to think the "if we can and it's fun and harmless, why not?" argument to be very powerful... the same can be said for basically any pleasureable activity which isn't necessary for human survival. Heck, why bother making music? Dancing? Singing? We don't *need* to do those things, so why bother? Because it's enjoyable! And again, not everyone likes to sing, or dance, which is why it's always a personal decision.
[1] I suspect most aren't aware what a well-adjusted body is. Considering how we physically and mentally abuse (eat wrong, I'm worthless), and allow to be abused (advertisizing, you're a bad person). A lack of reference is understandable.
Well, I'll completely agree with that... although I would argue that, even if you had a perfectly well adjusted mind and body, that doesn't preclude the participation in pleasurable activies. (ooh, how alliterate:)
Anyway, the gist of my argument is 1) drugs aren't inherently evil. 2) People who use drugs aren't necessarily using it as a "crutch", although some do. 3) Humans naturally partake in pleasure-seeking activities, and the use (and abuse) of drugs is no different, which is why we do it in the first place (to answer your original question, and bring us back on topic:).
Bull.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The reason Canada did not become involved is the majority of the Canadian people did not want to get involved in a war that was ethically wrong.
We have something called responsible government here. At least sometimes.:)
Re:BZZZT! But thanks for playing.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not to mention that most of that war wasn't fought by British soldiers but by the colonials and Native Americans.
Sorry we burnt down the White House. I notice you that rebuilt it. It looks very nice:)
We once supported dictator "x" for purpose "y", so we are obligated to a) look the other way no matter what he does, b) support him for life, because really we were entering into a "lifetime insurance for bad regimes" contract which we are obligated to honor, and c), our national interests are not allowed to change, because that would be unfair to all those regimes we propped up when things were totally different, our government's philosophy was different, and our security interests were different.
Hmmm, I work in the U.S. (so I have to pay U.S. income taxes) but live in Canada, so I have to file Canadian taxes too. My income tax in the U.S. is HIGHER than my Canadian taxes this year (for the first time, mind you) but that's mostly because I don't pay interest on a mortgage in the U.S. However, I do get much more health care for my money in Canada.
I'd say overall, the tax rates are comparable, because Canadian taxes have been going down in recent years.
Sales tax is a different story - in Ontario we are taxed 15% on what we buy. However, goods purchased in Canada are about 20% cheaper than in the U.S. after the exchange. Try this little experiment - go to GM's website and do a "build your own vehicle" wizard, then do the same on GM Canada's website. Then adjust for the exchange rate. When I bought my truck in late 2001, the same truck was 23.5% cheaper in Canada, and they're all built on the same assembly line.
Of course, the U.S. won't let an American import a new vehicle into the U.S. from Canada - it has to be at least 6 months old. Do you think the big 3 automakers had anything to do with that law? They know they can charge Americans more.
Also, I don't know how the hidden manufacturer's taxes compare. Remember that the 7% GST replaced a hidden 13% manufacturer's tax. I don't know if there are any comparable hidden taxes in the U.S.
-- "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Actually, I believe this is specific to vehicles... Vehicles sold in Canada are discounted $2000 or so because Canadians simply buy fewer cars. And that's why the import law is there. My memories fuzzy, but I saw an explanation of this on the CBC once.
Actually, I believe this is specific to vehicles... Vehicles sold in Canada are discounted $2000 or so because Canadians simply buy fewer cars. And that's why the import law is there. My memories fuzzy, but I saw an explanation of this on the CBC once.
That's interesting. I did a little searching, and according to this article, it's a conspiracy against the American people because they're too dumb to figure out what a car really should cost them. Buyer beware.
-- "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Re:Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
by
guanno
·
· Score: 1
As a 'Canuckistani' I can tell you that the biggest trouble we have with the US is the electoral politics. Corporate lobbies are the steering wheel of US government.
Take the eternally recurrent cycle of tarrifs on Canadian wheat and lumber for example. Every time there is an election, we get this BS from the US government with whom we have a standing FREE TRADE agreement.
Why? Is it because after several arbitrations with the WTO over the years, Canadians have been found to have shady business practices? No. It's because acquiescing to US economic lobbies means votes for the party currently in power and seeking reelection. Canadians suffer unfairly as a result.. over and over. THAT is what pisses off Canadians about the US. To see it you only have to take a look at the wheeling and dealing going on right now over business contracts to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq and Afganistan. There have been a few/. articles on this already. Canadians are not as likely to try and blow up the WTC towers as a result, but there are citizens of other nations likewise treated who aren't necessarily intent on pacifistic solutions.
Of course this is not to mention clueless Buffalo NY citizens driving over the border in >90*F July weather looking for our closest skii resort.
humiliation
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"You know you cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others.
That is what the Western world - not only the Americans - has to realise. I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and this is silly."
Jean Chretien (I can quote him because he is quitting and its not an advertisement)
---------------------
Its not if the rest of the world agrees with your actions or not. Heck nine times out of ten the world really does agree with the American government. And its not that anyone is really all that angry with the US over any specific issue, its kind of a greater problem.
In many parts of the world people grow up knowing full well that their country and their families have been used. They have been taken advantage of time after time, by their own governments, by their own leaders and by the west in general. They see pictures and movies of the opulence that we all live in and they see it as the product of there own demise. They see us frolicking in water parks while they don't have the water to grow food. They see us driving expensive luxury cars, while they wish that there were such a thing as an ambulance in there neighborhood.
There is a big difference between winning the race and shaking hands with your opponent and just winning the race. The attitude of "we're number 1" isn't just American, its very much a product of the entire west and the G8. Well if your growing up in a country that's ranked number 60 or below you probably don't have the confidence you should. At a certain point are we victims of our own success, did the rungs on the ladders we climbed finally realize that they will never be able to climb up the same ladder as they are just a step.
Time and time again we have showing the world and one another how great our power is. Time and time again we have showing how strong we are when we try. We have proven that we can rebuild we have proven that we can win at any cost. But to many in the world we simply haven't bothered to give a damn and its humiliation they feel. Its the humiliation of having "aid" workers instead of banks. Its the humiliation of having no control over your government when they are in the pockets of the banks of Europe.
This is not an American issue, this is not a Canadian issue. This is an issue of us having helped one another and never turning back to help more.
Do Canadian have more liberties than Americans? - Really I'd bet its about the same!
Do Canadians who invested in the same corporations as Americans that exploited the economic circumstances of the world deserve the same blame? - YES!
Do we have to begin looking at ways to bring up the standard of living across the globe? - YES!
Its great to fight a war against "whatever" but if we don't start fighting a war against poverty on a global scale the problem will remain the same. Regardless of if we see ourselves as the conquerors of the world or not, we are the conquerors of the world. We represent the citizens of Rome born 2000 years ago, when the world was your oyster through no doing of your own yet you reap all the benefits.
Are you running?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Can I vote for you in '04? The crats and the pubs certainly don't deserve it.
Ok, the land of the free saying we have "too many" liberties? Since when did you become our tutor? Will you come in Canada and topple our regime too? I'm not a big pot fan (never used, never will) but i don't see it being any more dangerous than alcool. Keep your selective freedom to yourselves.
-- Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
Myths About The US Healthcare System
by
istartedi
·
· Score: 1
I can't believe some of the outright falsehoods being thrown around here about healthcare in the US.
You didn't say this, but another guy said that the only way you could purchase insurance is through an employer. FALSE!!! I'm not sure about other states, but here in Virginia (a very right-wing state too) anybody can purchase Blue Cross/Blue Shield and they CANNOT BE DENIED. For someone age 35, it's about $114-$200/mo depending on the deductable you choose.
Me? I don't buy it. I follow the other American plan called "rolling the dice". What happens if I roll snake eyes?
I'll tell you what happens. First, I lose almost my whole my life savings. BwwAAAAAAAAAHAAA. I can just hear the bleeding hearts now. But guess what? That's my choice. What happens next? Once I reach a fixed allowance, I go on Medicaid. The fixed allowance permits me to have a small cash savings ($2000 in most parts of the country) and if I own a home I get to keep it--even if it's a $500,000 box mansion in Great Falls, I get to keep it, as long as it's my primary residence.
The care that people receive on Medicaid is higher than what you'd be able to get in many countries, and is on par with what everybody gets in countries with socialized medicine. Yes, sometimes medicaid care is inadquate, but sometimes socialized medicine is inadequate too. After all, Medicaid is socialized medicine. If you want to see what SM would be like in America, visit people on Medicaid. At least I have the opportunity to prevent myself from going there. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of the free lunch. I can become a success, and then I am free from worry, instead of being held back by the confiscatory taxes that would be necessary for socialized medicine.
Do you think defense contractors screw the government? Just wait for socialized medicine. You just know that all those "liberal" CEOs who donate to the Democratic Party are just salivating at the prospect of $600 syringes to match the $600 hammers that the "conservative" CEOs sold to the military.
And as surely as our military can conquer but not control, socialized medicine will be able to cure the simple but not the complicated.
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Myths About The US Healthcare System
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You do realize that the $600 hammers are just a cover story to pay for ultra secret military research and toys. Unless you think that the medical industry is suddenly going to start ultra secret medical research (which would kinda defeat the purpose of medical research) you really don't have that much to worry about.
US Health Care System is doomed to fail
by
Kombat
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Something occurred to me the other day that lead me to conclude that in the future, the US will be forced to adopted a socialised health care system similar to Canada's. Let me explain.
Ever since its creation, insurance has been a numbers game where the house always wins. When you insure your car, you're gambling that someday you'll have a crash which costs more to fix than you've paid into the system. The insurance companies, on the other hand, gamble that you'll pay more in premiums than you'll cost in claims. Of course, the insurace company always wins. If it is ever any other way, they simply raise your rates. Otherwise, insurance companies would go out of business. It's simple math: they must take in more than they pay out.
When you apply for auto insurance, they guess at how much of a risk you will be. They check to see if you've had any past claims, accidents, speeding tickets, or whatever. They even discriminate based on factors that would be blatantly illegal in any other context. Your sex and age affect your rate. However, in the end, it's all a crap shoot. No one can predict the future. You have complete control over what kind of driver you will be. If you have no speeding tickets, you might very well be an extraordinarily safe and cautious driver. Or, you may just be lucky.
Health insurance is similar. No one knows what they will die from. The insurance companies ask you all sorts of questions to try and find out, and your rates are based on your medical history. But in the end, the healthy ones are subsidising the sick ones.
We are at the threshold of some unstoppable, extraordinary changes in the health insurance industry. Soon, very soon, it will be possible to take a drop of your blood, and generate a very detailed schedule of your future illnesses and eventual doom, assuming you don't crash your car first. They will know with great certainty that you will definitely develop Parkinson's. That will affect your rate.
Those who are destined to be expensively ill will not be able to afford health care, or will be denied coverage completely. The only people who will be able to afford health care will be those who won't need it.
The only fair solution will be to force everyone to subsidize the sick, for the good of society. This will most likely be implemented as a tax of some sort, or maybe simply a component of existing taxes (like in Canada). Canada's system will survive these advances intact, but the US's will require massive evolution, or scores will die. Government is going to have to take over health care. It is extremely unrealistic to expect the insurance companies to be altruistic and generous when it comes to covering the inevitably ill.
It will most certainly be interesting. It will be controversial. Many still cling to the hope that this type of genetic screening will be successfully held at bay through legislation; a hope which runs counter to evolution itself. It is human nature to relentlessly advance science.
Re:US Health Care System is doomed to fail
by
tuxedobob
·
· Score: 1
Although that post has more of a prophetic feel to it than an insightful one, I'll let most of it slide. The only thing I should point out is that there are plenty of factors, age and sex included, in which discrimination is legal in some instances and not in others.
In the US, it's only illegal to discriminate based on age against people over 40. Hence why things like child labor and child porn are illegal, and why laws against those things aren't illegal.
I know of a health club franchise that only allows female members, but again, that's deemed legal.
The US isn't and likely never will be a completely "equal" country. There's too much stuff like this, some of which makes sense, that prevents it from meeting that definition.
Of course insurance has always been a numbers game. In Massachusetts, car insurance is required. I'm still wondering if that's a good thing or bad thing.
"Bowling for Columbine" had good points, but it was an overly rosy view of Canada. There is crime, there are slums. I've had my car broken into, and a friend of mine had his broken into three times until he finally bought a car alarm, and we live in smallish cities (180,000 to 200,000).
That said, one difference is that Canadian governments do make an actual effort to make things better, usually after a long consultation process - at any given time, there are a large number of Royal Commissions and consultations receiving presentations on any number of subjects, from the new foreign policy consultations going on now, to the copyright reform process (look for my submission on their web page).
I think a part of this is that in Canada, the people in charge of government departments are actually members of Parliament, and therefore elected by people. They have to keep public opinions in mind, even when this conflicts with the Prime Minister's views, or they could lose their job next election even if the government is re-elected. In contrast, the people who run the U.S government don't have to care what anyone thinks, so tend to ignore public interest (the President doesn't really make many decisions - he usually just approves them or not - it's mainly the senior party officials in charge, the same ones one administration to another). Provincial/state governments follow their federal counterparts in structure.
Re:Don't bag out the AUS so much
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm afraid you're out to lunch on this issue. Canada is not a republic, it's a constitutional monarchy.
This article is just stirring the pot (no pun intended). No US official has said "Canada cares too much about liberties". Police everywhere have to balance timeliness of action against risks to the innocent. It's ridiculous to think that any two countries would choose to place the balance at the exact same place, and therefore inevitable that police from one country will find fault with police from another, either thinking that they err too much one one side or the other.
The author's points about drug policy being tied to trade policy, resulting in the further erosion of NAFTA and diplomatic relations are well made, but they have nothing to do with the latest report from the US State Department.
The friction over decriminalizing pot reminds me of the debates regarding lotteries here in the US. When one state gets a lottery, the border state always feels pressure to get a lottery, citing revenue lost to the other state. It's plain to see that Canada will become a haven for "drug tourists", resulting in an erosion of prohibition in the US. I strongly doubt that the US would do anything to interfere with Canada's sovereignty (as some have suggested), other than wrecking NAFTA which is pretty much wrecked anyway.
So... this whole article is just an attempt to make more friction between two historic allies. Why? What interest does the author have in destroying the US-Canada relationship?
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"The current candian military is a pale shadow of the force that fought so well in WW2."
The Canadian military that fought in WW II was a pale shadow of the force that fought so well in WW I - until the war started, and the country mobilized one of the largest forces in the world.
The Canadian military was kept up for a while during the Cold War, but its end and lack of enemies made a large army that did nothing seem a little useless, so it was cut back (many say too far).
But Canada's always been fairly non-military - the army was nearly non-existant before every war that it was involved in, and built up when needed. Although these days, that sort of build up would take a lot longer than it used to because of the complexity of modern weaponry.
You sure about that? Hemp is a renewable fuel source, and could threaten monopolistic oil profits, especially in the long term. (And I'm not even talking about plastics, fibres, paper, and the thousands of other things hemp is useful for) Now, tell me the current War on Terror has absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting oil interests.
It is in Big Oil's interests to supress hemp cultivation, and Big Oil is everywhere in American decision making.
-- "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Don't bag out the AUS so much
by
dbrutus
·
· Score: 1
Apologies to the constitutional monarchies out there. They aren't democracies either so the larger point holds. If you're going to complain about your system not performing to spec, you should know the spec.
Re:Don't bag out the AUS so much
by
dbrutus
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, it's still not a democracy which is what the grandparent was complaining about. Oh well, at least I know the US is a democratic republic.
The Pinko Hysteria
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The above is exactly the sort of Pinko left-wing anti-american liberal conspiracy theory tripe that you would expect from the techno-elitists!
"State terrorism" indeed! The US is bringing DEMOCRACY to the world. It's all about PEACE and FREEDOM. You're just spouting off your Communist propaganda to subvert the honest simple peepul (sic) of America from their enjoyment of their freedoms and their pride in their government.
America is the best damn country in the world and our government and our boys in green are there to make sure it stays that way. And you subversive people should be investigated - hell, you're probably an Al Quaeda sympathizer yourself.
In fact, America has the best damn culture in the world. Them Frenchies and Brits, and Japs and what not keep mouthing off about their painting and stuff. Well, we're equal to anybody, and a damn-sight better than the others. In fact, everyeone else should be like Americans. And those that don't want to share our freedoms....well those people just need to be...re-educated, is all. And afterwards we can take over their lands to have more space for Americans. After all, we need a place to live too.
And then, the whole world can enjoy the freedom and peace of America. And then we can have one country, one people, one leader! Heil Bu....
Oh...I do beg your pardon. I got a little carried away there.
-- Anyone who does not recognize the above as being a desperate plea for the idiots in charge to stop bringing this country to the final moral extinction of fascism needs to be smacked with a clue-by-four.
Canadian vs American Army
by
CyberWolf
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I know a lot of soldiers from both sides of the border, and they mostly agree on the following:
1) Canadian Army reserves have the same level of training as the American Army regulars
2) Canadian Army regulars have similar level of training as the American Green Berets.
We do not have the numbers, but we do have quality (at least in personnel, equipment-wise...well, let's not go there).
Oh, and yeah, we do have a Special Forces Unit (similar to the Navy Seals).
My 2 cents.
Re:If you cannot travel without identifying yourse
by
praksys
·
· Score: 1
If you cannot travel without identifying yourself then you are being obstructed by others, aren't you?
No more so that you are being obstructed when the government requires you to drive on only one side of the road. It doesn't stop you from doing what you wanted to do (namely drive somewhere) so it doesn't really infringe on your liberty. Of course it becomes a different matter when the requirements imposed become very costly in one way or another. Requiring that you pay a US$10,000 departure tax, or submit to extensive anal probing before you fly, would certainly be an infringment upon your liberty (and in the second case your privacy as well).
(I'm curious, would the Fourth Ammendment be about liberty or about a claim right, by these definitions?)
Typically rights are classified into four types, namely claim-rights, liberties, powers, and immunities. The rights protected by the fourth Amendment are immunities and claim rights.
Let me be blunt: "The United States made us do it" cannot be a sufficient or acceptable justification for the Government to intrude on a fundamental right of Canadians.
It is not unusual for the governments of other countries to blame the US government when they do something that is unpopular. The Japanese government does this all the time. I do not know enough about Canadian politics to say whether it is as common there as it is in Japan, but you might want to consider the possibility.
More importantly Canada and Canadians get privileged access to the US. They can travel to the US more freely and export to the US more freely than the citizens of any other country in the world. However, one result of this is that when the US wants to improve security they now have to make a choice between tightening security on the Canadian border, or asking Canada to tighten its own security. The US has a right to make the request, and Canada does have a choice in the matter.
The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom...
I think this is profoundly wrong. If you read the classic works on liberty (like say those by Kant or Locke) then you will find barely any mention of privacy. In a genuinely free society the citizens would have no need for anonimity. Not because they have would nothing to hide, but because they would have nothing to fear.
Re:Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
by
jumpinin
·
· Score: 1
When Pat Robertson called us Soviet Canuckistan, I for one thought "Well, we must be doing something right".
There are some people you just don't want on your side.
-- Verbing wierds language --Calvin
...how about WHY WE SHOULD HATE THEM!!?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am sick and tired of people trying to find out why "they hate USA." How about I can give you shit loads of examples of why we should hate THEM! What a fuck? I cant!? why is that? Ohh because I am a racist? And they are not? YEah okay.
So lets not GO THERE, on why they hate us, because I can give you so more reasons on why we should hate THEM! But ohhh no...dare to say you hate Arabs and you a a fucking KKK or a NAZI. But boy if you are an ARAB or any other ass supporting PLO and terrorist and bashing Americans and Jews you are a fucking freedom fighter who is misunderstood. And you are a good person, because the "Evil empire" of USA is oppressing you. You fucking hypocrits. I see no one fucking protesting dictators and butchers of the world...but ohh boy everyone protests USA. There are dozens of wars going on...YET NO ONE IS PROTESTING THEM ON THE STREET! I guess no one gives a fuck about Africa or Chechnya or Indonesia or fuck knows what country is in blood...you just fucking dont give a shit and dont care. But America is doing something, you are the first to open your fucking hypocritical crapper and spew shit you wanna hear, and surround yourself with people who like to hear the same lies because it makes you fucking feel better as you are a great person standing up against the imperialism of USA. Fucking shit hypocrites. Yes USA is not great and yeah we have problems but fucking spend the same time you spend on USA by involving yourself with other countries, and place will be a much better place I garanteed.
Go politicly masturbate yourself some more. Obviously you dont care about the truth fuck nut.
Or Korea... or Gulf War I (CF-18s conducted air toground sorties)... or Kosovo...
--
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
Re:Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sounds like you're upset he proved a point.
Sounds like you need to look up the definition of proof. I didn't see any proof on either side of the argument.
It's not our government anymore.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We've been sold out. We vote, but we might not like either candidate from either party, so why do we still vote? Easy, it doesn't matter. Our leaders for the most part are bought lock stock and barrel by corporations, special interest groups, and anybody rich enough to finance their campaign. I make less than 10k a year, you think they give a rat's ass about the millions and millions of people like me who are living paycheck to paycheck? More tax reform they say, more tax reform, seems like every time big businesses and the top 1% of the wealthy are getting the majority of the breaks, and when the poor want their share they say "but that's Class Warfare, and we can't have that." It's disgusting. Yes I'm an American, and I love my country, but this country went wrong when we traded being led by generals and war heroes to being led by lawyers and businessmen (P.S. Rot in Hell you greedy SOB's). The country of the USA and the government of the USA are two different things, things which in the next 200 years will most likely be at war with each other. All because of greed and lust of power by a couple hundred assholes.
Love your country, be a patriot, but stand against unjust tyranny wherever it may be found, even if it's right here at home.
Re:It's not our government anymore.
by
kapok_tree
·
· Score: 1
As with most things, it's very difficult to say when "it" happened.
I've a suspicion that it was in the 70s that our rights really started eroding away - but it could have easily happened earlier, but prior to that time social pressures were able to keep the masses in check. Since that time, it seems much of our society and our government has been devoted to maintaining the status quo. I'm not sure I can blame the government for this : it's a chicken and egg problem.
The tragedy, though, is that there has yet to emerge a serious counter to this tendency. There are, to be sure, charismatic leaders who are fervently opposing this or that injustice. Hwoever, the opposition is too balkanized, and it is slowly being eaten up piecemeal. One can hope that a counterswing will eventually solidify, but the outlook is not terribly promising.
Re:It's not our government anymore.
by
ozzee
·
· Score: 1
We've been sold out. We vote, but we might not like either candidate from either party, so why do we still vote? Easy, it doesn't matter.
Seriously, if you feel that way, you need to start a new party and start messing with the elections by participating as a candidate. If you don't, you're being an irresponsible citizen. Granted, it's going to cost time and effort but you have a much better possibility today when there are so many people feeling left out to dry by their elected officials.
Re:Don't bag out the AUS so much
by
sexecutioner
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Everytime someone loud says:
" see the fact the many Australians are also unhappy with our government"
It makes me laugh!
People will always complain, no matter what you do. Those that earn more, bitch about taxes. Those that don't earn much, bitch about how nobody does enough for them.
We have it pretty damn good in this country, and if the best we can manage is a winge like "gee, I don't like that Johnny Howard guy" rather than, "gee, perhaps we should be physically (as in firebombs) overthrowing our government because it kills people in the streets for not doing the right thing, whatever the hell that might be" then we've got nothing to worry about.
There's nothing worse than a vocal minority claiming everyone thinks like them.
It's too early in the piece for me to comment on the Medicare policy, but just like everyone else, I'll cast my vote accordingly.
Yup... no involvement... wait a minute... weren't we Canadians fighting in Europe for a couple or three years whilst YOUR president's grandfather was selling the Nazis goods and services? Of course. And he paid a $5 mil fine for it too. But only after the US entered the war after being bombed by the Japanese... and only after the Germans declared war on YOU. Oh yeah... and the Japanese bombed you because you had blockaded their oil and other strategic goods. The same crap in WW I. We were in in 1914, you arrived in 1917. Get real.
Do you all now get the Kids in the Hall cop Jokes?
by
Dolemite_the_Wiz
·
· Score: 1
14.5% sales tax is a bargain
by
Wobbly+Bob
·
· Score: 1
Go live in British Columbia. It has the highest provinical taxes in Canada (14.5% PST and GST Combined)
Are you referring to provincial taxes in general or just PST? PEI has 10% PST, and they pay PST on the GST for a tax of 17.7%. The other Atlantic provinces pay HST, which is 15%, and in Ontario GST+PST=15%.
In Canada, the govt. regulates drug prices. As a result US drug companies cave in to these anti free market tactics so as not to get bad publicity. Now we find that many of the drugs sold to Canada make it back to the US at reduced prices, undermining the US free market. The US should impose tariffs on drugs sold to Canada to make up for money lost by US drug companies because of socialist Canadian policies. I feel sorry for any company trying to develop life saving drugs in Canada. They're at the mercy of the govt. So much for freedom in Canada.
-- Vote for Pedro
Re:Canada not so free
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Dumbass....!
Your a fucking moron
Little piece of trivia for y'all
by
xtal
·
· Score: 1
..from a Canadian.
Well, since you're tracing causality, what country does the U.S. have to thank most for its freedom? France.
Where did the statue of liberty come from? A gift from the people of France. It cost ~$100,000 IIRC.
-- ..don't panic
Re:Little piece of trivia for y'all
by
quax
·
· Score: 1
Let's return the statue of liberty. That'll teach 'em.
Evolution of the Checkbox
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
well..my nick is...
Re:Don't bag out the AUS so much
by
Bush+Pig
·
· Score: 0
So was East Germany. A Democratic Republic, that is.
Seriously, I can't possibly argue with someone that actually believes that that was staged. Everything's just a big f*cking conspiracy to you people, isn't it?
Unbelievable.
And where's your evidence of this conspiracy? Did the UFOs steal it?
Did we attack Iraq based on a set of rules? NO. So what's your point?
Therefore, it's okay for thousands of people to die every year? Am I missing something?
Are you one of those people that thinks we went to war for oil?......
I can't believe I'm arguing with this guy.
I'm glad that you've found ways to entertain your thoughts. Meanwhile, maybe you should check this out http://mwhodges.home.att.net/
Sheep!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28 38.htm
Not my evidence. But damning evidence. This was put forth as a short retraction on the news somewhere, and suprisingly wasnt very picked up
Only if there is no cost to being tracked
by
geekotourist
·
· Score: 1
Of course it becomes a different matter when the requirements imposed become very costly in one way or another. Requiring that you pay a US$10,000 departure tax, or submit to extensive anal probing before you fly, would certainly be an infringment upon your liberty (and in the second case your privacy as well).
If the only way to travel is to accept the government knowing, tracking and retaining data on all of my travels, that is "very costly." Did you read the Privacy Commissioner's overview? He details several proposed Canadian laws *applicable to Canadians in Canada, not just Canadians traveling in the US,* which cause significant loss of privacy rights... all but one of which were instigated or requested by the US.
I do not see how one can be free in a society where the government can force you to be known against your will. Again, refering to the overview: aren't the dangers of lost privacy he lists worth fearing (for example, one bad interpretation of your travel habits and you could be blacklisted for years, all without probable cause)? It really worries me that he is warning Canadians against the loss of rights which are already gone in the US.
Of course, I myself have a constitutional right to privacy, but that means never leaving the borders of California.
Let's face it, the country is just too damn big, with too few people. Unless you've travelled to the area, you probably don't know what it's like. Western Canada is clueless about Eastern Canada and vice versa, and they're both clueless about Northern Canada.
--
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
A stroy about American 'Liberties'
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You can also check out any video feed of this event and see that it confirms the above picture. The cameras focused on a small group of people in the immediate foreground of the picture. As soon as the camera pulls back to any degree, the crowd thins out dramatically and immediately. Also, note the sparse crowds in the area behind the statue.
Those "crowds" you saw (and where did you see them, if you distrust the conservative media so much?) were a few dozen supporters of the guy that Bush Co. has chosen to lead Iraq in the new colonial era. A guy that hasn't even been in Iraq in about 50 years and who was convicted of bank fraud in Jordan. Should fit right in with Cheney and the rest of President Junior's "bidness" partners.
Israel
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You forgot one important factor: Israel (state of US... or should I say US state of Israel?;-)).
Re:...how about WHY WE SHOULD HATE THEM!!?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
whining maggot..
A few problems with your "expert" post
by
Von+Rex
·
· Score: 1
First of all, thanks. You're providing a valuable service in illustrating the neocon viewpoint that the Constitution is just ink on a page. I much prefer it when people like yourself just come right out and say the Constitution should be ignored. So, to address your points:
Is the Consitution some kind of Diety or something that cannot be challenged?
No, it can be "challenged". The proper word is "amended". And there is a mechanism to do this:
Article V
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. "
Note that the above paragraph nowhere mentions "just ignore the Constitution and make up whatever shit I want the Constitution to mean".
Do you think that it might be possible that if the framers knew how powerful we turned out to be, they might actually lobby the government to help people?
First of all, the framers were far better aware than you of the danger of a very powerful and very arrogant country, since they'd just fought one for a few years. And they made the Constitution so that our freedoms were meant to be preserved in dark and dangerous times, because that is precisely when our freedoms need such protections.
Second, the framers did intend for government to help people, the American people. That's what they called "the general welfare" and what right wing knuckledraggers call "socialism". It amazes me how Bushies and their syncophants want free and fair elections, universal healthcare, and fully funded public schools in Iraq but fight bitterly over the very idea of such in America. Not having any sense of irony must be essential to being a Republican.
Every day I eat, drink, and sh*t politics. And when I'm done with that, I watch the History channel.
All that proves is some people's ignorance is so collossal that no amount of education can help them. Because if you ate, drank, and shat politics, Jack, you probably would have heard of the tenth amendment by now, which is what the posters above were referring to.
I grew up in a small town, with teachers who made the problems with our government well-known. If anyone knows about the principles to which our government was founded, I'm one of them.
I think if I were you I'd call up those teachers and ask for a refund.
But to speak on behalf of the people who created the constitution at THIS DAY is flat-out disrespectful.
Isn't that what you just did? Projection, the favorite game of right wing monkeys everywhere.
If they were alive now, I suppose they would still support slavery, too?
Um, no. That was handled properly, with an amendment. Maybe you missed this one during your extensive constitutional studies?
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
and no suffrage for women?
Sorry, that one was a properly done constitutional amendment too. Are you s
Re:A few problems with your "expert" post
by
bri_n33
·
· Score: 1
I know that, genious. Now, tell me where in the constitution it says that we can't give the government the authority to do what's right.
"expert" ? I never said that.. In fact, if there's anything I've learned over the years, it's that I know very little about the world, and NEITHER DO YOU
Re:A few problems with your "expert" post
by
Fjandr
·
· Score: 1
Nowhere does it say that, but nowhere did I in any way imply that was the case. I simply said the government cannot legally exceed the authority given it by the people through the Constitution. What you were advocating has not been delegated, and is thus outside of the governmental scope of powers, whether the government abides by that scope or not.
Re:Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
by
Trinition
·
· Score: 1
The United States is no more dangerous than a loaded gun. The problem is, our current administration is like a testosterone-laden teenager waving the thing around to impress girls and get what he wants. But its not that simple.
Did we do this for oil? Well, we certainly import a lot of oil. We would cetrainly feel the pain if the oil market were disrupted. But, also, what do you thinkwould happen fi left Iraq in shambles without fixing things up a bit first? The arab world would hate us, causing more instability nd probably disrupting the oil supply. What if we fixed it up, but paid for it ourselves. Well, we're rich, but we never invest in anythign that indirect and that uncertain. It would be too costly. So what if we used Iraq's ONLY MAJOR REVENUE SOURCE to rebuild Iraq? it's not so far fetched. Some people see one idea as more prominent than the other. The problem is, people usually state an "either/or". The truth is, all of those factors are part of the equation.
Its not the best solution, by far. In fact, my 8-year-old can come up with a better solution to the oil problem, mideast affairs, iraq, civil liberties, etc. But stop painting this as a black and white picture. Take what the left says, then what the right says, then realize that half of what each says is true, and the other half you throw away.
Any group of people terrorized by their goverment or branches of it will defend themselves. Once this dynamic is in place you will get demented people that will find anything justifiable to avert the original repression.
Lets put it this way: the UK would have not done what they did with the partition of Ireland if the emerald Island had been 2000 km away.
-- IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
by
ThaReetLad
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sure the jubilent Iraqis look umm... jubilent, but the rest of them just look thirsty, scared and hungry. I was against the war, not because I thought Saddam should be left alone, but because the motives of Bush and his reasons for war were, and still are highly suspect. The WMD still have not been found and the links to global terrorism are still just as tenuous as before. If the initial justification had been to free Iraq, or prevent the human rights abuses I think Bush and Blair would have done a far better job of selling the war, but it wasn't. The whole driving force behind this war was the wave of FUD that Bush seems to be trying to ride all the way to the next election, while at the same time getting all his good corporate buddies a nice kick back in fedral spending. If Bush was acting within the rules perhaps he would be more morally justified in demanding that other countries do so too, however by ignoring the howls of protest from the UN and his former allies he has sent a much more powerful message to the rest of the world. Specifically "We're too good to follow the rules we dictate to the rest of you". Maybe i'd listen to Bush when he complains about WMD in the hands of terrorists if he wasn't spending money investigating nuclear bunker busters, and if rumsfeld hadn't sold them to Saddam in the first place. Perhaps I'd pay more attention to his calls for freedom for all people if he wasn't holding people without charge in cuba. There's even a possibility I'd support his calls for Iraqi soldiers to be tried for war crimes, if he would allow the same rules to be applied to his own soldiers conduct.
It is my belief that America is at a dangerous point in its history. It appears to believe that whatever it does is right, that it can do no wrong, and that if it does wrong then the good outweighs the bad. That may be true, America is on the whole a good country, however it is becoming blind to its faults, and those faults are being allowed to grow. Any attempt to focus on these faults is described as unamerican, or unpatriotic. There is an old saying, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Its an idea that America would be well advised to think about, because otherwise you are in danger of becoming a nation of flag wavers who will support whatever the government chooses to do because you still believe the country belongs to the people. Go away and read 1984 again and think how, although it is about communism, it could just as easily be applied to Bushes America.
-- You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
by
bri_n33
·
· Score: 1
You raise good points, but let me say this: We'll see what happens in Iraq.
And yes, I've read 1984. I know what you're talking about. But, you're also walking the line between 'what's right' and 'what's just a dumb conspiracy to bring pleasure to those without a life'. (I'm not implying that is you).
Good will always outweigh the bad? Remember Vietnam?
About all of the points you bring up: Most of it is left-wing and media talk. You know that the stations who are your friend are the same ones that get rich by blowing up rediculous stories.
Re:Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
by
ThaReetLad
·
· Score: 1
Just because it's left wing, doesn't mean it's wrong, and just because it's media talk it doesn't mean it's not based in fact. As a disclaimer i'm a Brit, and I watched a number of news networks during the war CNN, BBC, ITV, MSNBC. What you notice is that American news networks tend to ignore stories that portray America in a bad light. They do this because they know that Americans are very patriotic and loyal to the flag, to the extent that stories which don't show america in a good light will lead to loss of ratings and loss of advertising revenue. They also tend to ignore some of the stuff your politicians get up to. On the other hand, the British public is generally slightly right of center and so our commercial media tends to reflect that, while the BBC is slightly left of center, but has no commercial agenda. You mention media talk, but is it really, when Haliburton got the very first Billion dollar contract to sort out Iraq's oil infrastructure, and we all know who Haliburton still pays a 1 million dollar salary to.
-- You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
by
bri_n33
·
· Score: 1
I heard the BBC was more than slightly left, but that just depends on who you talk to, I guess. I live in California where the L.A. Times is absolutely, unarguably biased (not to mention the State is known for its liberalism) so I get pissed very easily if I think anyone doesn't formulate their own conclusions.
In any case, the whole "unpatriotic" thing that started is influencing the media for sure; But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are "avoiding" things. It's possible that they just stopped overblowing their special controversial coverage.
As for the Haliburton thing, I think that's one of the things on the left that's been spun quite a lot. In any case, do you really know how much we're getting with regards to the oil? We're just getting it cheaper, since we don't have to go through the middlemen any more. Anyway, that's the OTHER side of the story. Of course, I can't say what the real facts are, since I haven't done the research. In any case, the idea that we would go to war for just oil is ridiculous, and Bush wouldn't do that because he knew that his reelection would be F*cked when we knew that there was nothing found against Saddam. So, for the next few months, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happens over there. For now, I'm not going to go assuming anything, because I'm not hypocrit. (not that you are)
I should've mentioned before that I live in CA... it's just nuts over here!
Re:Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
by
ThaReetLad
·
· Score: 1
I don't think it's about oil. Just going over there and forcing a good deal for yourselves would be far too obvious. I thinks its about where US tax dollars are spent. I'm sure Bush had to buy a lot of favours to get where he is and he has lots of friends and family in oil, chemicals, defence etc. The war was probably about many things. The family connection, breaking the OPEC stranglehold, supporting his pre-election belief (and pre 9/11) that Saddam was a huge threat to the US, and making sure his buddies get a good chunk of the contracts for rebuilding Iraq, plus all the positive poll response he was always going to get for fighting and winning an easy war. It's all win for Bush and his friends. They must be secretly pleased about 9/11 because it gave them the excuse and public support for the hawkish line they always wanted to take. What scares me about the Bush administration is the way they feel they can ignore the rest of the world because they believe America is better and more righteous than everyone else. What I just don't understand is the kind of unquestioning support Bush seems to get from a large majority of Americans. Blair gets it too from a small proportion of the generally less well educated in this country too, but the kind of blind patriotism that Bush gets seems to be a American phenomenon. Its like Homers "USA USA USA" chant. I can't imagine any European chanting like that, at least not since Hilter and Mussolini.
-- You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Presently between US & Canada...
by
J0sH3R!!
·
· Score: 1
This author has nothing better to do than stir the pot. What merit could be had by critisizing Canadian law enforcement when Canada did respond by putting measures in place to make sure that the continent was safe? As a Canadian, I felt horrible to watch the twin towers go down and felt it was part of our responsibility to help to ensure that it was not something that could happen again.
This is something a long time ally does for it's fellow allies. American & Canadians as people have always got along (accept for misbehaving Anonymous Cowards), thank gawd that this is the case. I'm glad to be a part of this kind of understanding between nations. If you look around the world, you can see it's rare.
Needless to say, the author of this story clearly is only one small voice that can be ignored for the sake of the greater good. Perhaps critisizing positive reactions by separate nations should be praised, rather than picked apart and complained about.
The State Department report on global terrorism...says "some U.S. law enforcement officers have expressed concern" about Canadian privacy laws. ...
"Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations."
I find this rather frightening.
I generally think that Canada has the right idea, and the United States doesn't. I'm not a Canadian citizen yet because I have faith that the US can change, or at least start moving away from this dangerous spiral toward being a police state. Hoping, praying it could be so...
First of all, I'm glad that you shose the subject line to further prove your point. ALthough, it just told me that you're in fact even more of a dipsh*t than before. Gee, now that you called me MonkeyBoy, I see your point.
Wow, that's a great photo. And that proves.... nothing (Think about it). You honestly think that our government is so well put-together and smart enough to make these massive-scale conspiracies? Do you know what drives conspiracy theorists? Maybe you should look that up... In the meantime, get a life.
I should've known better than to post anything on the Slashdot boards, where nerds like you run your mouth as if you're an all-knowing, supreme being.
Canada has had a nuclear programme since the 40's. It has never had nuclear weapons. It was one of the original signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which froze the nuclear weapons club at five states: US, USSR, Britain, France and China (of course, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are now resiling from these obligations...)
India, Pakistan and Israel never signed the treaty.
After 33 years, the NPT retains its near-universal appeal. Cuba became a party last November and East Timor reportedly is preparing its instrument of accession. India, Israel, and Pakistan have not joined the NPT. Israel supported the NPT at the United Nations in 1968, but due to regional security factors has declined to become a party. Pakistan has said in the past that it would join the NPT if India did. India has rejected the NPT on grounds that it differentiates between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states. India and Pakistan severely undercut nuclear nonproliferation objectives in 1998 by conducting nuclear weapon tests. The United States continues to support the goal of universal NPT adherence.
Re:wow hypocrisy, lies, one sidedness
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No conventional weapon is "Megaton," only nuclear weapons can be megaton. Not even MOAB is close to an MT. Most of our strategic nukes are 300kt. And Israel has spied on the US clearly in the past, and has developed its on clandestine nuclear weapons program. The Soviets/Russia and the French have sold Israel military hardware as well, amongst others.
So, again, you lies are clear, you use the word megaton for effect but this is a complete lie. No nuclear weapons have been used in the ME theater.
You are a twisted, sad person to keep defending the corrupted states of the Middle East. The west's biggest Mistake was ever talking to interacting with those cretins at all (See The Gods Must be Crazy, and Islam is the modern equivalent to a bushwhacker). You think the US government is corrupt, check out every Islamic government. Ten times as corrupt. No schools, bad food/water, medical, etc. And somehow this is the United States' fault. Go ahead and keep blaming the west and the leader of it, but over time, your cult-religion will have to evolve in order for your 'kind' to survive. Get over it, there is no proof of God, and your fucking Allah, your Koran, you everything means nothing to me. Sorry, that's reality.
Subtle lies and propaganda are the work of evil intended people. The US may have its phases, but it tends to come around and resilient. Islam gets it resilience by sapping others and killing them, worst than any other functional group in history. Go head, blame religion, fine by me, but blame them ALL, because it's a deprecated concept. More have died by the sword of Islam and at the hands of fascists, communists and ruthless dictators. Welcome to free/open/democratic/democratic society. Where we tolerate your fraudulent ways but see right through them.
Re:wow islamofascist propagandist.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Look at castro helping krushev put nuclear missles and chiding krushev to pre-emptively start a nuclear war against the west. (Letters from Castro to Krushev showing this are avaiable.) Look who is friendly with Castro now, your Islamofascists pals in the M.E.
I dont know if have a fucking clue about right and wrong, and by no means is anyone hands clean, but perhaps you little shits like the Soviets and them invading afghanistan, etc? Perhaps we should have let them run amok. If I dont remember, the Soviets were far less tolerant of your little cult religion than the west is.
The beauty of a two party system is that you can convince the "masses" that superficial differences between the two are fundamental and perpetuate the system.
Not to mention that the skills and qualification needed to win a popularity contest are actually quite different from those needed to successfully run a country.
c jab y.nn frg pcidy a,af yday c ,rby
by
themusicgod1
·
· Score: 1
errr sorry... dvorak keyboard. i wont ; they will replace him with even worse hellspawn when the demos is ready.
-- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:US is afraid new Canadian Pot Policy might work
by
debiant_minded
·
· Score: 1
thanks for the glib comment. I'll pass it on
to the Drug Czar. They might be able to use it.
Wonder if it will work for Booze,Cigs,Microsoft
and Oil?
a) americans and their women are no longer visibly free
b) the americans pull their troops from saudi soil c) anyone keen on israel today? Ydco co a dcee.b m.ooai.v
-- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
And the White House Burned!
by
deadtroll
·
· Score: 1
Oh but it did burn! Some glorious Canadians (who didn't know they were Canadian and thought they were British (just because they lived in England!)) burnt that sucker down in the name of the Queen in order to keep the evil spread of democracy out of Canada!
Hee hee!
Wes
-- "Immature artists borrow. Mature artists steal." Wes Borg
Reply: nice one, fruitcake
by
OldHawk777
·
· Score: 1
THANKS,
I like to think, I have a way with paranoid humorous stories.
I am glad you enjoyed it, I was beginning to worry that/. Was already dominated by French Secret Home Intelligence Teams (SHIT, I gotta). US and the French Canadian folks are set in our ways. I am surprised that so many Canadians and US take the Flame-humor serious. Most of US know that we would defend Canadian freedom and independence (with our lives) from any invaders, and many of US think Canadians (except the French ones) would do the same for US, because the Brits, Scots, Irish, Ausies, and Canadians have almost consistently over the past century defend freedom and independence for many others... So, who ya gonna trust.
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
-- Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"How is it that today Canada is more free then the US?"
It's a matter of perspective. Americans are more narrowly perspected. They ask: "what will be the intended consequences of this action?" Canadians are more broadly perspected. They ask: "what will be the unintended consequences of this action?"
Re:wow hypocrisy, lies, one sidedness
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1 - People in the US generally hate drug dealers; whereas "the bad guy" in Palestinian controlled areas - the terrorist - is a celebrated hero. When the terrorists are given material support by the populace collateral damage is probably not colateral eg (not a coincidence that this guy was in that house with those people). I don't hate all Arabs, just murdering Islamofascists. I celebrate murdering Islamofascists deaths.
2 - every single piece of evidence points to Jenin being far, far less of a travesty than reported. In fact, CNN, NYT and NPR both misreported and in case showed a dead "Palestinian" in a picture, when in fact it was a murdered Israeli. You propaganda bullshit doesn't wash. Your little terror towns and terror land getting cleaned up by a police action doesn't move me. You might want to check out CAMERA to get your lies set straight.
3 - Corrie was essentially breaking the law when she was killed. I think her death was and accident but I also think if you dance in a minefield, you get fucked. She was a retard to be putting her life in danger for a cause that she has no interest in.
So again, propagandist, no one buys your garbage. And just to know, the GDP of Palestine is $500 per capita yet the Mafioso who runs it, Arafat, is worth 300 million, more than the queen of England. My heart goes out to the poor Palestinian people, but I do wish every terrorist, Palestinian "politician"/Mafioso dead. sorry. And if there is a God, something you see to take a great trust in despite any empirical evidence, he would have people like you stricken, and every terrorist and Islamofascists cultist leader killed.
Your death killer techniques will lead to Armageddon or your Islamofascists undoing. vae victus, bastard.
Re:The farce that is parent post caliphate ended
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Islamofascists, anti American Arabs and Muslims provide material and moral support to the deconstruction and undermining of our culture, our way of life. Your bastard broken culture does a hell of a lot more to expatriates and undesired people in Islamofascists controlled lands, using things like medieval Sharia and having horrible human and women rights records.
You beef with us is all theoretical and it's a fucking luxury. If you keep up you fucking rhetoric, expect reprisal from people like me sick of your lies, and trash. Go live in the centers of Islamofacism if you love it so much.
Now how is that women in Nigeria going to feel as she is stoned to death after weaning her baby under Sharia for purportedly being an adulterer? Your ways are the old way, bastard, and your kind is not liked here. One the few reasons I believe there is no God here on Earth is that Islamofacism exists, Hitler and Stalin killed tens of millions and the US stopped Hitler and put Stalin in check. I only remember people dying of Islamofacism and expansionism, and finally something is in your way now, and we are here to stay. You can't fight this forever. So the last time you bastards will enjoy widespread power was the Ottoman Empire. You will never be able to obtain Rome or even be a part of the Third Reich as your bastard Mufti wanted.
You are deprecated, you time has come. And the people with power are not fooled by you draping yourself in the flag and a constitution you don't believe in. You can't fake believing in freedom, and people who don't fake it see right though your black Islamofascist heart.
Crimes against ourselves, my experience
by
Smoovious
·
· Score: 1
Along these lines of our civil liberties, the heavy handed way our government (US) is trying hard to regulate our own personal behaviors, and the fact that I am royally pissed off at what I consider an injustice, I offer my own recent experience in this WoD.
I am presently on probation for simple posession of marijuana, and simple posession of paraphenalia (my dugout/one-hitter).
Late last year, I was waiting in my car for a friend to come out and give her a lift home. We had planned just a quiet evening, hanging out the rest of the night watching movies. We both smoke.
Along comes a police officer, who decides he doesn't like the way I'm parked, and comes up to check me out.
Skipping over the details of how this progressed, he ended up finding my dugout in my backpack in the car. It was confiscated, and since I was cooperative I was given a citation and sent on my way.
In court, I was put on a year's probation. Part of the terms of the probation, which is non-negotiable, is my drivers license is automatically suspended for no less than 90 days, allowing me a restricted after 30 days... I was also required to attend a drug abuse workshop, which I also had to pay $350 for, on top of my ~$2000 fines and court costs, on top of the $240 I had to pay for probation costs.
I was labelled as a drug addict. It doesn't matter if you smoke a pound a day, or a joint a year, this is automatic too. I'm no more a drug addict than someone who picks up a 6-pak each weekend to watch the game is an alcoholic, but the courts don't allow for this distinction.
Up until the job I had at that time I had been stuck in low paying dead end jobs barely able to support myself. Finally I got into a job I loved, and thoroughly enjoyed. I was a taxi driver. I was finally making a decent living, got myself out of debt, with money left over to actually save something, or even invest later on.
I have since lost my taxi license. It was automatically revoked when my drivers license was suspended. The court costs, probation costs, abuse workshop, have eaten up all of what I had saved and I find myself right back in debt again, and with our current economy, I have been unemployed ever since.
I am all for decriminalization.
There are many who argue that decriminalization will mean people will smoke while driving or be high at work and the like. This is not true. These things are already happening, and would remain illegal even with decriminalization. 'DUI' doesn't go away just because the substance is legal.
Now, all I have to look forward to is more dead-end jobs, and in this current economy, I don't even have that to look forward to right now. The way things look now, my life is in fact over. Last year started out with the feeling things were finally changing for the better for me and I had everything to look forward to. Now, thanks to the courts, and I do blame the court system for this, I have lost everything. The offense, did not deserve this kind of outcome.
My point is, that my 'punishment' went way beyond what I would think is reasonable for the offense comitted. I wasn't driving when I was checked out. I wasn't under the influence, and the officer's report made note of that. Had I been driving under the influence, then suspending my license and revoking my taxi license would have been reasonable and proper. If you're driving while impaired, you deserve to lose your license.
I've always believed in the concept, that in a so called free society, that you should have the right to do anything at all that you wish, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of your neighbor. Those of you familiar with the Childe Cycle of sci fi books might recognize that from the Dorsai! race.
I wasn't endangering a soul. My smoking affected no-one but myself. I have been careful for 18 years to smoke responsibly, and contrary to what many would have you believe, it is possible to smoke responsibly. Never smoke before work, never drive after smoking, etc.
The beauty of a two party system is that you can convince the "masses" that superficial differences between the two are fundamental and perpetuate the system.
A fine example of Gramscian Hegemenoy in action. But don't forget this aspect,
"Among the many meanings of democracy, the most realistic and concrete one seems to me to be that which connects with the concept of hegemony. In an hegemonic system, there is democracy between the leading group and the groups led to the extent that (the development of the economy and thus) the legislation (that expresses this development) favors the (molecular) transition from the groups led to the leading group."
-Antonio Gramsci-
-- It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
Re:The farce that is parent post caliphate ended
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What Islamofacists in this country? 1.2 Billion Muslims worldwide and you point the.0001% of them who are terrorists and generalize us all. Why is it you can't get away with insulting blacks or Jews, but can trash Muslims?
Lots of Muslims don't approve of Nigeria's sharia laws and elsewhere. Myself included.
7 Million muslims in the US. Only 30 have been charged with some form of terrorism. Go and pull over black drivers or something, you'll find better odds of catching crooks.
Re:The farce that is parent post caliphate ended
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Muslim"/Islamofascist attitude sucks. This is a general problem. Most Arabs free of Islamocultism are rational regular people. People who pay that fucking shit religion have a great deal of sympathy and provide support politically and morally and try and justify Muslim anger, Muslim extremism and try to blame the west for them existing.
No, it's the fact they are morally underwritten by ALL OF YOU. Don't tell me for one second that the Muslims have done FUCKING SHIT to curb this trash. Islamic governments the world over are deeply corrupt and on the verge of failure, and somehow this is our fault.
Your sick little twisting of reality is easy to see through. Your shit tends to sell rather nicely, but no one is fooled. When you people melt into the melting pot the heat will come off your ass. Until expect heat up your ass. Being a nation within a nation is going to cause pain, and it will cause a lot less pain here than anywhere else, but don't expect us to buy your bullshit hook line and sinker. Religion is impedance, dump it. Please try and not use it to justify murder - maybe then you wont get shit on here so much. I don't trust "you people," and frankly it's up to you to earn that. I don't trust anyone intrinsically, but people like you would have to work overtime to gain trust. I've also never worked or had much meaningful contact with Islamofascists in a business environment because your disgusting religion teaches you to feel superior to us infidels. We notice you think less of us, and we think a lot less of you because of it. Prepare to feel a boot in your ass if you come talking that Islamofascist crap. When I run a ship, it better be non-sectarian, and people like you just can't do it - someone invariably is an infidel to you. Fuck your jihad, your disgusting "god" Allah, your fake pagan-Minat moon god 700 AD religion, fuck Mohammed, fuck your god damn shitty Koran. It's a fucking lie. This crap is just taking your grievances in life and selling them back to you a religion. It's crap. And you cannot, being a zealot cultist, respect that position. I know this. So as long as you think I'm an infidel for thinking that, doomed to hell, you can suck my dog's anus, you'll never get sympathy or a dime out of me, scum.
Re:blame canada! the impending caliphate of lies
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If Muhammad can confuse Satan for God once why couldn't it happen other times?
Why couldn't Muhammad be mistaken in the first place? For a number of verses in a number of times? The fact is already established he can't tell the difference between God and Satan when receiving messages. In light of all of the monotheistic messages he received, he should have been slightly aware of that something was amiss.
Most interesting, Muhammad own desire led him to listen to Satan's words. How reliable is a prophet whose emotions can easily lead him to state the words of Satan for God? This is very troubling indeed.
The biblical test for a prophet: The Bible has its own test for a prophet. Deuteronomy 18:18-20:
I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.
Before we examine the text, it should be noted that the Prophet mentioned in this text is believed to be Muhammad by Muslims and Jesus by Christians. In the passage we are told that a prophet who speaks words the Lord has not given him shall be put to death, and the Prophet will speak the words of God. These two ideas are against each other in parallelism. This contrasts the Prophet with false prophets. The difference? False prophets will speak false messages. The Prophet will not. The death penalty portion of this applied to the ancient theocracy of Israel, but the basic principle remains. Speaking false words and attributing them to God is extremely bad, worthy of the harshest of punishments.
As we have seen in the Satanic Verses, Muhammad has spoken false words and attributed them to God. Whether he knew they were from Satan or not, he is in violation of this text. He can't be the Prophet spoken about in this passage, although this is the text Muslims refer to to show Muhammad is in the Old Testament.
Muhammed: False prophet. Period, end. Liars. Cheats. Pagans. Minat Lovers. 700 AD made up roving band of murderers
Re:The farce that is parent caliphate of death
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Being detained and deported is far better than being in trouble and being convicted in Islamic countries under Sharia. Homosexuals in Saudi Arabia: beheaded. "Adultering" women in Nigeria stoned to death. 13 year old girls getting clitorises chopped off "female circumcision." Hands and feet cut off for stealing.
Yes, we have due process. They seem upset at how we only detain people, and not kill, maim or stone them or severely repress women by making them hide their faces and chopping off their clitorises.
A cursory inspection of Islamic countries and their governments on human rights, due process and corruption will bring forth a wealth of corroborating evidence, facts and direct accounting of these travesties being perpetrated.
The US may not be the most progressive concept, but it is most probably in the top 5 "least worst, least corrupt" places to live in the world. Know it, believe it. All you have to do is be an expatriate to just about anywhere in the world and you'll want to come back to the US.
Yes, the US is evil. Very evil. Yeah right.
Don't pay attention to this self deprecating religious zealot cultist lampoon.
Re:The farce that is parent caliphate of death
by
errxn
·
· Score: 1
Kinda funny how we never seem to hear the Susan Sarandons of the world complaining about the situation in other parts of the world, isn't it?
-- In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Re:The farce that is parent caliphate of death
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sarandon, Streisand, Sheen, Robbins, Moore and the rest of the crew are actors, performers. They aren't scientists, doctors, engineers or useful type-people. They are know-nothing actors that have mastered only the art of simulacrum. They bend the truth and capitalize (particularly Moore) on the havoc the wreak with baseless, uneducated opinions.
They also never, ever EVER live outside of a pampered life of luxury or outside their little citadels of wealth and decadence. At least a Princess Di type wanted to clean up land minds, and do a good turn, but she didn't have to be a raging communist to do a good thing.
Next time you hear Moore babbling about shit, about Flint, about the NRA, remember he got rich off of splicing Heston in an "Interview," omitting that the average Flint "blue collar" worker for GM made $100,000, etc, in "Documentaries". He is rich, live in a 1.2Million dollar apartment and sends his daughter to private school and done a bit of laying off his own employees. He is a rich hypocrite. All these freaks are.
The best thing to do is form your own opinion, and be aware there is a lot out there, but don't self-deprecate. You don't owe anyone an apology. Just because we exist in a higher state in the western world doesn't mean we have to live a life of an apologist. And we certainly should regard Islamofascism as something potentially dangerous and destructive if that's the gut feeling we get from it. Its up to them to impress us, we have the upper hand, and regardless of what people say its harder to stay on top than getting there, so in my estimation we earned it, the higher you soar the harder it feels when you fall.
Our less progressive "enemies of America" are employing propaganda and our all to easily manipulated troupe of near-communist retard Hollywood idiots to basically try and convince westerners that they owe the cretins of the world something simply by virtue of success.
I would also like to say all politics are local, and if you want to change something, do it locally. International politics is corrupt and arbitrary and too complex to understand, and its merely entertainment. People like to attack un-solvable problems solely for entertainment value. Heated political arguments are almost entirely useless because most are irrevocably incorrigible. Pro-Islamist evangelism has only gone to show me one thing, ignore the bleating mouthpieces for a corrupt cult. Get on with your own life and know that you did nothing wrong by leveraging what was given to you. Anyone in your position would do the same, most probably they would plant a cleat in your back when the walk on it.
I would also like to say I believe in philanthropy, and my life has been touched in many great ways by my friends and family, and I have tried to do the same with my abilities for others.
The US made it to the moon. It was a huge accomplishment, and took a great love of science and exploration for the good of mankind to accomplish it. The people who hate us come from places where the average age is 25, too young to remember WW2, or the Moonshot, and think of Allah and the crescent moon when they look.
The US and the western societies have not been perfect, nor have a perfect track record, but certainly its fair to say, it's the least worst way at the time being for administering a society. Sit back and enjoy it while it lasts. The Russians tried to resist it. The Chinese and the Islamofascists try and resist it. But their systems just don't work properly, and are best sandboxed, quarantined and ignored until they implode.
Re:BZZZT! But thanks for playing.
by
WatertonMan
·
· Score: 1
The Indian alignment was certainly understandable given past events before there even was a United States. Britain was always better to the Indians than Americans. (Which isn't to justify their views which were hardly modern) Still the Pontiac rebellion was largely due to the Indians getting upset when Americans violated the colonization rules the British setup. Britain had always been aligned with many tribes during the French - English wars and also thereafter. That's not to say Canada was a saint, mind you. But they were never as bad as the history of abuse the Americans had.
Of course I think Canadian do put the war of 1812 higher than it deserved. It wasn't until I moved from Canada that I started learning that the Americans did better in battles other than the battle of New Orleans. I'd been taught in Canada that was the only battle the Americans won - after the war was technically over. The reality was far more complex but is overlooked or unknown by most Canadians. Not that this is a bad thing, of course. The Plains of Abraham never were good for American troops during the war of 1812 or the earlier invasion during the American revolution.
Blame canada! It's their fault
Oh give me a break......the US does not hold jurisdiction over Canada, and they can keep their grubby fingers out of my country, thank you very much. If I want to smoke pot in my own country, if that right has been 'allowed' by my own government, what gives the US the right to interfere in the sovereignity of Canada? F*CK OFF!!
"If it's stupid and it works....it's not stupid."
"Bush says invading Canada only way to free citizenry."
"Bush administration expresses concern about Canada's weapons of mass destruction."
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
You mean I not only get to smoke pot, enjoy less crime, and get free healthcare, I get my civil liberties too!!!!
----
Squirrel
I'm a brit, but things like this make me respect Canada. Particularly after watching Bowling For Columbine (watch it if you haven't).
Of course, SP reduces that respect, as it tells me to hate canada. And they do have funny accents. And flapping heads.
That's all I can say about it. OK, so terrorism claimed 700 lives last year. In Belgium alone (that tiny country you can never find on the map) 1500 people died in car accidents. Not to mention how many died of the flue. So why is such a pathological, marginal fenomenon causing so much panic? Right. Hysteria. That's always a good way to ruin people's rights.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
If we're very very lucky, in 200 years most countries will be like Canada is now. I was going to type a joke here, but I just discovered, I'm serious.
Now government agencies have even stopped pretending that the U.S. is the paragon of freedom.
I have a friend from Canada, who came down to the States for college in part because he was tired of the Canadian government crushing his liberty with excessivlely high taxes etc. Thanfully after 4 years here (and 2 years of Bush) he's learned better -- Americans fondness of liberty is mainly a scam. Too many are just too scared or stupid to care.
(oh I'm not bitter.)
I know that I will sleep much more soundly the day that Ashcroft is forced to clean out his desk.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
Shocked! ... .. Well not that shocked.
-Fry
There's definately some tension between privacy, political freedoms, law-enforcement and anti-terrorism-measures.
I'm just concerned about the way the US is trying to tell the rest of the world how to handle this tension. Every country for itself should make it's own descision in how to solve these challenges.
A different way isn't allways a worse way
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
Everyone knows america is only playing games, show the world a great war that makes people think they are doing a good job fighting terorism, but they forget their own people. and because the press is so busy with all the war stuff it even gets less attention. i think it is time for the U.S. to start looking at their own people instead of pretending to be the good guy.
Canada is so different from the USA... that I would like to *LIFE* there...
I think it was former Prime MInister Pierre Trudeau who used the metaphor of the mouse in bed with the elephant to describe Canada-U.S. relations. In a lot of ways it's a good metaphor.
Canada has to walk a tightrope: on the one hand our economic prosperity as a nation depends on our trade relationship and close economic ties with the U.S. (Canada is the U.S.'s largest trading partner, and vis versa), and certainly Canada's national security is largely tied to that of the U.S. But on the other hand, Canada is a distinct sovereign nation, and it's important to protect our sovereignty, and not become an extension of the U.S. The article mentions the Canadian government's long-standing flirtation with legalizing pot, and not to downplay issues like that [1], there are other, bigger, issues to consider. The current U.S. administration has shown a cavalier attitude towards environmental protection, weakening the EPA and making efforts to open up protected areas in Alaska for oil exploration and exploitation. Canada has been (awkwardly at times) tracing out it's own environmental policy, balancing the need to preserve our unique and precious ecological heritage, while at the same time preserving our resource based economies. It'd be a real shame if that balancing act was thrown out of whack by pressure from south of the border. The situation with freshwater policy is similar, and will perhaps become even more important.
Canada/U.S. relations loom large over Canadian politics, just as the movements of the elephant loom large in the thoughts of the mouse that it's in bed with. So when U.S. officials make "rumblings", the Canadian government can't help but take note.
[1] I'm for it. The war on drugs has been an abject failure, especially as far as pot is concerned
Unfortunately, they do not support attacks on countries, justified by the war on terrorism, based on a combination of manufactured and inadequate evidence.
they'd slaughter the true terrorists and elect a REAL leader. George Shrubya, Rumsfeld, Poindexter the Criminal, and Ollie the crook North would all go under the knife, and other countries would be free of the threat of hostile invasion by a "liberating" force.
Honestly, do Americans really believe that the war in Iraq is more than a sham to bolster a weakling's public image? more than an oil grab? I pity the lot of 'em. Eh.
I really don't understand what's cheeky about this article. It appears to be at least as well referenced and researched as any other 'hard' news story posted here. It doesn't seem to contain any sort of mocking undertones that one would expect from something labelled as cheeky. For something to be cheeky, one would expect something to be at least mildly offensive to some, due to the manner that the facts were presented it.
Isn't it a little bit strange to write something about global terrorism as a single country? How would such a report look like, if it was writte by northcorea? ;)
A little policy issue thrown at the bottom of that article. The U.S. administration is unhappy that marijuana possession in Canada is now a ticketing offense (parking meter sort of thing) instead of a criminal offense. I'm sure someone will have to draw the paralel that's been brought before that the "war on terrorism" has allowed the broadening of police powers which are being used for the "war on drugs". I'm voting Democrat in 2004, and I'm a Libertarian.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, PATRIOT Act, infinite copyright extensions, and last but not least, true terrorism disguised as "liberation of the people." What a jolly surprise.
What's next, mandatory lobotomies to bring the rest of the world into line with their ridiculous regime? Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Car bombs! Yeah!
So I'm a pervert. Welcome to the Internet.
A hell of a lot warmer by all accounts.
Create a wee buffer zone between the US and those hordes of illegal aliens.
Wow. Watching the news for the last year and a half made me forget all that. Hey, Bush- remember this? "I, George W. Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Try reading it instead of wiping your ass with it.
It's not fair. We're the ones with these rights guaranteed, and Canadians are the ones getting them. It's not my fault; I voted for the other loser machine politician.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
During the American revolution Canada went one way while the states went the other. Before then they really was no Canada except by the french in what is now Quebec.
Representatives from upper and lower Canada including Ontario were originally part of the continental congress during the American revolution but backed off when the declaration of independance was signed.
It was then when loyalist for England moved north into Canada while freedom loving rebels stayed in the states or moved south from Canada.
How is it that today Canada is more free then the US?
Americans love freedom and credit the revolution but support the president and look at anyone non conformist as unpatrotic. Guess what?
Bush is the one who is unpatrotic. I really hope he is not re-elected. Many Americans are becoming wary of not only his economic record but his horrendous foreign policy. Bush advisors mentioned that he will start his reelection on ground zero this september 11 and run on a foreign policy campaing. I think it will fail. They do not look Bush or Powell twisting everyones and threatening everyone they see fit. I think Powell definetely acted inapropriatly in Syria yesterday.
I was on yahoo messages boards and found many are upset and look at Bush as reckless and a threat to global stability more then anyone else. He really could overreact and create a nuclear war if he is not carefull. Some republicans do not like what is going on with the patriot act and even view bush as more pro-government then Clinton.
http://saveie6.com/
So what a great way to prevent a future terrorist attack. Remove those freedoms so they (theoretically) have no reason to hate us anymore.
(Of course, that is a bunch of crap. "They" hate us now more than ever.)
Americans, look what your lives have change.
It's just amazing that, when you walked into any government related building in DC, you gotta go through a metal detector. All visitors are treated as potential terrorists.
Then it's always a pain to fly. All those hassle, especially if you have the wrong look (I thought being a Chinese Canadian is easier, not so. Security officer in airports like to pick me, because they know for sure there's nothing to look at, just to pass the quota.)
How about Americans visiting other countries? Better pretended to be Canadians.
That's how the terrorists won. Canadians, on the other hand, just refuse to live like that. The first step Canadians do: be friendly to others. Respect the difference, accept other's value. No matter how inefficient or stupid Canadian governments sometimes are, Canadians still can live peacefully.
So, if you have the right to vote in US, exercise your right and tell your government what you think.
A sig is redundant.
It's called Diplomacy!
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
US: Canada don't make me have to kick your ass.
Since I don't belive that a single act of terrorism has been enacted by a Canadian citizen or Canadian immigrant against the US since the war of 1812. And the last acts of terrorism in Canada were during the FLQ crisis in the 60's. I don't see how the US has right to talk about Canada and our government policies.
Yea as if all of the pot in the US comes from canada and not MEXICO
How many kids were shot dead in East LA and other inner city "hot spots"?
That is where people live in terror IMVHO
realkiwi
As far as I can tell, the headline is simply the author's interpretation of the State Department's report, not the wording of the US government. In actual point of fact, the State Department seems mainly concerned with police funding (which has nothing to do with civil liberties), low penalties for marijuana possession (also not a civil liberty) and privacy laws. Privacy obviously is a fairly important civil liberty, and clearly the US government is going too far with its anti-terrorist legislation, but the headline is also a tad too alarmist. Indeed, the article does not even specify which privacy related laws the US objects to in particular.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Privacy is not liberty, nor is it a "civil liberty", although it might be a "civil right". A liberty is a right to carry out some type of action without being obstructed by anyone else. Privacy rights restrict the actions of others (to obtain or publish information about you) which makes them claim-rights. So the US complaint about Canadian privacy laws has nothing at all to do with liberty.
This gives a pretty good introduction to the theoretical classification of rights.
The stuff about legalizing dope is of course another matter entirely. I have no idea why American politicians gets so wound up about dope, when most Americans have used it without comming to much harm.
Makes me all fussy and warm inside. NOT.
The current danish goverment is so pro-US it's sickening. They are alienating us from the rest of europa, so fast it's unbelivable.
When Bush tells our Primeminister to jump he goes "I would love to Mr Bush, but as you are currently also fcking me up the arse it's a bit hard for me to comply"...
Well, well, this freedom thing is probably overrated anyway. I mean, how I can reject slavery when I haven't even tried it ...
TC - My Photos..
This is interesting.. the following are some stats I found on crime in Canada and the US (and Sweden, see this page.)
Is it just me or is GW the puppet and Rumsfeild the insane puppet master? Or maybe he's got me fooled and they're both insane.
Create a wee buffer zone between the US and those hordes of illegal aliens.
It's called Texas! Man, where were you during History classes?
I declare Jihad upon the infidel US webservers!
Suicide Slashdotting!
What is cheeky about the article?
I was expecting to read a humorous or... well... I expected the article to be cheeky, but it wasn't.
Or is it "cheeky" just because it investigates odd and scary comments done by US, and by definition anything criticising or disagreeing with US is "cheeky"?
Strange for a Nation who claim to be the liberty one. The same nation who have for 1st rule : In god we trust. (Yeah !! Wich one ??? I belive they whote this on their dollar bills.) I am proud not to be american.
It can't be as much fiction as that war on Iraq (where are the WMDs again?) or the last US presidential election.
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. That being said, the OP is obviously exploiting the linguistics....
Canada is *clearly* lagging behind in the policing department. Only 118 per 100,000? Pathetic!
I intentionally leave off the YRO stories on slashdot so I don't have to read the political shilling and editorializing that goes on here. I want news for nerds and not activism.
How about instead of me removing "United States" from my news listings, you guys stop posting horse puckey? Deal? Nah.... that'll never happen.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
U.S. Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties
Yeah, they should get with the program and be more like the Universal Liberator called USA!
That is the difference between a left and a right government. - A left government promotes state intervention to guarantee a minimum living standard (read taxes) - A right government promotes state intervention to guarantee security (read limit liberties and free speech) I wonder why normal citizens vote right parties. It's happening all around Europe, and it has been happening in the US for a long time. We are selling today the liberties we will need tomorrow, just to get a short term beneffit (some Euros in our pocket)
In 200 years time the 'West' will be where Iraq is now and the Chinese will be saying "I am SO glad that we didnt' get involved".
I am joking, btw.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
Very, very memories. It's been a bad couple of years, hasn't it?
Astonishingly, there is no mention in the report on the United Kingdom of the IRA.
There is a section on the IRA in the appendix on "other Foreign Terrorist Organisations" which notes that the IRA "retains the ability to conduct paramilitary operations" but it accepts that "the IRA reiterated its commitment to the peace process and apologized to the families of what it called "non-combatants" who had been killed or injured by the IRA" without noting that its activities of "kidnappings, punishment beatings, extortion, smuggling, and robberies" are active and continuing.
The report does not mention that two of the leaders of the IRA Army Council were allowed to become Sinn Fein Ministers in the (currently suspended) government of Northern Ireland.
Sinn Feinn, a major political party in Northern Ireland, is acknowledged by everybody except itself as the political wing of the IRA. The name translates into English as "Ourselves Alone" - illuminating its racist basis. Sinn Fein is not mentioned in the report.
Most astonishingly, NORAID's role in fundraising for the IRA within the USA is not mentioned in the report either.
Americans should realise that many British people who are temperamentally and politically inclined to give full support to American foreign policy find it severely compromised by America's sentimental and hypocritical blindness to the IRA threat.
US cares to little about liberties....
Until the Bush administration goons shut down Slashdot for all the liberal anti-administration conversations going on here, I think you still have your liberties.
... Land of the Free, Home of the Braves ?
I think it is time the US population gets a Reality Check about its own situation.
Phase one of possible legalization of pot in america is not complete, this being it's legalization for medial purposes. I'm only familar with some aspects of Canada's pot program, like for example legal to grew if you have a license, unlike western america where you can get a perscription for it, but you can't buy it.
But reducing marijuana posession to a ticketable offence is reasonable in my minds eye. Less reason to invade someone's privacy, and don't have extreem cases like the Eggleston in tacoma [http://goldwingtom.com/ourtake/eggleston.html]. Given that some regions do permit it for medical use, there is legit reasons why you might have it about. But how this connects to terrorism is beyond me.
But as far as canada carring more about libraries then we do, they probally do, it's one of the nice things about visiting that nation. How this relates to terrorism is beyond me as... anyone who's only means of communicating an idea is terror is not going to be the type of person who visits a library! If we had trully inteligent terrorists, the body count would be much higher!
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I don't honestly understand why people get so fired up about marijuana being legalized. I think canada has the right idea here.
;)
Disclaimer: I don't actually smoke marijuana...although i use a Mac, so that's close enough
Deaths from tobacco cigarettes in the US, 2002: 400,000
Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0.00
Now tell me, which one should be illegal?
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
I guess living in a country that implements laws that limit freedoms in what a consumer can do with their products, allows corporations to run the country like mad, have healthcare funded outside of taxation, go insane when two-thousand people die in one day after a building collapses when the same amount die from various diseases and other mortalities daily, and so on is much better.
Wait...
No. Any country without free healthcare is second world in my book. I hate what the USA does to its poor and I hate that the Chileans copy them.
[For the record, I'm a Canadian currently living in Chile]
0
Number of times Slashdot has implied the US has curtailed civil liberties since 9-11:
1512
Shocking.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
I'm glad that I don't live in the US, but in a relatively free european country.
This is not a joke. I wish it was.
I somehow ran out of them recently.
I don't need a signature.
Right.
Canada has had dick all to do with any military action in the last 100 years.
Learn your history before you start criticising.
You want us to take up arms? How about that time you guys tried to invade us and we burnt your White House down?
Or how about that time that we were busy bombing the crap out of the Nazis while the US was happily being isolationist for 2 years while he tried to take over the world?
Or how about the time that we organized the UN to intervene at the Suez Canal despite England's Security Council veto?
Or how about how we've supplied troops to just about every single UN mission since its inception?
Or wait. Of course none of that happened. It wasn't in the US papers, so it's pretty obvious that Canada doesn't have a military.
I knew a good number of Doctors from my hometown alone (a rather small town in British Columbia) who were working at the MASH units in the first Persian Gulf war who were risking their lives trying to keep UN soldiers alive (including a good number of Americans). But again, it wasn't in any American newspapers so it obviously didn't happen.
Karma: Non-Heinous
I would like to submit a link at snopes.com for your consideration. I am no fan of Bush, but...
For those of you that haven't please please please watch "Bowling for Columbine" my god thats one scary movie.
Does anyone else feel like we're getting to the point in world politics where we have to act, I no longer feel confident that our leaders even remotely consider our best interests.
tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
Actually I've never seen the Bush regime as very serious, rather it's amusing in a perverted kinda way. It's hard to explain... But I get a funny feeling about it. As if they are parodies on themselves, perhaps?
You pussies only have the option of not defending youerselves because your neighbors do it for you. If Iraq were your neighbor you wouldn't have lasted a day. Smug idiots.
BTW, watched Strange Brew again this weekend. Just as hilarious as I remembered it.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I used to make so many jokes about Canada, and not even think about going there. But, after the past few years of US legislation, I'm now seriously considering moving there. I'd prefer to live in a country where police can't arrest you and keep you in jail for no reason. A good movie to illustrate the good side of Canada is 'Bowling for Columbine'. It's one of the main reasons I'm thinking about moving.
Canada is awesome. =)
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
This site is better served keeping away from hit-and-run politics. Lots of other places on the net to go and find this kind of sorry, shallow bullshit.
In the US, police have been using roadblocks to check for seat belt compliance and other violations long before terrorism was a problem. This was brought forth by the insurance lobby, not some ominous threat from terrorists.
If police roadblocks can be coaxed from our system from a mere lobbying group, it stretches the imagination of what 9/11 may have stirred within the government.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Hey! What's wrong with you?
Is your underwear too tight!!!
The only people stabbing you in the back.
Is you government.
Do you really believe this?
Really?
Maybe you should find better sources. I personally know/knew someone that killed himself while high on marijuana. And someone else who still has pins in his body from a car crash that happened almost twenty years ago and very nearly killed him because he had marijuana in his system. If he hadn't been thrown from the car (convertible), he would have been dead because his 4000+ pound car was turned into an accordian after he went off the highway at full speed and slammed head on into an overpass pillar.
Maybe you should ask NHTSA how many drunk drivers that are killed or who kill others also have marijuana in their systems?
Or how many have just marijuana, or a combination of marijuana and other drugs in their systems before they died or killed others in car wrecks?
Or the Justice Department of how many had marijuana in their systems prior to dying or killing others in shootouts/robberies/whatever.
Or how many spouses/partners killed their partners and/or themselves and had marijuana in their systems.
Or how many boaters/jet skiers die each year during accidents and marijuana being in their systems.
Or how many workers operating heavy/dangerous machinery die because they were high while working.
No deaths from marijuana in the US in 2002?
Time to stop smoking it yourself and face reality.
Allied forces that invaded Normandy on D-Day infact consisted of Brits, Americans, Australians, AND Canadians
And yes, the US did remain isolated not wanting to help stop Hitler from taking over the world until the war was finally brought to them by Germany's ally, Japan.
The propaganda machines are up and running to prepare for another liberation. Tomorrows headlines: Canadian bacon is people!
Most Americans have never even heard of it.
Second, it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism, really, except that it happened to be mentioned in the same article. I would imagine whoever was writing the State Department report probably just let himself wander a bit when discussing impediments to US-Canadian law enforcement cooperation.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
If Bush actually said that, Bush is a moron. Especially considering that the word entrepreneur is a freakin' french word. Actually, on further review, Bush may just be a moron regardless.
What will happen when terrorists acquire a nuclear weapon.
Nor do you care, because you either want a socialist revolution, or you're naive to think they could never succeed in nuking an American city.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Dear Canadian, freedom loving fellows,
if your are invaded, please feel free to come to "old Europe". There is still plenty of space and many kinds of freedoms to choose from - french, german, etc.
Someone from good old Europe,
so I can hop across the border, beat the crap out of three Canuks and not have to worry about going to jail.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Canadians have to be hippocrates to keep benifitting from being the US's neighbor.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
when-canada-sneers-at-you-you-know-you're-in-troub le
- so mething-more-than-the-rednecks-up-north
ummm where have you been?
when-canada-sneers-at-you-you-know-you're-doing
police control YOU!
All your base are belong to us!
My parents pay 51% tax and they make a healthy salery. And I get to year about it every year.
In Canada, it is illegal to say you dislike certain people for certain reasons. They have a ways to go before they can criticize the U.S.
We were in Afghanistan and indirectly with our patrol and defense ships even if we did not officially supported US on the Iraq war we helped much more than any other country (except for Britain). But whatever. ...An occasional "thank you" instead of the usual stab in the back would be appreciated once in a while...
We were in Afghanistan and indirectly with our patrol and defense ships even if we did not officially supported US on the Iraq war we helped much more than any other country (except for Britain). But whatever. Reading this distorted vision make me just happier to live in Canada and please just change your Commander in chief as soon as possible he is an insult to all the great accomplishment of your great nation. (Yes, Canadians can recognize that other nations can also be great.) ...An occasional "thank you" instead of the usual stab in the back would be appreciated once in a while...
An occasional act of courtesy and respect for other nations will be needed first and on many occasion it's us who are still waiting for the thanks. Like when we received all those planes on September 11 because you diverted them all to Canada and that hundreds off US citizens were living for a couple of days in Canadians family's who just decided to take them as guests. At the same time many Canadians where guiving blood and collecting founds for you. I remember that your Commander in chief did not even mentioned Canada in is thanks speech a couple of days latter but did mentioned numerous insignificant country's.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
"If we had trully inteligent terrorists, the body count would be much higher!"
Exactly. Terroism is not about how many people you can wipe out. It is about big noises, large press coverage and fear. One wacko intelligent person could potentially be 100 times more dangerous than 100 meatheads.
Nice. I've rarely read a more concise definition of Canadian patriotism.
"This is the devilish thing about foreign affairs: they are foreign and will not always conform to our whim." - James Reston, New York times, 1968-06-12.
Back in July 2002, a group of us crossed into Canada at the Blue Waters Bridge in Port Huron/Sarnia for a bachelor's party trip to Toronto. We were pulled over and thoroughly questioned and searched (vehicle, clothes, etc.) on the Canadian side after crossing. However, on the way back in to the US, we were waved on through.
ObSatireWire: Canadian warship seizes tanker in... wait... Canada has a warship?
It's been tried before... didn't work that time either.
It's also awfully reminiscent of a cold-war partitioned Germany. Put up all the razorwire you like (and it would be a hell of a good contract to supply it), people will still want the freedom of the West^WNorth.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Why do you believe it would be a nightmare? The Netherlands have a very liberal drug law for several years and there are no border controls at all between Germany and The Netherlands or Belgium and the Netherlands, both of which have much stricter drug laws. I wouldn't say that there are BO problems, but actually the problems have not increased much since The Netherlands liberated their drug policy.
What you tell us is IMHO very symptomatic for USians as of lately. Spread panic (or "FUD") in order to restrict civil rights.
SebastianWhat the report said on this matter was:
1 99 87.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/
"Some US law-enforcement officers have expressed concern that Canadian privacy laws, as well as funding levels for law enforcement, inhibit a fuller and more timely exchange of information and response to requests for assistance. Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from Government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations. "
Notice that this paragraph is phrased differently from the other paragraphs. This paragraph merely notes the view of some law enforcement officials, and does not actually represent this view as the view of the state department.
U.S. Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties
Bull. You have no rights in Canada. The "Charter of Rights" says that you can be deprived of your rights anytime if it is a reasonable deprivation. What does "reasonable" mean? What ever the Supreme Court feels is reasonable.
..is far away from Texas, right?
In my understanding, evolution happens when a new generation has new traits that give it an advantage. There is an implication that the previous generation dies off. States CAN evolve and the modern western ones might. But evolving means siring new states that are better than what came before.
Developing in the terms of a state means that the existing state gets better (pick your criteria to define better, doesn't matter for the point I'm making). As soon as I realized the distinction, I also realized that most of the west (probably most of the world really, and I'm definitely including but not singling out the US here) is either going to 'evolve' or 'develop'. Odds are, an evolutionary process is going to be bloodier. I think the decisions that the public makes and allows to be made on its behalf are going to decide which advancement type is the better analogy.
Anyway, just thinking aloud.
Wow! Times have changed!
In the early 1990-ties, Islam Karimov was a cheap Soviet-style dictator wannabee. But he worked hard, intensive surveillance of pro-democracy workers, rigged elections, and eventually, political assassinations, extensive use of torture, etc., gaining real, dictator power.
Most political dissidents have fled, notably, Mohammad Salih, who ran against Karimov in one of the elections. He was the subject of an assassination attempt, that fortunately failed. Salih is a member of the Erk Democratic Party.
After 9/11, the US has given Karimov all the support he needs to grow from a dictator wannabee to a full Saddam/Hitler-style tyrant. There is hardly any serious democratic opposition left in Uzbekistan. What there is, however, is a bunch of extreme muslim fundamentalists, so, should Karimov loose power, it is not going to be the democratic opposition taking over, it is going to be the religious extremists (which is a development we're unsurprisingly seeing in Iraq too).
When I see Tommy Franks shaking hands with of the worst tyrants on the planet, it makes me wanna puke... It is history repeating itself, it is a reminder that Saddam too was a dictator wannabee before Donald Rumsfeld went to shake hands with him in 1984.
If the US wants to have any credibility whatsoever with the war-for-freedom rhetoric, they should at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
You, sir, are an idiot.
Your right on arsenic. You must have read that somewhere.
Modern oil extraction techniques are 'generally' safe. That doesn't mean that every oil company out there uses state of the art technology.
Trust me, they don't---its a question of properly regulating their operations in certain areas to ensure that undue harm isn't caused. I have no idea whats going on in Canada---but I have a fair amount of knowledge of small/medium oil extraction operations.
The war on drugs is a success? Har Har Har-- you must be trolling.
You might like the idea of sentencing 'druggies'. This is stupid, for a number of reasons.
From your failure to demonstrate any sort of indepth knowledge, I'll surmise that your an alcoholic, and have already fried all your neurons.
Maybe you want to bring back prohibition, 'cause that worked out fine and dandy.
Not to mention Tobacco----There is research to suggest that nicotine is the most addictive substance know to man.
But Tobacco gets to be the second largest cash crop of Kentucky. (Obviously another success of the drug war. Black market prices have made Marijuana the LARGEST cash crop of Kentucky. Not only do we have a great deal of property damage/life lost in the OPEN WARFARE between rich growers and heavily armed DEA agents, it has become an artifically huge sector of certain areas of the U.S., driving a significant percentage of domestic transactions into an untaxable, and impossible to regulate industry.) This, of course, is strange, because the street price to potency ratio, in dollars adujsted for inflation, has declined over the years.
Not just Pot. Cocaine. Heroine. Ecstasty. LSD.
Drugs have gotten stronger, and cheaper.
Hey---maybe it is a success---After all, the way the government 'regulates' the controlled substances industry has produced both reductions in cost and increases in quality. It's the American Way, baby---Where there is demand, supply will improve, given free market conditions.
The only problem is we now send 'young punks' to jail. In droves. And pay for court costs, jail fees, and vast law enforcement budget. For commiting a victimless crime.
Beyond that---The Office of National Drug Policy says drug users fund terrorism. Well, guess what, bub-- Why does the black market use money laundering? Why are all those funds untracable and impossible to regulate? And why are there such large profits, anyways?
Prohibition.
[i]Wake up, dumbass.[/i]
If Drug Money goes to terrorism, its the Government's fault. If Drug Money funds innercity, its the Government's fault. If Drug Money kills your son, its the Government's fault.
The DEA has so much as admitted that usage rates continue to increase. Approximately 35% of Americans have tried Marijuana at least once. Extremely high levels of highschoolers consider themselves regular users (this has tapered off slightly since '98, but only because it would have had trouble getting ANY higher).
Hell, nearly every political candidate has had some degree of experimentation with various illegal drugs.
And their children (Bush's daughters, who got caught try to buy ecstasy, trying to buy pharmaceutical opiates, and possession of marijuana; Ashcroft's Nephew, who was GROWING pot, and dealing POUNDS---escaped the manditory minimums of Mississippi (When Ashcroft was state attorney general) because of political pressure)) are ALWALYS high.
Grow up----Not everything is as it should be in the Drug Way. For 60 years now our drug policy has been nonsensical, permitting two drugs, but banning other ones indiscriminately, without any amount of review or common sense. Crimes rates continue to rise, Usage rates continue to rise, billions of dollars are spent, and the industry GROWS.
Even if I thought it was a good idea, the failure of drug prohibition to acheive even minimal success in either detering dealing, reducing usage rates, or decreasing avaliability is incre
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
no need for
1.5 ???
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
You have to act fast, however, since Canda is tightening its immigration requirements. A few years ago you could score a 70 on the test and be admitted. Today the threshold is 75 and rising.
Why would you want to immigrate to Canada? Because not only do Canadians have civil liberties, but people in the bottom 55% of incomes have higher after-tax incomes than the bottom 55% of Americans (which is most of us). Indeed, the average after-tax income for the middle class of most industrialized countries is higher than in the United States. (SOURCE: Up From Conservatism by Michael Lind.) Americans in the top 10%-20% are by the most affluent in the world, but the rest of us have fallen behind, since our jobs have gone to India and Taiwan. Not only do we have lower after-tax incomes, but we also have more crime (which is paradoxical since US law enforcement is dangerous and out of control), worse public education, and far costlier health care.
I'm not an American...
...but it always intrigues me the number of Americans who love bagging out 'their govt' like it's a weird-god-like-outer-body-experience-type-entity or something...
I'm not even Canadian...
Intriguing.
I reckon America's tops. I also live in a democracy (Australia). In a democracy, the people are the govt.
Sure, I don't always agree with the Aussie Govt of the day on heaps of issues, but on the whole, I reckon they do a top job. Australia has been built up over 100 years to be a top place to live! And, every two-four years, I get to give our govt their performance appraisal. Pollies are just like us.
They're tops. The system's tops. And if I don't like it, I got the right of protest, so I can change it, or I can move somewhere else if it's really **THAT** bad, which is isn't. It's tops.
Don't be so hard on your country mate, it's a top place.
This Canadian comment in the report is just some temporary pettiness between long term mates. Mates sometimes fight, don't worry. You guys will kiss and make up.
Enjoy your day!
M.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you believe, as you appear to, that critical dissent is essential for securing corrections and improvements to government failings, then why waste time with back-slapping and jingoism?
Do you have some psychological need to see dissent tempered with praise? You don't need to tell a politician when he's done something good -- he will see to it that you and all the other voters are pummeled with that information come re-election time.
I think the people who have the hardest time with dissent are often those who are the least confident in their positions.
Yeah, elect Chomsky and before you know it our taxes could double. Like Sweden, where Volvo, Ericson, and Ikea all grew (in revenue and jobs) over the past three years under such a crushing burden. What suffering!?!
Cannabis protest ignored by police
Seriously, Moore is a nice guy, who just asks tough questions.
I don't see why the Right has to search for 'inaccuracies' and then claim he's worthless because some facts or assumptions may be off.
He's ideas are still correct, and if you are trying to disprove him, you're missing the point of what he does.
But then, if someone challenges your ideas, it's best to try and discredit them or shut them up isn't it?
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Canada's health care system is by no means FREE.
When I send my checque to the government every year, the payment for my health insurance is in there.
When you send your check to the government, regime change and prison building and liberty stripping is in there.
It's a matter of choice for both nations as to what is more important.
If a federal election candidate (in Canada) ran on the platform of lower taxes (ala bush) at the expense of healthcare, they would have their careers abruptly terminated.
If a federal election candidate (in America) ran on the platform of lower taxes at the expense of healthcare, they get elected.
It just illustrates what is important to the populations. We are WILLING to pay taxes to not have to deal directly with (and pay) private health insurance (when it can be afforded in the first place).
just my $.02 CAD (or $.0170 US)
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Remember that to make a fair comparison you need to add Health Insurance to the American tax rate. In Canada health care insurance is rolled into our taxes.
I just want to point out for those of you it may have missed...
Canadian government not falling in line with the American government is one thing.
Canadians not liking the American government is another thing.
Americans not liking the Canadian govenment is yet another thing.
None of the above say that Canadians hate the US. The vast majority of us don't (although, granted, many of us may think of US citizens as a whole as "arrogant").
So please stop with the "Blame Canada" rhetoric. It's been said a billion times, and was only funny about the first four.
Soylens viridis homines es
OK, so the UK plays on the same dirty level as the IRA and caps a few IRA heads. How does this compare to van bombs that kill/maim 100s of people at a time on the mainland ?
just my $.02 CAD (or $.0170 US)
Isn't that a bit optimistic for an exchange rate?
Everybody in the US loves "The Fighting Irish"!
And we all know that most Americans are sentimental mush-heads who can't tell reality from entertainment.
P.S.
To all non North Americans: "The Fighting Irish" is a nick-name for a well known American football team!
Talk about confusing stereotypes with reality!!!
are criticizing other countries for caring "too much about civil liberties" Is this some kind of weird parallel world we live in?
Is anyone else sick of the word "terrorist attack" being tagged onto any tragedy that, pre-2001, would've been called a "politically-motivated attack"?
To describe every act of destruction (against "us", as it seems) as "terrorism" is negating any inspection of why the act took place, politically or otherwise. It's an instant demonification without need for inquiry...and thus, no lessons are learned.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
I swear, this is a true story, and still cracks me up today. My wife and I took our honeymoon through the Canadian Rockies (hiking, 2-day train ride, whale watching, etc). It was really awesome, and everyone was really nice. As the train pulled out of Vancouver, there was graffiti on the overpasses. Just your normal tags, people's names and whatnot. As we started to get to the edge of Vancouver, there was a big graffiti mural on one of the overpasses. What did it say?
"Welcome to Vancouver"
Even the damn graffiti is polite! I still can't believe it, and it cracks me up every time I think of it. I wish I would have gotten a picture of it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You really do believe EVERYTHING that big brother tells you, don't you?
Tell me, have you ever been prescribed a tranquilizer? Now, there is something that can truly wipe you out, and it is perfectly legal!
And that's just a start! There are commonly prescribed opiate drugs, just as powerful as heroin, and perfectly legal! There is one that has even become known as the "trailer park heroin".
Drug addicts, to avoid the heavy penalties for illegal drugs, have taken to breaking into the homes of cancer sufferers!!!
Isn't the law wonderfully fair and even handed?!
Not to mention Vimy Ridge. Or the invasion of Italy during WWII. Or the Korean War. Or this little operation called "Operation Overlord". Or the Battle of Britain. Nope, no Canadian involvement in any major military operations in the past century at all.
sorry that was last week when $2 CAD bought $1.40US.
:-)
I haven't really had a need for $US since they decided I was a persona non grata when I forgot to turn my green card in at age 15 (like I was going to skateboard to Buffalo from Toronto to hand it in
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Well, resisting the temptation to make the usual slew of Candian jokes ... :)
If Canada allowed people to own actual firearms, didn't have even higher tax rates than the US, and didn't force you into crappy socialized medicine, I might consider moving there to avoid the War on Drugs (80s), Save The Children (90s), and The War on Terrorism (00s).
Until then, I'll keep voting Libertarian and writting my congress critters.
I assume all of you bitching about the US don't vote republican or democrat, and thus aren't part of the problem, riiiiight ?
PS: Since I know some Canucks will respond:
1) Your total average tax rates are higher than ours, although it appears that by 2005, that might change.
2) It's about being FORCED into your medical program. That's not freedom.
3) We like guns. You guys used to.
...did Slashdot turn into a political forum?
I hate to be a show-off, but... ,-)
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Oddly enough, you know, the people who're presently bitterly resenting our foreign policy are decrying exactly such a culture. And I'm not just talking about in Iraq, or Syria, or Egypt -- I'm talking about in France and in our closest ally, the UK, too. Out of passing curiosity, had you ever considered actually listening to the nature of the criticisms against us? Or are you completely isolated in your solipsistic echo chamber?
Because we have the freedom to pursue whatever business we like, Americans have gotten very good at supplying what people want... It seems like simple logic to me that any human being would naturally gravitate toward systems that bring greater satisfaction. There, no complex motives required, just basic human behavior.
It's the echo chamber, then... Talk about your "propoganda (sic)." The Arab world hates us because our businesses are so efficient at giving people what they want. It's all just basic human nature.
Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say? Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919? Were the British also exceptionally good at giving the people the satisfaction they wanted? Or does this explanation of yours float in a totally ahistorical fantasy universe where you don't need to deal with comparisons like that?
More to the point: supply us with one clear case in which this has motivated a specific terrorist act. We know a fair amount about the 9/11 hijackers. Were Mohammed Atta's attitudes toward skyscrapers born of this way of thinking you describe? They seem to fit the "corporatism" critique much better, to me.
Please, please, look into how the educated Arab world feels about US foreign policy. There are many, many people out there whose desperate desire is to bring secular, democratized states to the Arab world, but who also seem to understand the sources of terrorism. They do understand the despotic regimes out there -- they seem particularly aware of ones like Egypt, and of the Shah in Iran. You know, the ones the US props up? Like in Pakistan, where Bush W. applauded the military coup that brought Musharraf to power back during the 2000 election? (Those regimes really don't fit into your idea of leaders oppressing the people to preserve the status quo, incidentally. The people resent our backing their leaders. Ever notice that? Ever hear of Anwar Sadat?) Those people aren't living in fantasy la-la land where "The terrorists hate us because we provide the people with more satisfaction." They're saying things about how US foreign policy is counterproductive. You might want to try listening.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
...they should consider who supplies most of their water. Just the thought of all that water makes me want to go pee in a reservoir.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Europeean Citizens Says U.S.A. Government Is A Modern Communist Society Under The Cloak Of Democracy Much Like Germany In World War 2.. and we all know what that lead to dont we.. ixxo
The Canadian health care system is equally advanced, at least scientifically. It just lacks the ability to attract the best nurses and doctors away from private facilities in the big U.S. urban centres that can pay substantially more to the best practitioners.
There is a difference. What Canada wants to do is decriminalize pot so that it will be more like a speeding ticket. Also, larger quantities will still be criminal (trafficing will still land you in jail.) The argument is that we (Canadians) do not feel that people that have been caught with small amounts of pot should end up in jail or have criminal records ruining their lives. A kid that smokes a joint at a party shouldn't have his/her entire life stripped away for a stupid mistake. Think of it more like drinking under-age (illegal, but not criminal), you get caught at a high-school party being stupid (who hasn't), your life isn't over.
Pullleeez. Spare me all of this stupidity and backbiting. Here's a solution: let's have the whole world gather in a pit somewhere, say some valley near the dead sea, and just duke it out. Then when whatever blast occurs, it'll all be sorted out and we don't have to cry over who sucks at doing what.
take care.
Once again, prove it. Your silly stats - which vary only marginally from the actual atats in the movie - do not do the job.
Clearly Moore touched a nerve in the US populace, which is what the film was intended to do. Tell me, do you really think they'd give an Academy Award to such a 'blatantly obvious hack job'? Or a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes?
Oh, right. You hate the French. Never mind.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Robert
sources:
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
How can it be a Democracy when we hand over the decisions to the so called government. I too am an Australian, and if you can't see the fact the many Australians are also unhappy with our government, and express that unhappiness loudly and often, then you are blind to the world around you. The present Australian government is crap, just like in the US. The Australian gov is trying to scrap medicare, in their ever so suttle manner, so that poor people have as much access to medical assitance as they do in the US.
yeah, they are tops, the system is tops. You can always protest, unless they don't want you too, which is what happened in a number of the anti-war protests in this country. You need to apply for a permit to protest, and if they say no, then they have no quarms about sending in the horses, and riot police.
Wake up...
I think this is basicaly a good question. According to the last events, which are Iraq war and this thing about Canada liberties, US only wants to extend their supremacy all around the planet. Im a Canadian and i personnaly think that US (in general) must leave other country do what they want and care about their own problems before ours.
Geez
The British and the Irish are the same race, please try to avoid using words against their meaning.
Technically all homo sapiens are the same race.
I wish people would fucking remember that.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
One wacko intelligent person could potentially be 100 times more dangerous than 100 meatheads.
Hee hee.. I'm removing the tinfoil hat... hee hee
Trolling is a art,
I really don't understand why Americans think we want their tax rate.... but I sure as hell wish someone would copy the tax-deductible mortgage structure ;)
You're such a troll but I will bite anyway.
> Let's not get into WWII. If you think the US
> didn't do dick or spill blood in WWII, then you
> have a real problem.
Yes, you are correct, Americans did die in WW2. Lives lost is not a good thing, no matter when and where it happens. That was not the point though. The point was that the U.S. sat on the sidelines for 2 years while the rest of the "free" world was getting their asses kicked.
> Supplied troops to every single UN mission?
Yes. If you are referring to the current war with Iraq. That is not a UN mission. That's why were are not involved.
> How many of anyone in your hometown gave their
> lives to depose today's hitler?
None. Because there is no equivalent of "Today's Hitler" in the world. Calling Sadam Hitler must be something that CNN came up with. Don't get me wrong, Sadam is bad but he isn't the equivalent of Hitler.
> After all, we deserve it, don't we? You are
> morally superior to us, aren't you?
Nobody said we were morally superior. We have our problems. We make mistakes. We're human. We just don't FORCE our views on everyone else.
> And as for the "riding the backs of the US
> military", I suggest you look within your own
> country for the criticism. Because I've seen it
> come from your own country more than anywhere
> else. From canadian news letters to the
> editors, from canadian news pundits, from
> canadians being interviewed on the street, from
> canadian politicians.
Yes, every country in the world rides the back of the US military. You know why? It's because the U.S. is too busy being the bully of the school yard and sticks it's nose in everything. Someone has to go in and clean up your mess.
Do you really want to know why Canada didn't join your war against Iraq? We all agree that Sadam is bad and should have been removed. There is no argument about that. We didn't join in because we do not want to be a TARGET. That's right, a TARGET. Just think about this in a logical fashion. Look at the possible chain of events.
- We join War on Iraq (tm)
- Terrorists attack Canada (ie Toronto)
- Canada turns to U.S. for support.
- Canada changes privacy policies to help fight "terrorism"
- Canada becomes part of the U.S.
See, you are correct. We ride on the backs of the U.S. military enough as it is and we don't want to. The more we rely on you, the more indebted we are. That's not good.
We're #3, down from the smug #1. We may be #2 or #1 again this year, unless there's more poor people in our country... again... taxes are down..again... tuition will rise 20%... again... My blood boils when I think about the future of Canada.
I'm a brit...
:) ]
[snipped to take this out of context
Why do I keep getting passing thougts of "The (Tony) Blair Witch Project"?
wierd.
Carry on.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Bull. Canada never had nuclear weapons. There were American weapons & bombers stationed in Canada, but there never were Canadian nuclear bombs.
...It wasn't hard to find. The relevant information is near the bottom of the page.
Nope, you're the one who's lacking in history class.
Canada had nuclear missiles on a number of CF-18 hornets (note: CF = 'Canadian forces').
Here's a link.
From http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/canadian-bacon.ht ml
"Think of your children pledging allegiance to the maple leaf. Mayonnaise on everything. Winter 11 months of the year. Anne Murray -- all day, every day. The Canadians. They walk among us. William Shatner. Michael J. Fox. Monty Hall. Mike Meyers. Alex Trebek. All of them Canadians. All of them here."
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
...is that now Independance day in the US is no longer billed as being about a people's uprising to overthrown an unpopular and (arguably) tyrannical gov't. Somehow the 4th of July has now become a celebration of "America" and "Freedom" and military victories.
These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
This is in sharp contrast to some US states where you can go to PRISON for carrying small quantities of marijuana.
I am Canadian and I'm quiet offended by how some Canadians all of a sudden see this subject as a reason to tell the US how better we are at liberties and stuff. Grow up, everyone thinks his country is better than everyone else's.
With the wrong political party in power we could experience the same problems. So please have some respect.
We are not so different and we should be supportive of each others rights to freedoms and liberties. Saying that Canada is better than the US or that US is better than Canada, really doesn't address the subject at all, au contraire, you'll all try to justify some bad law your country have and as a result, it says that you approve of such laws.
Not true.
It was then when loyalist for England moved north into Canada while freedom loving rebels stayed in the states or moved south from Canada.
About 1/3 of the colonist were loyalist. I am not sure what % moved to canda, england, or elsewhere.
How is it that today Canada is more free then the US?
That is not really true. It is not true that they are less free. It helps that Canada seems to be going for a free ride (WTO, US Defense of the West and North America). Creeping socialism in Canada is starting to have a negative effect.
Americans love freedom and credit the revolution but support the president and look at anyone non conformist as unpatrotic.
This is a very simplistic statement. It is simply not true.
Guess what? Bush is the one who is unpatrotic.
In what sense is he un-patriotic?
Many Americans are becoming wary of not only his economic record but his horrendous foreign policy.
The poll number they show on National Security issues on the news do not back this up.
The anti-American left and the supporter of militant Islamic dictators feel this way. To them stability means, dictators stay in power, and terrorism against the West continues. To them stability also means the US does nothing .
He really could overreact and create a nuclear war if he is not careful.
In what sense has overreacted? What scenario are you considering here? China Russia? North Korea?
I think Powell definitely acted inappropriately in Syria yesterday.
In what sense? If anything, the US is taking a soft line to Syria. Are you upset that they were asked to expel Iraqi leaders they may have given sanctuary too? Are you upset that Syria was asked to stop supporting multiple terrorist groups?
Sorry...the correct phrase [and system] is Universal Healthcare.
The current candian military is a pale shadow of the force that fought so well in WW2.
The above is a pretty good example of the appeasement mindset. Unfortunately, on the international stage, this is what Canada has become.
It should be noted that Bush made May 1rst Loyalty Day. That's right, Loyalty Day.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20 03/04/20030430-26.html
You live in fantasy land if you believe that there is an unjustified price differential between crude oil in Eastern Canada and Western Canada. Crude oil consumers the world over essentially pay whatever the current spot price is plus transportation to their locale.
What people HATE is the self-righteousness FUD that your government spews, smearing everyone else in the process.
Here's a good example. Remember Jessica Lynch the female US private that was 'rescued' by US forces from iraqi 'imprisonment'?
The Toronto Star has the real story.
Turns out that there were no troops in the hospital at all. And the hospital staff befriended her. And her injuries were not battle-related, they were more likely from falling off of a truck.
And the hospital tried to deliver her to the US troops, but when the AMBULANCE got within 300 metres of the US troops, they were fired upon.
Once again, the link
Okay; I read that link. It's an interesting read, to be sure. I think the author is missing the point.
References to things like the the missile plant in Littleton are moot; I believe that there is no way of actually knowing what Lockheed Martin builds there, no matter what they - or Moore - says.
As for the Heston speech, the author of that site seems to think that the editing is some kind of trick. Moore did not re-construct sentences, as the author opines (in fact, one might point out that he starts to delve into the same kind of misinformation tactics that he is accusing Moore of); cutting to a picture, then cutting to a different sound byte does not constitute some sort of fraud. It was clear to me that these are snippets, in the way they were presented. Heston said all those things. Doesn't matter where he said them - remember the point of the film. The use of phrases like "my cold dead hands" were used at multiple points in the film, to illustrate a certain mind-set.
I surely think there were things exaggerated in Bowling for Columbine. I live in Toronto - I don't know many people who leave their doors unlocked. (I do know more people who do, to my surprise, after asking some friends when the film came out.)
But you are missing the point of the film. The point about the USA being a gun-crazed, fear-induced culture of what are probably honest people, whom are being manipulated in nasty ways. Do you dispute the gun death stats? That's the real point.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Lissin up! There are more than a few US states that have done just what our LEGAL System is going to do if our government doesn't: Decriminalize Pot or Legalize entirely. The whole reason our Prime Minister is using his powers to change the law is so that some left wing judge doesn't go puff on his hookah before swinging the gavel in favor of any of the dozens of Supreme Court of Canada Pot cases which will swing the law sooner or later in favor of actual justice; Do any of you know why weed is illegal to begin with? Do you think there was medical evidence that proved weed was dangerous in the wee hours of the superstitious era when it was prohibbited?
I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank
The government of the US is restricting freedom. They are detaining people without cause. I say we should liberate these americans. They need our help. Fight the Axis of Opression!
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
Many times I have been concerned that so many here just don't understand how perilous a time this is in America.
This discussion appears to have brought the patriots out.
It's a sight I really needed to see. Thank you.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
You are already a target. What makes you immune? You think just because you didn't get front stage and center and announce you were fighting, that you are safe? Furthermore, people don't ride the back of the US military because we are a bully, they ride our backs because everyone else wants a piece of the pie. And because we have the most powerful military in the world, so it is a pretty good back to ride on.
I think they are just still mad over the war of 1812 when we pushed the Americans so far back... past their 'White House', and burned it...
Adventure City Tours
This seperatists attitude will not work in the world today. We are a global economy, we can no longer afford to "let other countries do what they want" However this applies to the United States as well. In a perfect world every nation would know what the other is doing. In fact, in a perfect world, we would share knowledge and information, unofortunately that is not the world with which we live in.
This country is bullshit. We're powerless to do anything about it, too - admit it! Don't keep denying that the American public has been completely cowed into submission by propaganda and lies.
Our current government is Machiavellian in the sense that it believes it can preach freedom, truth, and justice while practicing tyrrany, duplicity, and corruption.
If we're told that this is the "land of the free" thousands of times, we might believe it. But you and I both know that is NOT TRUE. I am ANGRY! Are you?
I'd prefer to live in a country where police can't arrest you and keep you in jail for no reason.
I'm a proud Canadian, but I'm bound to say, in fairness, that we've had our own share of troubles.
Particularly if you talk to a Quebecer, you will probably get an earfull about the FLQ crisis of October 1970, when Quebec sovereignist terrorists kidnapped (and subsequently killed) a Canadian minister. In response, the federal government invoked the War Measures Act, suspending certain civil liberties, and many people suspected of links to the FLQ were detained without good reason.
Now, in fairness to the Canadian government, the act was invoked at the request of the Quebec government... But I'm sure you'll hear other sides to this story.
Switching back to "proud Canadian" mode, I do feel that our governments (at all levels) have done a pretty good job at balancing security against liberty.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
They were fighting the British in 1812. Until 1867, there WAS no Canada.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
"Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say? Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919? Were the British also exceptionally good at giving the people the satisfaction they wanted? Or does this explanation of yours float in a totally ahistorical fantasy universe where you don't need to deal with comparisons like that?"
Because having a US presense interferes with their own plans. Similiar in some ways to Afghanistan. Alturistic thoughts and motivation really is a rare thing, regardless of what society your talking about.
> The above is a pretty good example of the
> appeasement mindset. Unfortunately, on the
> international stage, this is what Canada has
> become.
I would rather have the leaders of my country being pacifists than war mongers. Odds are that sooner or later we will have to join some war (human nature and all). We just choose not to fight in this one because it does not server our international needs.
Note: Whether or not the war is ethical is a debate left up to scholars that are much more informed than me.
You'll have to wait until 2008, I'm afraid. With responses like those against the Dixie Chicks (I detest them, btw... but they have been very public lately) for speaking their mind, it's all too clear that a great deal of Americans support their oil-baron president, and would re-elect him in a heartbeat. Those same Americans are among the growing number of Republicans who appear to be the majority among the few people who vote. If you want Ass-croft out, I reccomend you vote to impeach.
Schizophrenic.slashdot.orgt .org2 000.slashdot.orgn Wannabe.slashdot.orgt .orgt .org
BleedingHeart.slashdo
Communist.slashdot.org
BitterAboutElection
Anarchist.slashdot.org
America
RightWingConspiracy.slashdo
Missinformed.slashdot.org
Clueless.slashdo
I think this bumper sticker says it all: http://www.wellwhatthe.com
I find it hilarious that you perceive Canadians to be hypocrites for simply staying out of all the bullshit. The United States benefits significantly from our lumber, minorly from our oil, and (although they seem to enjoy slapping tarifs on it) a good deal from our grain.
That doesn't mean we have to, or DO agree with America politically. We support various trade decisions when we agree with them (and in the case of FTAA, some that we don't), and we support actions that we approve of. We also give help, regardless of whether we're in a good mood politically. Remember Gander? Bush certainly doesn't.
Don't call us hypocrites for playing it safe and trying to keep peace while making a modest profit. That's called growing up and playing on the world stage instead of bullying it around to get what you want.
Oddly enough, you know, the people who're presently bitterly resenting our foreign policy are decrying exactly such a culture. And I'm not just talking about in Iraq, or Syria, or Egypt -- I'm talking about in France and in our closest ally, the UK, too.
The response to the French not doing exactly what the US wanted was all sorts of infantile French bashing. Anyway Canada is also usually considered to be a strong ally of the US.
Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say?
It really is very simple, just because they didn't like Saddam Hussein does not mean they want a foreign army in their country.
Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919?
Lebanese Shiites cheered when Israel invaded Lebanon. Then when these soldiers overstayed their welcome they formed themselves into "The Party of God" to get rid of them.
More to the point: supply us with one clear case in which this has motivated a specific terrorist act. We know a fair amount about the 9/11 hijackers.
But also plenty we don't know about these people. Especially given that at least a third of them were using identities stolen from innocent Arabs.
Please, please, look into how the educated Arab world feels about US foreign policy. There are many, many people out there whose desperate desire is to bring secular, democratized states to the Arab world,
In order to have a stable democratic state any such government, its structure, powers and constitution must be decided by people who live there. It simply cannot be done by foreigners or ex-pats who havn't set foot in the country for decades. The best outsiders can do is advise, but this is a job for political historians rather than soldiers.
They do understand the despotic regimes out there -- they seem particularly aware of ones like Egypt, and of the Shah in Iran.
The Shah being especially relevent as a tyrant installed by the US and Britain at the request of the oil industry. Which didn't like the idea of a democratic Iranian government acting in the interests of the Iranian people. The only people in Iran capable of opposing the Shah were the Shiite clerics (Iran having been the home of Shia Islam for several hundred years.)
They're saying things about how US foreign policy is counterproductive.
It rarely appears to be counterproductive towards the corporate lobby who appear to be in the driving seat. Also when it is counterproductive this tends to be long term, long enough that the current US executive can say "we didn't do it".
I, for one, hope you Zapdos come over the border gun in hand to teach us a lesson so that I may be the one who blows you away. Go ahead, loser. Try us.
STFU about slashdot bias.
That's something to wave a flag over.
*chuckle*
Since when was the US government in the business of converting freedom to privilege? Is this kind of like knighthood?
"I knight you Traveler. And in accepting this privilege you agree to leave your American citizenship at home when you travel within the US.
Leave your constitution at home also, because it does not apply to you when enjoying the Privileges of the Homeland"
For the record, being a good Canadian, I'd have to buy a gun first! :)
STFU about slashdot bias.
The complaint I hear from middle-eastern immigrants (Me living near Montreal) is that "how can the US sanction others, and thereby restrict what others may have, whilst the US can't even provide adequately for themselves. It seems to be the US way,Do things our way or we will lead an enforced, US-lead boycott of all goods in and out of your country. Food for Oil my ass. How can anyone believe the US when they say they aren't doing it for the oil, wile all you hear on CNN is "The oil fields are now safe" While I'm on a rant, why does the US want to ban WMD when they have the most? Or has the US dismantled it's entire arsenal of nuclear weapons recently? They are also the country who has in history used the most WMD. Let's just ask the Japanese how they feel about that? It's starting to look as though the US is far more dangerous to world stability than Iraq was. The world isn't blind, we see what is happening. Dubya is a dangerous man!
Man, I wish I had mod points. You make a good point.
I grew up in Canada and still live there, but my dad and wife are both from the States, and I maintain a dual citizenship. What I have noticed is that Americans tend to express strong opinions on various issues and are frank and open about most things. Canadians tend to be a little more reserved and fearful of offending others.
:-)
America was founded by people who broke away from an oppressive regime, which makes Americans tend to explore their opportunities to their fullest potential and seek to change the world. Canada was founded by two groups who had been at each others throats throughout history, which makes us a nation of diplomats, all trying to smoothe over our differences and find common ground and compromise.
I remember attending a debate in Toronto between an evolutionist and a creationist. At the end, when the audience was encouraged to speak up, people kept saying things like "must evolution exclude the hand of God" or "couldn't evolution be a part of God's creation plan"? The evolutionist (who was American) looked at them like they were from another planet, but this is how Canadians tend to think.
That's why this Iraq war was so hard on the national psyche. It's not so much that we were opposed to the war as it was that we couldn't stomach the rift that was forming between the US and its allies. We spent all our energies trying to find a position that would placate the US, France, and others which was, of course, futile.
Anyway, that's just my spin on things as a Canadian, but if you all have different views on the subject, I'm sure I can find some way to accomodate them.
"All that being said, I think that pot should be legal for medical purposes. It's an incredible anti-nausea agent, and pain management substance, and is great in brownies... LOL. The current and previous administration's policies with regards to marijuana are stupid. I am however not recommending it's use. I know quite a few guys that I went to school with (I'm 30) who are still living in my home town, still working at Burger King, renting a shabby apartment (or living with parents), and still just "hanging out man, and smoking weed". They are functionally 15 to 17 years old from a social and emotional stand point. They have not changed a bit since high school (hint: this is not a good thing). I'm buying a house and they are sneaking around trying to score some doobage. It's really depressing for me to catch up with these guys."
I think the much better question is why humans feel the need to take drugs period? Does a healthy well-adjusted body (mental and physical), really need drugs? Will one live longer, have keener eyesight, gain the ability to calculate PI to the n'th place in one's head, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? It seems that drugs exist to avoid (mask?) our deficiencies. Can't deal with society? Go smoke something. Can't deal with the train wreck that is one's life? Go drink something. People are dying somewere in the world? Go inhale something. Someone said they didn't love you? Go shoot up?
You can freely protest. It's those big groups of anti-war people that block traffic and ambulances (this really happened in San Francisco) that they're trying to avoid.
There's a time and a place.
"Sufferin' succotash."
That was the British Army, not the Canadian Army. Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.
At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
There appears to be a new French Foreign Forces emerging.
No, they are not associated with the honorable French Foreign Legion.
Frances' policy of sharing foreign diplomatic and military information with foreign organizations/groups appears to imply a French government global political agenda of some sort.
The agenda may be to provide assistance to politico-religious leaders that justify murder in the name of god using the warriors of a false prophet/god to fight and in a Jihad (clandestine war) against an undeclared enemy (EU and US [sounds like in English]).
I am just not sure, ?HUM?, would the French government seek destruction of others more powerful and influential in global culture and international relations? Now that the Russian Bear has been bankrupted, maybe the French government is using the Panda Bear and Ali Bear to destroy the American Eagle, marginalize the Celt/Anglo-American cultures in EU affairs and then France can retry WW-2 with Germany (who ain't got nukes).
THEN: La France, La France, terminé toutes autre! EU knows well the tune ... sing along if you want and enjoy Jerry Lewis
(dubbed or sub-titles) reruns forever, and forever, and forever, even the
French Government will learn what hell can be for the US (dominated by French
controlled Canada [I know very funny]) and the EU dominated by France. The
French Government (not the people) has met the enemy Face to Face
and it is them.
Related Story:
http://www.command-post.org/oped/archives/006 446.html
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination (even for the French).
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
You're obviously a kook.
Sad to say, this scenario is no longer really beyond the imaginable.
Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. Though you may hold paranoid delusions about the government's evil plans, the rest of us realize Saddam needed to go.
And therein lies the source of your frustration, like with most of those so-called anti-war protesters. You're not anti-war or anti-policy. You're just anti-Bush. Get over it. Bush won and will likely win again.
"Sufferin' succotash."
http://gunowners.org/opmoore01.htm
BFC is a work of fiction then of reality. At best it is his opinion, but then again numbers stories are selected and represented only to support his views. He is just believing his own lies when he thinks he is impartial. I did think he has very interesting points like "Should we blame bowling for the death?" but a lot of it what he showed was just to prove his point and biases. Interesting reflection on how he see the world, and not what or how it is actually is.
It is interesting that so many Americans (i hear this from lots of ppl here in the U.S.) talk about moving to Canada.
:oP)
I'll agree sometimes that the grass in Canada seems greener. (no marijuanna jokes
But it is also my understanding (from the small number of Canadians i know) that we (the people of the United States) aren't particularly welcome in Canada.
Canada might be a great place to live, but it may not be a great place for transplants to live.
Just my $0.02USD
-phaeton
...and take notice of ALL the taxes Canadians pay. I'm surprised it's not even higher than 50% of income.
You are only looking at FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Take a look at your return and see how much income tax additionally goes to the province you live in. That will add a few percent on top of it.
Don't forget the other payroll deductions either. They are essentially taxes too. One deduction is called "Employment Insurance", however just like auto insurance you pay and pay and only get back when you are between jobs (and you meet all qualifications). Not only that--EI takes in WAY more than it pays out and the surplus is "invested". The crooked Canadian federal government has (on more than one occasion) has passed bills and regulations to raid the EI fund to cook the books and achieve a "balanced" budget. The other deduction on your cheque (CPP) is for the pension plan, which has been badly managed and is far from guaranteed to pay out (most analysts say that NOBODY under 50 will EVER receive all their pension contributions after retirement--that is unless they live to be 100).
Now there are municipal taxes. All property owners pay municipal taxes (and that means so do all renters, as landlords pass those costs onto them). Where I live, for a modest home such as mine, that amounts to around C$1500.
Last but not least, there are sales taxes. All Canadians pay at least 7% for the federal GST on damn near everything they buy (it seems only most grocery items are exempt). Add up the tax on all your utility bills, snack foods, booze, auto fuel, clothes--all of it (even YOUR HOUSE and USED ITEMS ON CONSIGNMENT and USED CARS--yes the government recycles those for taxation purposes too!). Even the poorest pay more than they get back in GST rebates. Unless you're from Alberta the province chimes in with their sales tax, bringing up the tally to an average of %15. Don't feel left out Alberta, your province dings you too (though perhaps not to the same extent) with the Healthcare Premium tax (yes--it IS a tax).
And "things aren't enforced nearly as much"?! It's pretty damn hard to avoid paying sales taxes--you can't give the glerk 7-15% less and expect them to be happy. If you owe income tax on your return--try not paying it for awhile. They don't toss you in jail in Canada, but they will garnishee your wages and freeze your bank accounts until they have your money. If you stop paying your Alberta healthcare or municipal taxes for long enough they will send a private collection agency after you and your credit rating will be downgraded. When it comes to getting money to spend...Canadian government most certainly DO care. And they make sure they get a hell of a lot more than 30%.
and the French navy kept Cornwallis' army from retreating, forcing his surrender. You are aware the French fought on the colonists' side in the US Revolutionary War, aren't you? Hardly "their own pointless war".
For one thing we do not have the Patriot ACT like you americans do and all the other legal crap like the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA and god knows what else that the american politicians are cooking up to further strangle the american citizens rights and freedoms.
Also if the UN would have approved the war on Iraq instead of the US going in regardless of the UN's say on the matter, Canada would then likely have sent some support.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Ah yes the American way. Have a family and keep a gun or two in your sock drawer so your young child can find it and blow him or herself away. Uh huh...right.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
I am Canadian and I'm quiet offended by how some Canadians all of a sudden see this subject as a reason to tell the US how better we are at liberties and stuff.
Fellow Canadian here... And I agree.
I think the U.S. currently is stricken with a range of almost intractably difficult social and political troubles. It's shameful that some people seize on the opportunity to laugh at them when they're down.
Myself, I feel heartbroken about the problems in the U.S. I would urge all Americans to act. Take your nation back from your government. Involve yourself as much as you can.
Above all, VOTE. Educate yourself and vote for the party whose ideals you share. Maybe you should even start a new party. Believe in your democratic system and make it work for you. And remember that you are the current world superpower; it behooves you to educate yourselves about world events and foreign policy. The internet is here - use it.
Again, I'm not saying Canada's perfect... but it's clear you're having problems, and you must all work to heal yourselves.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
725 killed worldwide huh ? and what does www.fbi.gov have to say about annual murder statistics in the US ?........ how does that old saying about putting your own house in order go ?
I dunno...smoked any pot or Cuban cigars lately? How about enjoying anything that happens to come from France? What if you happen to agree more with Jello Biafra, Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore, instead of Charlton Heston, Rush Limbaugh or Baby Bush himself? What if you happen to be muslim, or even friendly with a muslim? What of you're black or Hispanic? Or non-christian? Gay, lesbian, transgendered? Even female? What if you just like to dress differently or wear your hair in a certain manner? What if you happen to like computers and science fiction, instead of football and baseball? What if you run a Mac or a Linux box? Starting to get the picture? Americans really haven't the slightest idea what freedom and liberty really mean.
I think the much better question is why humans feel the need to take drugs period? Does a healthy well-adjusted body (mental and physical), really need drugs? Will one live longer, have keener eyesight, gain the ability to calculate PI to the n'th place in one's head, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? It seems that drugs exist to avoid (mask?) our deficiencies. Can't deal with society? Go smoke something. Can't deal with the train wreck that is one's life? Go drink something. People are dying somewere in the world? Go inhale something. Someone said they didn't love you? Go shoot up?
Hmm... clearly you haven't experienced weed or other substances (nothing wrong with that, BTW, it's a personal decision), and hence don't understand the drive behind its (and many other substances) use. Why do people feel the need to jump out of airplanes? Climb mountains? Hangglide? Drive fast cars? Bungee jump? People do things, sometimes, just because they enjoy it. And the same can be said of the various substances people use. The stigma that people who use substances (weed, alcohol, etc) are doing it as an escape is mostly fiction. Yes, *some* people do it for that reason, but from personal experience, I can say that most people consume various substances because it's *enjoyable*.
Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?
Nothing wrong with that, my American friends tell me all the time I should be more like them. Just kidding guys, really! No don't shoot me!
STFU about slashdot bias.
It's interesting that the same people who question our government and its laws are the same people who don't care about freedoms in OTHER countries (Iraq). Our government is a bloated piece of crap that violates the principles on which it was founded. That said, I would rather die than buy into what the liberal media says. Although most people look at the US Gov. critically, they NEVER question the media, as if the media isn't built off of profits.
Something everyone should be forced to read
You mean like the fact that President Madison campaigned on stealing Canadian land and giving it to American farmers?
And yes, it was Canadian land because that was the name of the colony even if we weren't a nation yet.
Also, did you forget that almost every Indian tribed aligned with England against the U.S. invasion?
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Yeah those yankee's might shoot you up the ass ^_^
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
You are 14 years old.
Then you need to actually VISIT and live in Canada.
Go live in British Columbia. It has the highest provinical taxes in Canada (14.5% PST and GST Combined) the highest health care costs (prescription prices are sky high) and you still pay a LOT of money to BC Medical and Pharamcare.
Hell I moved out of British Columbia last year into Saskatchewan where health costs are cheaper to say the least.
So Health care isn't "free" in Canada. You still pay for it. Goes to show how much some of those "yankees" know about Canada.
We don't need fairweather fans like you polluting this great land.
Im sick and tired of morally righteous individuals who sit behind their monitors and spew out some philosophical masturbations about the evils of USA. Govt in USA now is representative of American people, like it or not it is elected and there is a high approval of what it does. Attacking that US govt as saying it is fundamentally wrong, because you disagree with the way it does things is the same thing as saying American peopleand constitution are at wrong as well.
Yes get over the fact that Bush won, and in the same time get over that Clinton got impeached. Get over the fact that economy under Clinton was not because of him(we still feeling after effects of the bullshit "new economy" that happen then) and get over the fact that marijuana is illegal in USA. Just because you think it should be legal, doesnt mean everyone else thinks the same way. Get real that to the fact that USA JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS PROTECTING ITS OWN INTERESTS. And dont give me shit that Republicans dont care about privacy and democrats do. I can give you numerous example of Democratic and Republicans who vote for security or who vote for privacy. As I recall FDR did a lot of things which a lot of people choose to forget, during the time of war. You also forget that US govt for better or worse is representative of American people and like it or not calling the govt stupid is calling Americans stupid. And no one can make everyone happy in the same time. We all know communism failed. And Im sick and tired of people telling that Republicans are hawks and Democrats are not. Hiroshima/Nagasaki drop was authorized by who? Bay of pigs? So don't give me that shit either. Don't divide people into Republicans and Democrats and Green. You are just falling for stereotyping which only helps to propagate your biases.
USA IS the country of the free. Tell me ONE thing that is going on now which is not JUSTIFIED or not been voted in by American people? You cant because all things done are done people by people elected by the office to represent them by FREE WILL so they are instruments of American will. And that is our freedoms that they are protecting.
Couple of notes about D-Day. There were 5 beachheads, 2 British, 2 US, 1 Canadian. I've read in several places that the Canadians were the only force to achieve all of their objectives in the first day. (can anyone confirm)?
:)
And as for the US, i think its unfair to critcise their isolationist policy...most of Europe pursued appeasement (except for France -- don't forget that!) until it was too late. FDR used his executive powers to prepare the US for war despite a lack of pulic support or congressional approval...that's called forsight.
In any way the war on irak and the afterwards apropriation of their oil resources is interfering in their business. OMFG, i forgot you were saving all the poor iraki people!!
It's also interesting to note the way people justify terrorists' motives. We interfere with everybody! Yeah, that means it's okay to blow people up.
You people seem to forget that the no.1 people blower in the world is the USA, i meen, 9/11 was bad, but a mere few thousand people is nothing compared to the massive homicide in Irak, Kosovo, etc. Oh wait but theres a justification: women in irak have their faces covered (!!!) lets go get this sons of bitches!!!!!
WAKE UP!
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
The Irish Republican Army is a terrorist organization of white people. They are freedom-fighters, underdogs, patriots!
Canada has long been a haven for those opressed by the US government:
u nderground.html
During the slavery years, canada was referred to as the "Promised Land" by blacks in slavery. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincolns/slavery/es_
And thousands fled the US when being forced to enroll in the military during the mess that was the Vietnam War.
It's nice to live in the promised land that believes in peace.
Canada has had dick all to do with any military action in the last 100 years.
I think you need to restate that to "58 years". Canada was heavily involved with WWI and WWII. At the end of WWII, Canada had the fourth largest military in the world, and then did the unprecedented and unilaterally disarmed. It was also a very large air-force training centre and an enormous weapons factory during WWII.
You want us to take up arms? How about that time you guys tried to invade us and we burnt your White House down?
It was British forces straight from Britain that burned down the White House.
Or how about how we've supplied troops to just about every single UN mission since its inception?
I think that one needs to draw a distinction between merely "supplying troops" and actually supplying a decisive force. All significant wars waged by first-world nations are U.S.-led in recent decades.
You prove my point well.
Get a free ipod.
The idea of a government that actually cares about it's citizens rather than seeing them as just revenue would be quite strange and scary to the US.
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
The American way is a varied as the people that live here.
I do own several guns, and like 99.999999% of America gun owners keep my guns in a concrete reinforced fireproof gun cabinet.
Allot more children will drown in the backyard pool this year then will be shot. I think we need to ban pools.
Get a free ipod.
As a Canadian, I have never been able to figure this out. People living outside the USA tend to label any American a Yankee, but when you travel within the country, opinions seem to vary. Some say it's anyone from New England, but within New England, they say no, it's someone from this state or other. I have a feeling that by the time you get to the bottom of it, the only true Yankee is some guy who lived in a small village several hundred years ago. (Well, or a member of a certain baseball team, I suppose.)
If Mexicans can do so well as illegal immigrants, why can't an American? It would be....ironic, too.
Thus explains the natives behaviour...
fascinating!
I've noticed this trend accellerating - getting around legal restrictions by just making up new terms with the same meaning, but claiming that since the word is different, the law doesn't apply.
War doesn't mean "military action against an enemy". Afghanistan prisoners of war are actually "unlawful combatants". The invasion of Iraq is a "liberation", and purely "pre-emptive defense". Nerve gas and bio-weapons are "weapons of mass destruction", even though they kill without the destruction of anything. And the U.S dare not declare any war ever "over" (not even in Afghanistan), lest they be expected to live up to their obligations as the owners of the new territory - it's just the "end of major hostilities" now.
And apparently "losing an election" means something else too now.
What the hell is any official statement supposed to mean now anyway? Bush himself refers to the war against Iraq as a "war" in speeches. What makes it not a war?
A long time ago, world leaders were expected to be honest. That's why such international treaties and convencions never bothered to define all the terms - nobody would deny what they meant, would they?
Well, apparently so...
Best paranoid raving I've seen today!
Ok let's look at the numbers.
Terrorist Attachs:
"The number of terrorist attacks dropped to 199 in 2002 from 355 the previous year. Still, Mr. Powell noted, assaults occurred in every region of the world, claiming 725 lives."
Car Crashes:
"The raw number of people killed in highway crashes last year was up only slightly, from 41,945 in 2000 to 42,116 in 2001" (From www.chase.com)
Hum, maybe we need to look at our priorities! At the end of the day, is lossing all our rights worth saving 725 lives World WIDE! When 42,116 people die each year from people that don't know how to drive!!!
I will say a lot of Canadians sure as hell don't want to live in the US. Not with your rampant crime in the big cities, pollution, guns everywhere and now the Patriot Act, not to mention garbage like the DMCA, RIAA, MPAA and more it's a wonder you Americans can walk the streets at day time and have a sense of "freedom".
Do you actually believe that? Put it this way, I disagree vehemently with the viewpoints of both Chomsky and Moore (Biafra, I can't speak to, not being as familiar with his views). I consider them both to be self-important blowhards who are more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to push their one-sided and flawed agendas.
That having been said, I firmly believe that they have every right to have their say. I wouldn't want it any other way. So, how is it, exactly, that they have been prevented from expressing their viewpoints? How do they have any less right to their opinion than the Limbaughs and Hestons of the world? I see no evidence of their having been arrested or threatened with any sort of government-backed legal action which occurred as a direct result of their having publicly stated their views.
Also, since when has it been a crime to have a Mac or Linux box, or to like science fiction, or to be a Muslim? Or to possess things that were made in France?
I think that you're confusing popular opinion and preference with the concept of rights. Just because people may be angry with Michael Moore for his comments, and may boycott him, does not prevent him from being able to say these things.
This reminds me of the big speech that Tim Robbins gave about the "chill wind" or whatever, where he referenced McCarthyism and all that good stuff. Well, guess what, Mr. Robbins, you can say whatever you like, but, sorry, despite all your grandstanding, the fact that people decide that you are an ass for saying your piece does not mean that the SS is at your doorstep.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Not only does Canada have a navy, but they are very popular when they pull into American ports. Why? Canadian warships have booze on them!
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Tim Hortons Canada for the Timbits and Coffee! Not to mention Wendy's in most of the Tim Hortons outlets of course! :D
Having lived in NYC at the time of 9/11, and hearing the rhetoric that has occurred since then, I have found myself wordering whether we are winning this 'war on terr'a'. Here are the things as I see them.
1. OBL attacked the US because of his dislike of the US presence in Saudi Arabia. Within the last two weeks the US government has issused a press release (reported as news) that the military will leave Saudi Lands.
2. We have attacked two countries, one of which we have created a new government. yet even in that one (Afghanistan), US troops are still being attacked. I thought the war in afghanistan is over.
3. Bin Laden, Dead or Alive.... Anyone remember this? What happened to him? What about Saddam?
4. We now have a bunch of Shiites who dislike us in Iraq, because the US government will not let them have the government THEY want ('Muslim Democracy') but rather what is in 'The US's Best Interest'. Does this make us more or less secure?
5. Patriot Act II. This could deny Linus of all rights that we in the US take for granted. Penguins don't belong at gitmo.
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
Actually, it should techinically be the other way around.
First World Countries = Capitalist (Western) Nations
Second World Countries = Communist or Soviet-Bloc Nations
Third World Countries = The rest of the world, which happens to be very poor
The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world classification is an outdated system of classification that is left over from the cold war, and it really shouldn't be used in a modern context. It was initially meant to describe political structures, but it has come to be interpreted as an economic scale. The problem with that occurs when you try to classify countries like Cuba which could be considered either 2nd world or 3rd world. It is a pretty convenient structure otherwise, but one should know about its origins and keep that in mind.
Sadly, the Progressive Conservatives have won the last two elections in Ontario and continue to gut health care and education.
I decided 4 year ago that I wanted to do computer science in university. At the time tuition for that program was $4000 a year. Now it's $12,000 (plus incidental fees) and it's going to keep rising.
The current leader of the party (Ernie Eves) says "Ontario supports the war on Iraq" despite polls to the contrary. This province is a disaster! Stay away!
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
I prefer 1.25's myself.
None of the countries called democracies are actually democracies, they are called republics. To be specific, democratic republics (where the republican representatives are chosen via democratic means) are the formal name for all our systems, US, Canada, Australia, the EU states and others.
Thank your local education establishment, media, and political class for creating the confusion. Wankers.
old europe smells like old poop(seriously)
"...leave politics to the professionals..."
But I bet that they are voters, right?
GOTCHA!!! EVERYBODY GET OUT AND VOTE!!!
...parrotting a supposedly witty anti-Bush viewpoint and immediately begin modding all who agree with first five words of article as "+5 Insightful", as opposed to actually addressing the concerns which the supposedly unbiased reporter mocks.
[Like how Canada lax immigration policies are a notorious waystop for Al Queda terrorists like the Millenium bomber on their way to American targets.]
Pathetic. I wonder what all those Canadians who have been prosecuted under "hate speech" laws by its "human rights" commission think of all that Canadian Freedom? Anti-gun laws? The freedom to get healthcare when you need it (other than a ticket to the states?)
Now mod this down as flamebait, all you all-too-predictable "freethinkers" who happen to always agree with anyone who expressess any historically revisionist anti-U.S. opinion.
9/11 was an operation carried out by the "Shadow Government" that is actually in control of the US.It is a tool being used to shape the future in whatever ways they deem fit.Much like the Bible was used as a tool to impose a moralities on people(not all but a lot).Not all is as it seems...
Shadow
...So we recommend you steer clear with your yacht when we're pulling out of port on a friday night.
> we don't have to go through checkpoints, don't get
> searched,
When was the last time you flew on an airplane, went inside a government office or courthouse building, or went out to a nightclub?
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
A libertarian government promotes lack of state intervention. So where would they fall?
*ahem* UK *ahem* - last I heard Elizabeth Windsor (Or Saxe-Coburg, depending on how old-fashioned you are) is not, was not and never shall be President of the United Kingdom.
You might find a few other EU states that are at least nominally monarchies (but they all act the same anyway, so I'm being more than a tad pedantic)
Canada's health care system is by no means FREE.
When I send my checque to the government every year, the payment for my health insurance is in there.
The thing is, this way the distribution of health benefits ends up closer to the ideal of being based on need instead of wallet size, which results in a happier, healthier society overall.
Not that I like the inefficiencies that tend to seep into anything the government gets involved in, however, there isn't another way around this one, as far as I know. It does mean we have to keep a careful eye on the system to ensure the money goes where it's supposed to, efficiently.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Not quite true. Oil sold to the Irving Refinery in Saint John, NB is purchased at an inflated cost from Irving Oil Bermuda, which in turn purchases it at market cost.
The refinery makes no profit, and Canadian taxes are appropriate as such.
Irving Oil Bermuda (consisting of one desk, one phone, and one semi-retired individual) makes a mint and does not pay any tax, per Bermuda Laws.
Gotta love what private companies can do!
Except that, when you think about it, there is already a fair bit of Canadian Green, BC Bud, etc flowing across the border. Decriminalizing won't necessarily increase production, or exportation (they're currently looking at making use not criminal, which is different from making production legal).
Yes, you'll probably get more Americans crossing the border to grab a toke or two, but hopefully most will be smart about it and also remember not to bring the product back.
Also, keep in mind that Canada has a lower generall legal age for drinking, sex, and many other things (=16 for sex I believe, and =19 for drinking - depending on province). You don't see a lot of people dragging underage girlfriends across the border, or a big impact on American drinking (it could cause some problems with a 20-yr-old having an 18 girlfriend across borders though, I've heard of this happening).
For a summary, check out this list I made outlining some key differences between Canada and the United States.
The section, "The Western Hemisphere" has no mention of terrorist groups in the USA... such as the KKK and the folks who planned the Oklahoma City Federal Building Bombing.
Also... didn't the 09/11 people learn to fly in the USA...? Does the USA harbor and aid terrorists...?
I guess there are no terrorist born and operating in the USA. They are not terrorists, they are "criminals", I suppose. We couldn't very well bomb and invade ourselves.
"With regard to all these initiatives except street video surveillance, Government officials have repeatedly told me privately that pressure from the United States government is a strong motivating factor.
Let me be blunt: "The United States made us do it" cannot be a sufficient or acceptable justification for the Government to intrude on a fundamental right of Canadians.
Canada is a sovereign country.
Throughout our history, there have been important instances where Canada has found it necessary to take a position different from that of the United States on matters involving rights or values. It is surely no exaggeration to say that if our leaders had instead consistently succumbed to U.S. pressures to adopt that country's approaches as our own, there would today be no distinct Canada as we know it.
The same is true with regard to appropriate respect for fundamental rights in the wake of September 11. If the U.S. government is indeed exerting pressure on Canada to take steps that cannot be justified on their merits in accordance with our Canadian values and rights, then Canadians are entitled to expect that the Government will remain steadfast in meeting its responsibilities rather than trample on their rights out of fear of U.S. retaliation. "
"... The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom... But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy -- the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us -- is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being..."
"...The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada. But that is where we are inexorably headed, if the Government's current initiatives are allowed to proceed. "
I can understand the Dane's uneasiness over Denmark's support of the US invasion, but as a Canadian I must say that I thought sending a submarine to a desert war was a stroke of pure diplomatic genius. No fear of US reprisals for not 'supporting' their 'war on terrorism' and yet the actual support provided was essentially nil.
I am proud that Canada didn't support the invasion of Iraq, but part of me wishes we'd sent a few of our 50 year old SeaKing helicopters to 'help' the Americans so we don't have to worry about the economic fallout of not 'helping' the US invasion.
Personally I score 1 for the Danes.
(BTW, if Denmark sent ground troops as I read your post to suggest please excuse my ignorance, our news tends to focus on US, UK, and Australian troops)
Ontario:
$60,000
= $19,000 in federal tax
= $3,800 in provincial tax
Income tax return = $1,500
Now sit down and figure out how much you pay all year around.
In ontario, your paying GST and PST 15% this is ofcourse triple or more taxation.
The property taxes on the house here in town were $5,000 this year. No I live in a small down, ~28,000 people.
What am I pushing in just paying federal provinal and property taxes so far? $26,300(counting this years return) in taxes just to the goverment at this level. What percentage does that work out to being on $60,000? How much more do you think it would take to push it over 50%? $3,700 in Ontario when I'm 15% tax on almost all my goods it doesn't take long to add up.
And on and on it goes. Canada is the most heavily taxed in the world.
Om, nomnomnom...
Why such high murder rates in the U.S.?
Enter any U.S. home, fish around in the sofa cushions, and you find two or three forgotten sidearms. Look down the heating vent and you'll find a dozen types of ammo. And in Junior's room? Colorful books on precision reloads and bench-rest shooting, as explained by cute teddy bears. I would start to exaggerate, but I don't really have to.
As a Canadian, what I would really like to see are some good Canada jokes.
Thus there is currently no law in canada that makes posessing/smoking pot illegal! yipee! In fact there have now been several pot possesion cases thrown out of court because of this!!!
So, until this new law comes into effect pot is actually legal here. If you don't believe me here's a link to one our our most reputable newspapers: Judge strikes down pot law
US is afraid new Canadian Pot Policy might work and not that as they are warning Canada that it is doomed to fail.
Because if it works then Canada can add itself to the list of Countries that have tried something a little less Draconian than the US way and are doing just fine.
After six decades there is enough of a record to say that the US War on Drugs is a monumental failure and waste of valuable resources.
It is no longer enough to whine "If we just had more money, more resources, more training , more intelligence, " then we could win.
Even Republican's like New Mexico Governor
Bill Richardson are in favour of facing the
obvious.
Yes, but in all the examples you gave. They all are done in part because there's a "natural high". That's why I said a well-adjusted healthy human. Your body if properly cared for (all around, not just physically), will take care of you.[1]
Artificial stimulents are "Bungee jumping","Hand gliding","Parachuting","Racing", without the accompanying physical danger. Although one shouldn't think drugs are totally risk-free.
"Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?"
I'm sorry but the "If we can, we should" argument has been shown to be a weak one. There's a lot of receptors in the brain. They didn't evolve for the purposes of supporting a drug industry. Nature isn't that vain.
[1] I suspect most aren't aware what a well-adjusted body is. Considering how we physically and mentally abuse (eat wrong, I'm worthless), and allow to be abused (advertisizing, you're a bad person). A lack of reference is understandable.
I love to fight.
That was the British Army, not the Canadian Army.
:)
You'd probably like to claim those were British indians fighting on our side.
Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.
The war of 1812 was one of the defining moments of the Canadian nation, every bit as much as the British North America Act Act of 1867, "An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick". As you can see, Canada already existed by that time.
Upper Canada was created by the Constitution Act of 1791. If you want to get picky, Canada remained a colony of Britain until the Constitution Act of 1982. So when exactly was the nation of Canada born, according to you?
At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.
Would you like us to aspire to your grammatical ability, as well?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Our guns have to be registered, thats it.I still enjoy going to the range and obliterating targets with my Glock and my .308.As for healthcare...if you want to be anally raped by your completely outrageous way-the-fuckin-hell overpriced medical costs then fine go right ahead and bend over and enjoy it.
Yes, but in all the examples you gave. They all are done in part because there's a "natural high". That's why I said a well-adjusted healthy human. Your body if properly cared for (all around, not just physically), will take care of you.[1]
;) Although, I'd question the comparison between this "natural high" and what, for example, THC induces. They really are vastly different effects, and are enjoyable for different reasons... risk-taking behaviour triggers an endorphine release in the body, which is connected with pleasure. THC (and other chemicals) produce much different (and often pleasurable) effects. So, no, I don't think a "well-adjusted" human body "will take care of you", because it's simply not the same thing.
:)
:).
Artificial stimulents are "Bungee jumping","Hand gliding","Parachuting","Racing", without the accompanying physical danger. Although one shouldn't think drugs are totally risk-free.
Sounds like a *better* deal to me... all the fun, without the inherent physical risk. Sounds great to me!
"Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?"
I'm sorry but the "If we can, we should" argument has been shown to be a weak one. There's a lot of receptors in the brain. They didn't evolve for the purposes of supporting a drug industry. Nature isn't that vain.
Yes, it was probably a bad choice of wording on my part. The point is that, generally speaking, many recreational drugs are relatively harmless (weed being an excellent example of this), so what's wrong with enjoying them on occasion? I happen to think the "if we can and it's fun and harmless, why not?" argument to be very powerful... the same can be said for basically any pleasureable activity which isn't necessary for human survival. Heck, why bother making music? Dancing? Singing? We don't *need* to do those things, so why bother? Because it's enjoyable! And again, not everyone likes to sing, or dance, which is why it's always a personal decision.
[1] I suspect most aren't aware what a well-adjusted body is. Considering how we physically and mentally abuse (eat wrong, I'm worthless), and allow to be abused (advertisizing, you're a bad person). A lack of reference is understandable.
Well, I'll completely agree with that... although I would argue that, even if you had a perfectly well adjusted mind and body, that doesn't preclude the participation in pleasurable activies. (ooh, how alliterate
Anyway, the gist of my argument is 1) drugs aren't inherently evil. 2) People who use drugs aren't necessarily using it as a "crutch", although some do. 3) Humans naturally partake in pleasure-seeking activities, and the use (and abuse) of drugs is no different, which is why we do it in the first place (to answer your original question, and bring us back on topic
The reason Canada did not become involved is the majority of the Canadian people did not want to get involved in a war that was ethically wrong.
We have something called responsible government here. At least sometimes. :)
Not to mention that most of that war wasn't fought by British soldiers but by the colonials and Native Americans.
:)
Sorry we burnt down the White House. I notice you that rebuilt it. It looks very nice
We once supported dictator "x" for purpose "y", so we are obligated to a) look the other way no matter what he does, b) support him for life, because really we were entering into a "lifetime insurance for bad regimes" contract which we are obligated to honor, and c), our national interests are not allowed to change, because that would be unfair to all those regimes we propped up when things were totally different, our government's philosophy was different, and our security interests were different.
That was easy. Next tired canard, please?
Hmmm, I work in the U.S. (so I have to pay U.S. income taxes) but live in Canada, so I have to file Canadian taxes too. My income tax in the U.S. is HIGHER than my Canadian taxes this year (for the first time, mind you) but that's mostly because I don't pay interest on a mortgage in the U.S. However, I do get much more health care for my money in Canada.
I'd say overall, the tax rates are comparable, because Canadian taxes have been going down in recent years.
Sales tax is a different story - in Ontario we are taxed 15% on what we buy. However, goods purchased in Canada are about 20% cheaper than in the U.S. after the exchange. Try this little experiment - go to GM's website and do a "build your own vehicle" wizard, then do the same on GM Canada's website. Then adjust for the exchange rate. When I bought my truck in late 2001, the same truck was 23.5% cheaper in Canada, and they're all built on the same assembly line.
Of course, the U.S. won't let an American import a new vehicle into the U.S. from Canada - it has to be at least 6 months old. Do you think the big 3 automakers had anything to do with that law? They know they can charge Americans more.
Also, I don't know how the hidden manufacturer's taxes compare. Remember that the 7% GST replaced a hidden 13% manufacturer's tax. I don't know if there are any comparable hidden taxes in the U.S.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
As a 'Canuckistani' I can tell you that the biggest trouble we have with the US is the electoral politics. Corporate lobbies are the steering wheel of US government.
.. over and over. THAT is what pisses off Canadians about the US. To see it you only have to take a look at the wheeling and dealing going on right now over business contracts to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq and Afganistan. There have been a few /. articles on this already. Canadians are not as likely to try and blow up the WTC towers as a result, but there are citizens of other nations likewise treated who aren't necessarily intent on pacifistic solutions.
Take the eternally recurrent cycle of tarrifs on Canadian wheat and lumber for example. Every time there is an election, we get this BS from the US government with whom we have a standing FREE TRADE agreement.
Why? Is it because after several arbitrations with the WTO over the years, Canadians have been found to have shady business practices? No. It's because acquiescing to US economic lobbies means votes for the party currently in power and seeking reelection. Canadians suffer unfairly as a result
Of course this is not to mention clueless Buffalo NY citizens driving over the border in >90*F July weather looking for our closest skii resort.
"You know you cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others.
That is what the Western world - not only the Americans - has to realise. I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and this is silly."
Jean Chretien (I can quote him because he is quitting and its not an advertisement)
---------------------
Its not if the rest of the world agrees with your actions or not. Heck nine times out of ten the world really does agree with the American government. And its not that anyone is really all that angry with the US over any specific issue, its kind of a greater problem.
In many parts of the world people grow up knowing full well that their country and their families have been used. They have been taken advantage of time after time, by their own governments, by their own leaders and by the west in general. They see pictures and movies of the opulence that we all live in and they see it as the product of there own demise. They see us frolicking in water parks while they don't have the water to grow food. They see us driving expensive luxury cars, while they wish that there were such a thing as an ambulance in there neighborhood.
There is a big difference between winning the race and shaking hands with your opponent and just winning the race. The attitude of "we're number 1" isn't just American, its very much a product of the entire west and the G8. Well if your growing up in a country that's ranked number 60 or below you probably don't have the confidence you should. At a certain point are we victims of our own success, did the rungs on the ladders we climbed finally realize that they will never be able to climb up the same ladder as they are just a step.
Time and time again we have showing the world and one another how great our power is. Time and time again we have showing how strong we are when we try. We have proven that we can rebuild we have proven that we can win at any cost. But to many in the world we simply haven't bothered to give a damn and its humiliation they feel. Its the humiliation of having "aid" workers instead of banks. Its the humiliation of having no control over your government when they are in the pockets of the banks of Europe.
This is not an American issue, this is not a Canadian issue. This is an issue of us having helped one another and never turning back to help more.
Do Canadian have more liberties than Americans?
- Really I'd bet its about the same!
Do Canadians who invested in the same corporations as Americans that exploited the economic circumstances of the world deserve the same blame?
- YES!
Do we have to begin looking at ways to bring up the standard of living across the globe?
- YES!
Its great to fight a war against "whatever" but if we don't start fighting a war against poverty on a global scale the problem will remain the same. Regardless of if we see ourselves as the conquerors of the world or not, we are the conquerors of the world. We represent the citizens of Rome born 2000 years ago, when the world was your oyster through no doing of your own yet you reap all the benefits.
Can I vote for you in '04? The crats and the pubs certainly don't deserve it.
Ok, the land of the free saying we have "too many" liberties? Since when did you become our tutor? Will you come in Canada and topple our regime too? I'm not a big pot fan (never used, never will) but i don't see it being any more dangerous than alcool. Keep your selective freedom to yourselves.
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
I can't believe some of the outright falsehoods being thrown around here about healthcare in the US.
You didn't say this, but another guy said that the only way you could purchase insurance is through an employer. FALSE!!! I'm not sure about other states, but here in Virginia (a very right-wing state too) anybody can purchase Blue Cross/Blue Shield and they CANNOT BE DENIED. For someone age 35, it's about $114-$200/mo depending on the deductable you choose.
Me? I don't buy it. I follow the other American plan called "rolling the dice". What happens if I roll snake eyes?
I'll tell you what happens. First, I lose almost my whole my life savings. BwwAAAAAAAAAHAAA. I can just hear the bleeding hearts now. But guess what? That's my choice. What happens next? Once I reach a fixed allowance, I go on Medicaid. The fixed allowance permits me to have a small cash savings ($2000 in most parts of the country) and if I own a home I get to keep it--even if it's a $500,000 box mansion in Great Falls, I get to keep it, as long as it's my primary residence.
The care that people receive on Medicaid is higher than what you'd be able to get in many countries, and is on par with what everybody gets in countries with socialized medicine. Yes, sometimes medicaid care is inadquate, but sometimes socialized medicine is inadequate too. After all, Medicaid is socialized medicine. If you want to see what SM would be like in America, visit people on Medicaid. At least I have the opportunity to prevent myself from going there. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of the free lunch. I can become a success, and then I am free from worry, instead of being held back by the confiscatory taxes that would be necessary for socialized medicine.
Do you think defense contractors screw the government? Just wait for socialized medicine. You just know that all those "liberal" CEOs who donate to the Democratic Party are just salivating at the prospect of $600 syringes to match the $600 hammers that the "conservative" CEOs sold to the military.
And as surely as our military can conquer but not control, socialized medicine will be able to cure the simple but not the complicated.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Something occurred to me the other day that lead me to conclude that in the future, the US will be forced to adopted a socialised health care system similar to Canada's. Let me explain.
Ever since its creation, insurance has been a numbers game where the house always wins. When you insure your car, you're gambling that someday you'll have a crash which costs more to fix than you've paid into the system. The insurance companies, on the other hand, gamble that you'll pay more in premiums than you'll cost in claims. Of course, the insurace company always wins. If it is ever any other way, they simply raise your rates. Otherwise, insurance companies would go out of business. It's simple math: they must take in more than they pay out.
When you apply for auto insurance, they guess at how much of a risk you will be. They check to see if you've had any past claims, accidents, speeding tickets, or whatever. They even discriminate based on factors that would be blatantly illegal in any other context. Your sex and age affect your rate. However, in the end, it's all a crap shoot. No one can predict the future. You have complete control over what kind of driver you will be. If you have no speeding tickets, you might very well be an extraordinarily safe and cautious driver. Or, you may just be lucky.
Health insurance is similar. No one knows what they will die from. The insurance companies ask you all sorts of questions to try and find out, and your rates are based on your medical history. But in the end, the healthy ones are subsidising the sick ones.
We are at the threshold of some unstoppable, extraordinary changes in the health insurance industry. Soon, very soon, it will be possible to take a drop of your blood, and generate a very detailed schedule of your future illnesses and eventual doom, assuming you don't crash your car first. They will know with great certainty that you will definitely develop Parkinson's. That will affect your rate.
Those who are destined to be expensively ill will not be able to afford health care, or will be denied coverage completely. The only people who will be able to afford health care will be those who won't need it.
The only fair solution will be to force everyone to subsidize the sick, for the good of society. This will most likely be implemented as a tax of some sort, or maybe simply a component of existing taxes (like in Canada). Canada's system will survive these advances intact, but the US's will require massive evolution, or scores will die. Government is going to have to take over health care. It is extremely unrealistic to expect the insurance companies to be altruistic and generous when it comes to covering the inevitably ill.
It will most certainly be interesting. It will be controversial. Many still cling to the hope that this type of genetic screening will be successfully held at bay through legislation; a hope which runs counter to evolution itself. It is human nature to relentlessly advance science.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
That said, one difference is that Canadian governments do make an actual effort to make things better, usually after a long consultation process - at any given time, there are a large number of Royal Commissions and consultations receiving presentations on any number of subjects, from the new foreign policy consultations going on now, to the copyright reform process (look for my submission on their web page).
I think a part of this is that in Canada, the people in charge of government departments are actually members of Parliament, and therefore elected by people. They have to keep public opinions in mind, even when this conflicts with the Prime Minister's views, or they could lose their job next election even if the government is re-elected. In contrast, the people who run the U.S government don't have to care what anyone thinks, so tend to ignore public interest (the President doesn't really make many decisions - he usually just approves them or not - it's mainly the senior party officials in charge, the same ones one administration to another). Provincial/state governments follow their federal counterparts in structure.
I'm afraid you're out to lunch on this issue. Canada is not a republic, it's a constitutional monarchy.
This article is just stirring the pot (no pun intended). No US official has said "Canada cares too much about liberties". Police everywhere have to balance timeliness of action against risks to the innocent. It's ridiculous to think that any two countries would choose to place the balance at the exact same place, and therefore inevitable that police from one country will find fault with police from another, either thinking that they err too much one one side or the other.
The author's points about drug policy being tied to trade policy, resulting in the further erosion of NAFTA and diplomatic relations are well made, but they have nothing to do with the latest report from the US State Department.
The friction over decriminalizing pot reminds me of the debates regarding lotteries here in the US. When one state gets a lottery, the border state always feels pressure to get a lottery, citing revenue lost to the other state. It's plain to see that Canada will become a haven for "drug tourists", resulting in an erosion of prohibition in the US. I strongly doubt that the US would do anything to interfere with Canada's sovereignty (as some have suggested), other than wrecking NAFTA which is pretty much wrecked anyway.
So... this whole article is just an attempt to make more friction between two historic allies. Why? What interest does the author have in destroying the US-Canada relationship?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
British back-stabbers! They were supposed to help us colonials out! Skagway was so ours! Aaaaarrrrgggh!
The Canadian military that fought in WW II was a pale shadow of the force that fought so well in WW I - until the war started, and the country mobilized one of the largest forces in the world.
The Canadian military was kept up for a while during the Cold War, but its end and lack of enemies made a large army that did nothing seem a little useless, so it was cut back (many say too far).
But Canada's always been fairly non-military - the army was nearly non-existant before every war that it was involved in, and built up when needed. Although these days, that sort of build up would take a lot longer than it used to because of the complexity of modern weaponry.
"it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism"
You sure about that? Hemp is a renewable fuel source, and could threaten monopolistic oil profits, especially in the long term. (And I'm not even talking about plastics, fibres, paper, and the thousands of other things hemp is useful for) Now, tell me the current War on Terror has absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting oil interests.
It is in Big Oil's interests to supress hemp cultivation, and Big Oil is everywhere in American decision making.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Apologies to the constitutional monarchies out there. They aren't democracies either so the larger point holds. If you're going to complain about your system not performing to spec, you should know the spec.
Sorry, it's still not a democracy which is what the grandparent was complaining about. Oh well, at least I know the US is a democratic republic.
The above is exactly the sort of Pinko left-wing anti-american liberal conspiracy theory tripe that you would expect from the techno-elitists!
"State terrorism" indeed! The US is bringing DEMOCRACY to the world. It's all about PEACE and FREEDOM. You're just spouting off your Communist propaganda to subvert the honest simple peepul (sic) of America from their enjoyment of their freedoms and their pride in their government.
America is the best damn country in the world and our government and our boys in green are there to make sure it stays that way. And you subversive people should be investigated - hell, you're probably an Al Quaeda sympathizer yourself.
In fact, America has the best damn culture in the world. Them Frenchies and Brits, and Japs and what not keep mouthing off about their painting and stuff. Well, we're equal to anybody, and a damn-sight better than the others. In fact, everyeone else should be like Americans. And those that don't want to share our freedoms....well those people just need to be...re-educated, is all. And afterwards we can take over their lands to have more space for Americans. After all, we need a place to live too.
And then, the whole world can enjoy the freedom and peace of America. And then we can have one country, one people, one leader! Heil Bu....
Oh...I do beg your pardon. I got a little carried away there.
--
Anyone who does not recognize the above as being a desperate plea for the idiots in charge to stop bringing this country to the final moral extinction of fascism needs to be smacked with a clue-by-four.
I know a lot of soldiers from both sides of the border, and they mostly agree on the following:
1) Canadian Army reserves have the same level of training as the American Army regulars
2) Canadian Army regulars have similar level of training as the American Green Berets.
We do not have the numbers, but we do have quality (at least in personnel, equipment-wise...well, let's not go there).
Oh, and yeah, we do have a Special Forces Unit (similar to the Navy Seals).
My 2 cents.
If you cannot travel without identifying yourself then you are being obstructed by others, aren't you?
No more so that you are being obstructed when the government requires you to drive on only one side of the road. It doesn't stop you from doing what you wanted to do (namely drive somewhere) so it doesn't really infringe on your liberty. Of course it becomes a different matter when the requirements imposed become very costly in one way or another. Requiring that you pay a US$10,000 departure tax, or submit to extensive anal probing before you fly, would certainly be an infringment upon your liberty (and in the second case your privacy as well).
(I'm curious, would the Fourth Ammendment be about liberty or about a claim right, by these definitions?)
Typically rights are classified into four types, namely claim-rights, liberties, powers, and immunities. The rights protected by the fourth Amendment are immunities and claim rights.
Let me be blunt: "The United States made us do it" cannot be a sufficient or acceptable justification for the Government to intrude on a fundamental right of Canadians.
It is not unusual for the governments of other countries to blame the US government when they do something that is unpopular. The Japanese government does this all the time. I do not know enough about Canadian politics to say whether it is as common there as it is in Japan, but you might want to consider the possibility.
More importantly Canada and Canadians get privileged access to the US. They can travel to the US more freely and export to the US more freely than the citizens of any other country in the world. However, one result of this is that when the US wants to improve security they now have to make a choice between tightening security on the Canadian border, or asking Canada to tighten its own security. The US has a right to make the request, and Canada does have a choice in the matter.
The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom...
I think this is profoundly wrong. If you read the classic works on liberty (like say those by Kant or Locke) then you will find barely any mention of privacy. In a genuinely free society the citizens would have no need for anonimity. Not because they have would nothing to hide, but because they would have nothing to fear.
When Pat Robertson called us Soviet Canuckistan, I for one thought "Well, we must be doing something right".
There are some people you just don't want on your side.
Verbing wierds language --Calvin
I am sick and tired of people trying to find out why "they hate USA." How about I can give you shit loads of examples of why we should hate THEM! What a fuck? I cant!? why is that? Ohh because I am a racist? And they are not? YEah okay.
So lets not GO THERE, on why they hate us, because I can give you so more reasons on why we should hate THEM! But ohhh no...dare to say you hate Arabs and you a a fucking KKK or a NAZI. But boy if you are an ARAB or any other ass supporting PLO and terrorist and bashing Americans and Jews you are a fucking freedom fighter who is misunderstood. And you are a good person, because the "Evil empire" of USA is oppressing you. You fucking hypocrits. I see no one fucking protesting dictators and butchers of the world...but ohh boy everyone protests USA.
There are dozens of wars going on...YET NO ONE IS PROTESTING THEM ON THE STREET! I guess no one gives a fuck about Africa or Chechnya or Indonesia or fuck knows what country is in blood...you just fucking dont give a shit and dont care. But America is doing something, you are the first to open your fucking hypocritical crapper and spew shit you wanna hear, and surround yourself with people who like to hear the same lies because it makes you fucking feel better as you are a great person standing up against the imperialism of USA. Fucking shit hypocrites. Yes USA is not great and yeah we have problems but fucking spend the same time you spend on USA by involving yourself with other countries, and place will be a much better place I garanteed.
Go politicly masturbate yourself some more. Obviously you dont care about the truth fuck nut.
WTF?
He's right you know... WAKE UP!
Or Korea... or Gulf War I (CF-18s conducted air toground sorties)... or Kosovo...
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
Sounds like you're upset he proved a point.
Sounds like you need to look up the definition of proof. I didn't see any proof on either side of the argument.
We've been sold out. We vote, but we might not like either candidate from either party, so why do we still vote? Easy, it doesn't matter. Our leaders for the most part are bought lock stock and barrel by corporations, special interest groups, and anybody rich enough to finance their campaign. I make less than 10k a year, you think they give a rat's ass about the millions and millions of people like me who are living paycheck to paycheck? More tax reform they say, more tax reform, seems like every time big businesses and the top 1% of the wealthy are getting the majority of the breaks, and when the poor want their share they say "but that's Class Warfare, and we can't have that." It's disgusting. Yes I'm an American, and I love my country, but this country went wrong when we traded being led by generals and war heroes to being led by lawyers and businessmen (P.S. Rot in Hell you greedy SOB's). The country of the USA and the government of the USA are two different things, things which in the next 200 years will most likely be at war with each other. All because of greed and lust of power by a couple hundred assholes. Love your country, be a patriot, but stand against unjust tyranny wherever it may be found, even if it's right here at home.
Everytime someone loud says:
" see the fact the many Australians are also unhappy with our government"
It makes me laugh!
People will always complain, no matter what you do. Those that earn more, bitch about taxes. Those that don't earn much, bitch about how nobody does enough for them.
We have it pretty damn good in this country, and if the best we can manage is a winge like "gee, I don't like that Johnny Howard guy" rather than, "gee, perhaps we should be physically (as in firebombs) overthrowing our government because it kills people in the streets for not doing the right thing, whatever the hell that might be" then we've got nothing to worry about.
There's nothing worse than a vocal minority claiming everyone thinks like them.
It's too early in the piece for me to comment on the Medicare policy, but just like everyone else, I'll cast my vote accordingly.
Ash
Yup... no involvement... wait a minute... weren't we Canadians fighting in Europe for a couple or three years whilst YOUR president's grandfather was selling the Nazis goods and services? Of course. And he paid a $5 mil fine for it too. But only after the US entered the war after being bombed by the Japanese... and only after the Germans declared war on YOU. Oh yeah... and the Japanese bombed you because you had blockaded their oil and other strategic goods. The same crap in WW I. We were in in 1914, you arrived in 1917. Get real.
They always ripped on Canadian Cops at every chance they had.
Dolemite
_____________________
Save the World! Use a Quote!
Are you referring to provincial taxes in general or just PST? PEI has 10% PST, and they pay PST on the GST for a tax of 17.7%. The other Atlantic provinces pay HST, which is 15%, and in Ontario GST+PST=15%.
In Canada, the govt. regulates drug prices. As a result US drug companies cave in to these anti free market tactics so as not to get bad publicity. Now we find that many of the drugs sold to Canada make it back to the US at reduced prices, undermining the US free market. The US should impose tariffs on drugs sold to Canada to make up for money lost by US drug companies because of socialist Canadian policies. I feel sorry for any company trying to develop life saving drugs in Canada. They're at the mercy of the govt. So much for freedom in Canada.
Vote for Pedro
..from a Canadian.
Well, since you're tracing causality, what country does the U.S. have to thank most for its freedom? France.
Where did the statue of liberty come from? A gift from the people of France. It cost ~$100,000 IIRC.
..don't panic
well..my nick is...
So was East Germany. A Democratic Republic, that is.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Seriously, I can't possibly argue with someone that actually believes that that was staged. Everything's just a big f*cking conspiracy to you people, isn't it? ......
Unbelievable.
And where's your evidence of this conspiracy? Did the UFOs steal it?
Did we attack Iraq based on a set of rules? NO. So what's your point?
Therefore, it's okay for thousands of people to die every year? Am I missing something?
Are you one of those people that thinks we went to war for oil?
I can't believe I'm arguing with this guy.
I'm glad that you've found ways to entertain your thoughts. Meanwhile, maybe you should check this out http://mwhodges.home.att.net/
Sheep!
Something everyone should be forced to read
If the only way to travel is to accept the government knowing, tracking and retaining data on all of my travels, that is "very costly." Did you read the Privacy Commissioner's overview? He details several proposed Canadian laws *applicable to Canadians in Canada, not just Canadians traveling in the US,* which cause significant loss of privacy rights... all but one of which were instigated or requested by the US.
I do not see how one can be free in a society where the government can force you to be known against your will. Again, refering to the overview: aren't the dangers of lost privacy he lists worth fearing (for example, one bad interpretation of your travel habits and you could be blacklisted for years, all without probable cause)? It really worries me that he is warning Canadians against the loss of rights which are already gone in the US.
Of course, I myself have a constitutional right to privacy, but that means never leaving the borders of California.
Let's face it, the country is just too damn big, with too few people. Unless you've travelled to the area, you probably don't know what it's like. Western Canada is clueless about Eastern Canada and vice versa, and they're both clueless about Northern Canada.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Read this. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0502-06.htm
A Canadian in Kuwait.
Both her and Bryan Adams.
We're really, really sorry about both of them. To be honest, we were hoping your NRA folks would take care of them for us.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
What are our national symbols? Beer and Hockey.
You forgot Curling.
Check out this aerial photo of the staged event
You can also check out any video feed of this event and see that it confirms the above picture. The cameras focused on a small group of people in the immediate foreground of the picture. As soon as the camera pulls back to any degree, the crowd thins out dramatically and immediately. Also, note the sparse crowds in the area behind the statue.
Those "crowds" you saw (and where did you see them, if you distrust the conservative media so much?) were a few dozen supporters of the guy that Bush Co. has chosen to lead Iraq in the new colonial era. A guy that hasn't even been in Iraq in about 50 years and who was convicted of bank fraud in Jordan. Should fit right in with Cheney and the rest of President Junior's "bidness" partners.
You forgot one important factor: Israel (state of US... or should I say US state of Israel? ;-)).
whining maggot..
First of all, thanks. You're providing a valuable service in illustrating the neocon viewpoint that the Constitution is just ink on a page. I much prefer it when people like yourself just come right out and say the Constitution should be ignored. So, to address your points:
Is the Consitution some kind of Diety or something that cannot be challenged?
No, it can be "challenged". The proper word is "amended". And there is a mechanism to do this:
Article V
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. "
Note that the above paragraph nowhere mentions "just ignore the Constitution and make up whatever shit I want the Constitution to mean".
Do you think that it might be possible that if the framers knew how powerful we turned out to be, they might actually lobby the government to help people?
First of all, the framers were far better aware than you of the danger of a very powerful and very arrogant country, since they'd just fought one for a few years. And they made the Constitution so that our freedoms were meant to be preserved in dark and dangerous times, because that is precisely when our freedoms need such protections.
Second, the framers did intend for government to help people, the American people. That's what they called "the general welfare" and what right wing knuckledraggers call "socialism". It amazes me how Bushies and their syncophants want free and fair elections, universal healthcare, and fully funded public schools in Iraq but fight bitterly over the very idea of such in America. Not having any sense of irony must be essential to being a Republican.
Every day I eat, drink, and sh*t politics. And when I'm done with that, I watch the History channel.
All that proves is some people's ignorance is so collossal that no amount of education can help them. Because if you ate, drank, and shat politics, Jack, you probably would have heard of the tenth amendment by now, which is what the posters above were referring to.
I grew up in a small town, with teachers who made the problems with our government well-known. If anyone knows about the principles to which our government was founded, I'm one of them.
I think if I were you I'd call up those teachers and ask for a refund.
But to speak on behalf of the people who created the constitution at THIS DAY is flat-out disrespectful.
Isn't that what you just did? Projection, the favorite game of right wing monkeys everywhere.
If they were alive now, I suppose they would still support slavery, too?
Um, no. That was handled properly, with an amendment. Maybe you missed this one during your extensive constitutional studies?
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
and no suffrage for women?
Sorry, that one was a properly done constitutional amendment too. Are you s
:)
hany
The United States is no more dangerous than a loaded gun. The problem is, our current administration is like a testosterone-laden teenager waving the thing around to impress girls and get what he wants. But its not that simple.
Did we do this for oil? Well, we certainly import a lot of oil. We would cetrainly feel the pain if the oil market were disrupted. But, also, what do you thinkwould happen fi left Iraq in shambles without fixing things up a bit first? The arab world would hate us, causing more instability nd probably disrupting the oil supply. What if we fixed it up, but paid for it ourselves. Well, we're rich, but we never invest in anythign that indirect and that uncertain. It would be too costly. So what if we used Iraq's ONLY MAJOR REVENUE SOURCE to rebuild Iraq? it's not so far fetched. Some people see one idea as more prominent than the other. The problem is, people usually state an "either/or". The truth is, all of those factors are part of the equation.
Its not the best solution, by far. In fact, my 8-year-old can come up with a better solution to the oil problem, mideast affairs, iraq, civil liberties, etc. But stop painting this as a black and white picture. Take what the left says, then what the right says, then realize that half of what each says is true, and the other half you throw away.
Democracies don't "cap" anybody's head.
Democracies apply the rule of law.
Any group of people terrorized by their goverment or branches of it will defend themselves. Once this dynamic is in place you will get demented people that will find anything justifiable to avert the original repression.
Lets put it this way: the UK would have not done what they did with the partition of Ireland if the emerald Island had been 2000 km away.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sure the jubilent Iraqis look umm... jubilent, but the rest of them just look thirsty, scared and hungry. I was against the war, not because I thought Saddam should be left alone, but because the motives of Bush and his reasons for war were, and still are highly suspect. The WMD still have not been found and the links to global terrorism are still just as tenuous as before. If the initial justification had been to free Iraq, or prevent the human rights abuses I think Bush and Blair would have done a far better job of selling the war, but it wasn't. The whole driving force behind this war was the wave of FUD that Bush seems to be trying to ride all the way to the next election, while at the same time getting all his good corporate buddies a nice kick back in fedral spending. If Bush was acting within the rules perhaps he would be more morally justified in demanding that other countries do so too, however by ignoring the howls of protest from the UN and his former allies he has sent a much more powerful message to the rest of the world. Specifically "We're too good to follow the rules we dictate to the rest of you". Maybe i'd listen to Bush when he complains about WMD in the hands of terrorists if he wasn't spending money investigating nuclear bunker busters, and if rumsfeld hadn't sold them to Saddam in the first place. Perhaps I'd pay more attention to his calls for freedom for all people if he wasn't holding people without charge in cuba. There's even a possibility I'd support his calls for Iraqi soldiers to be tried for war crimes, if he would allow the same rules to be applied to his own soldiers conduct.
It is my belief that America is at a dangerous point in its history. It appears to believe that whatever it does is right, that it can do no wrong, and that if it does wrong then the good outweighs the bad. That may be true, America is on the whole a good country, however it is becoming blind to its faults, and those faults are being allowed to grow. Any attempt to focus on these faults is described as unamerican, or unpatriotic.
There is an old saying, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Its an idea that America would be well advised to think about, because otherwise you are in danger of becoming a nation of flag wavers who will support whatever the government chooses to do because you still believe the country belongs to the people. Go away and read 1984 again and think how, although it is about communism, it could just as easily be applied to Bushes America.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
This author has nothing better to do than stir the pot. What merit could be had by critisizing Canadian law enforcement when Canada did respond by putting measures in place to make sure that the continent was safe? As a Canadian, I felt horrible to watch the twin towers go down and felt it was part of our responsibility to help to ensure that it was not something that could happen again. This is something a long time ally does for it's fellow allies. American & Canadians as people have always got along (accept for misbehaving Anonymous Cowards), thank gawd that this is the case. I'm glad to be a part of this kind of understanding between nations. If you look around the world, you can see it's rare. Needless to say, the author of this story clearly is only one small voice that can be ignored for the sake of the greater good. Perhaps critisizing positive reactions by separate nations should be praised, rather than picked apart and complained about.
"Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations."
I find this rather frightening.
I generally think that Canada has the right idea, and the United States doesn't. I'm not a Canadian citizen yet because I have faith that the US can change, or at least start moving away from this dangerous spiral toward being a police state. Hoping, praying it could be so...
First of all, I'm glad that you shose the subject line to further prove your point. ALthough, it just told me that you're in fact even more of a dipsh*t than before. Gee, now that you called me MonkeyBoy, I see your point.
Wow, that's a great photo. And that proves.... nothing (Think about it). You honestly think that our government is so well put-together and smart enough to make these massive-scale conspiracies? Do you know what drives conspiracy theorists? Maybe you should look that up... In the meantime, get a life.
I should've known better than to post anything on the Slashdot boards, where nerds like you run your mouth as if you're an all-knowing, supreme being.
Something everyone should be forced to read
Druggies in general should be given enough of their drug of choice that they OD and die.
Think about it. Kill two birds with one stone.
See here:
No conventional weapon is "Megaton," only nuclear weapons can be megaton. Not even MOAB is close to an MT. Most of our strategic nukes are 300kt. And Israel has spied on the US clearly in the past, and has developed its on clandestine nuclear weapons program. The Soviets/Russia and the French have sold Israel military hardware as well, amongst others.
So, again, you lies are clear, you use the word megaton for effect but this is a complete lie. No nuclear weapons have been used in the ME theater.
You are a twisted, sad person to keep defending the corrupted states of the Middle East. The west's biggest Mistake was ever talking to interacting with those cretins at all (See The Gods Must be Crazy, and Islam is the modern equivalent to a bushwhacker). You think the US government is corrupt, check out every Islamic government. Ten times as corrupt. No schools, bad food/water, medical, etc. And somehow this is the United States' fault. Go ahead and keep blaming the west and the leader of it, but over time, your cult-religion will have to evolve in order for your 'kind' to survive. Get over it, there is no proof of God, and your fucking Allah, your Koran, you everything means nothing to me. Sorry, that's reality.
Subtle lies and propaganda are the work of evil intended people. The US may have its phases, but it tends to come around and resilient. Islam gets it resilience by sapping others and killing them, worst than any other functional group in history. Go head, blame religion, fine by me, but blame them ALL, because it's a deprecated concept. More have died by the sword of Islam and at the hands of fascists, communists and ruthless dictators. Welcome to free/open/democratic/democratic society. Where we tolerate your fraudulent ways but see right through them.
Look at castro helping krushev put nuclear missles and chiding krushev to pre-emptively start a nuclear war against the west. (Letters from Castro to Krushev showing this are avaiable.) Look who is friendly with Castro now, your Islamofascists pals in the M.E.
I dont know if have a fucking clue about right and wrong, and by no means is anyone hands clean, but perhaps you little shits like the Soviets and them invading afghanistan, etc? Perhaps we should have let them run amok. If I dont remember, the Soviets were far less tolerant of your little cult religion than the west is.
You are a young, twisted little kid. Go live in an Islamic hellhole, Islamofascist. (I like that picture of the Grand Mufti of Palestine begging Hitler to let him in on the Third Reich)
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini admiring German troops
The Mufti offered Hitler his "thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany"
The beauty of a two party system is that you can convince the "masses" that superficial differences between the two are fundamental and perpetuate the system.
Not to mention that the skills and qualification needed to win a popularity contest are actually quite different from those needed to successfully run a country.
errr sorry... dvorak keyboard. i wont ; they will replace him with even worse hellspawn when the demos is ready.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
thanks for the glib comment. I'll pass it on to the Drug Czar. They might be able to use it. Wonder if it will work for Booze,Cigs,Microsoft and Oil?
a) americans and their women are no longer visibly free
b) the americans pull their troops from saudi soil
c) anyone keen on israel today?
Ydco co a dcee.b m.ooai.v
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Oh but it did burn! Some glorious Canadians (who didn't know they were Canadian and thought they were British (just because they lived in England!)) burnt that sucker down in the name of the Queen in order to keep the evil spread of democracy out of Canada! Hee hee! Wes
"Immature artists borrow. Mature artists steal."
Wes Borg
This has a side effect (benefit?) of having many eyes on ONE system. If we had private insurance, well look south.....
The scams and all-night ambulance rides abound.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
What does this have to do with the topic?
Answer:
Nothing
THANKS,
/. Was already dominated by French Secret Home Intelligence Teams (SHIT, I gotta). US and the French Canadian folks are set in our ways. I am surprised that so many Canadians and US take the Flame-humor serious. Most of US know that we would defend Canadian freedom and independence (with our lives) from any invaders, and many of US think Canadians (except the French ones) would do the same for US, because the Brits, Scots, Irish, Ausies, and Canadians have almost consistently over the past century defend freedom and independence for many others ... So, who ya gonna trust.
I like to think, I have a way with paranoid humorous stories.
I am glad you enjoyed it, I was beginning to worry that
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"How is it that today Canada is more free then the US?"
It's a matter of perspective. Americans are more narrowly perspected. They ask: "what will be the intended consequences of this action?" Canadians are more broadly perspected. They ask: "what will be the unintended consequences of this action?"
simon
home page
1 - People in the US generally hate drug dealers; whereas "the bad guy" in Palestinian controlled areas - the terrorist - is a celebrated hero. When the terrorists are given material support by the populace collateral damage is probably not colateral eg (not a coincidence that this guy was in that house with those people). I don't hate all Arabs, just murdering Islamofascists. I celebrate murdering Islamofascists deaths.
2 - every single piece of evidence points to Jenin being far, far less of a travesty than reported. In fact, CNN, NYT and NPR both misreported and in case showed a dead "Palestinian" in a picture, when in fact it was a murdered Israeli. You propaganda bullshit doesn't wash. Your little terror towns and terror land getting cleaned up by a police action doesn't move me. You might want to check out CAMERA to get your lies set straight.
3 - Corrie was essentially breaking the law when she was killed. I think her death was and accident but I also think if you dance in a minefield, you get fucked. She was a retard to be putting her life in danger for a cause that she has no interest in.
So again, propagandist, no one buys your garbage. And just to know, the GDP of Palestine is $500 per capita yet the Mafioso who runs it, Arafat, is worth 300 million, more than the queen of England. My heart goes out to the poor Palestinian people, but I do wish every terrorist, Palestinian "politician"/Mafioso dead. sorry. And if there is a God, something you see to take a great trust in despite any empirical evidence, he would have people like you stricken, and every terrorist and Islamofascists cultist leader killed.
Your death killer techniques will lead to Armageddon or your Islamofascists undoing. vae victus, bastard.
Islamofascists, anti American Arabs and Muslims provide material and moral support to the deconstruction and undermining of our culture, our way of life. Your bastard broken culture does a hell of a lot more to expatriates and undesired people in Islamofascists controlled lands, using things like medieval Sharia and having horrible human and women rights records.
You beef with us is all theoretical and it's a fucking luxury. If you keep up you fucking rhetoric, expect reprisal from people like me sick of your lies, and trash. Go live in the centers of Islamofacism if you love it so much.
Now how is that women in Nigeria going to feel as she is stoned to death after weaning her baby under Sharia for purportedly being an adulterer? Your ways are the old way, bastard, and your kind is not liked here. One the few reasons I believe there is no God here on Earth is that Islamofacism exists, Hitler and Stalin killed tens of millions and the US stopped Hitler and put Stalin in check. I only remember people dying of Islamofacism and expansionism, and finally something is in your way now, and we are here to stay. You can't fight this forever. So the last time you bastards will enjoy widespread power was the Ottoman Empire. You will never be able to obtain Rome or even be a part of the Third Reich as your bastard Mufti wanted.
You are deprecated, you time has come. And the people with power are not fooled by you draping yourself in the flag and a constitution you don't believe in. You can't fake believing in freedom, and people who don't fake it see right though your black Islamofascist heart.
Along these lines of our civil liberties, the heavy handed way our government (US) is trying hard to regulate our own personal behaviors, and the fact that I am royally pissed off at what I consider an injustice, I offer my own recent experience in this WoD.
I am presently on probation for simple posession of marijuana, and simple posession of paraphenalia (my dugout/one-hitter).
Late last year, I was waiting in my car for a friend to come out and give her a lift home. We had planned just a quiet evening, hanging out the rest of the night watching movies. We both smoke.
Along comes a police officer, who decides he doesn't like the way I'm parked, and comes up to check me out.
Skipping over the details of how this progressed, he ended up finding my dugout in my backpack in the car. It was confiscated, and since I was cooperative I was given a citation and sent on my way.
In court, I was put on a year's probation. Part of the terms of the probation, which is non-negotiable, is my drivers license is automatically suspended for no less than 90 days, allowing me a restricted after 30 days... I was also required to attend a drug abuse workshop, which I also had to pay $350 for, on top of my ~$2000 fines and court costs, on top of the $240 I had to pay for probation costs.
I was labelled as a drug addict. It doesn't matter if you smoke a pound a day, or a joint a year, this is automatic too. I'm no more a drug addict than someone who picks up a 6-pak each weekend to watch the game is an alcoholic, but the courts don't allow for this distinction.
Up until the job I had at that time I had been stuck in low paying dead end jobs barely able to support myself. Finally I got into a job I loved, and thoroughly enjoyed. I was a taxi driver. I was finally making a decent living, got myself out of debt, with money left over to actually save something, or even invest later on.
I have since lost my taxi license. It was automatically revoked when my drivers license was suspended. The court costs, probation costs, abuse workshop, have eaten up all of what I had saved and I find myself right back in debt again, and with our current economy, I have been unemployed ever since.
I am all for decriminalization.
There are many who argue that decriminalization will mean people will smoke while driving or be high at work and the like. This is not true. These things are already happening, and would remain illegal even with decriminalization. 'DUI' doesn't go away just because the substance is legal.
Now, all I have to look forward to is more dead-end jobs, and in this current economy, I don't even have that to look forward to right now. The way things look now, my life is in fact over. Last year started out with the feeling things were finally changing for the better for me and I had everything to look forward to. Now, thanks to the courts, and I do blame the court system for this, I have lost everything. The offense, did not deserve this kind of outcome.
My point is, that my 'punishment' went way beyond what I would think is reasonable for the offense comitted. I wasn't driving when I was checked out. I wasn't under the influence, and the officer's report made note of that. Had I been driving under the influence, then suspending my license and revoking my taxi license would have been reasonable and proper. If you're driving while impaired, you deserve to lose your license.
I've always believed in the concept, that in a so called free society, that you should have the right to do anything at all that you wish, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of your neighbor. Those of you familiar with the Childe Cycle of sci fi books might recognize that from the Dorsai! race.
I wasn't endangering a soul. My smoking affected no-one but myself. I have been careful for 18 years to smoke responsibly, and contrary to what many would have you believe, it is possible to smoke responsibly. Never smoke before work, never drive after smoking, etc.
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum, cogito.
A fine example of Gramscian Hegemenoy in action. But don't forget this aspect,
"Among the many meanings of democracy, the most realistic and concrete one seems to me to be that which connects with the concept of hegemony. In an hegemonic system, there is democracy between the leading group and the groups led to the extent that (the development of the economy and thus) the legislation (that expresses this development) favors the (molecular) transition from the groups led to the leading group."
-Antonio Gramsci-
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
What Islamofacists in this country? 1.2 Billion Muslims worldwide and you point the .0001% of them who are terrorists and generalize us all. Why is it you can't get away with insulting blacks or Jews, but can trash Muslims?
Lots of Muslims don't approve of Nigeria's sharia laws and elsewhere. Myself included.
7 Million muslims in the US. Only 30 have been charged with some form of terrorism. Go and pull over black drivers or something, you'll find better odds of catching crooks.
"Muslim"/Islamofascist attitude sucks. This is a general problem. Most Arabs free of Islamocultism are rational regular people. People who pay that fucking shit religion have a great deal of sympathy and provide support politically and morally and try and justify Muslim anger, Muslim extremism and try to blame the west for them existing.
No, it's the fact they are morally underwritten by ALL OF YOU. Don't tell me for one second that the Muslims have done FUCKING SHIT to curb this trash. Islamic governments the world over are deeply corrupt and on the verge of failure, and somehow this is our fault.
Your sick little twisting of reality is easy to see through. Your shit tends to sell rather nicely, but no one is fooled. When you people melt into the melting pot the heat will come off your ass. Until expect heat up your ass. Being a nation within a nation is going to cause pain, and it will cause a lot less pain here than anywhere else, but don't expect us to buy your bullshit hook line and sinker. Religion is impedance, dump it. Please try and not use it to justify murder - maybe then you wont get shit on here so much. I don't trust "you people," and frankly it's up to you to earn that. I don't trust anyone intrinsically, but people like you would have to work overtime to gain trust. I've also never worked or had much meaningful contact with Islamofascists in a business environment because your disgusting religion teaches you to feel superior to us infidels. We notice you think less of us, and we think a lot less of you because of it. Prepare to feel a boot in your ass if you come talking that Islamofascist crap. When I run a ship, it better be non-sectarian, and people like you just can't do it - someone invariably is an infidel to you. Fuck your jihad, your disgusting "god" Allah, your fake pagan-Minat moon god 700 AD religion, fuck Mohammed, fuck your god damn shitty Koran. It's a fucking lie. This crap is just taking your grievances in life and selling them back to you a religion. It's crap. And you cannot, being a zealot cultist, respect that position. I know this. So as long as you think I'm an infidel for thinking that, doomed to hell, you can suck my dog's anus, you'll never get sympathy or a dime out of me, scum.
Why couldn't Muhammad be mistaken in the first place? For a number of verses in a number of times? The fact is already established he can't tell the difference between God and Satan when receiving messages. In light of all of the monotheistic messages he received, he should have been slightly aware of that something was amiss.
Most interesting, Muhammad own desire led him to listen to Satan's words. How reliable is a prophet whose emotions can easily lead him to state the words of Satan for God? This is very troubling indeed.
The biblical test for a prophet:
The Bible has its own test for a prophet. Deuteronomy 18:18-20:Before we examine the text, it should be noted that the Prophet mentioned in this text is believed to be Muhammad by Muslims and Jesus by Christians. In the passage we are told that a prophet who speaks words the Lord has not given him shall be put to death, and the Prophet will speak the words of God. These two ideas are against each other in parallelism. This contrasts the Prophet with false prophets. The difference? False prophets will speak false messages. The Prophet will not. The death penalty portion of this applied to the ancient theocracy of Israel, but the basic principle remains. Speaking false words and attributing them to God is extremely bad, worthy of the harshest of punishments.
As we have seen in the Satanic Verses, Muhammad has spoken false words and attributed them to God. Whether he knew they were from Satan or not, he is in violation of this text. He can't be the Prophet spoken about in this passage, although this is the text Muslims refer to to show Muhammad is in the Old Testament.
Muhammed: False prophet. Period, end. Liars. Cheats. Pagans. Minat Lovers. 700 AD made up roving band of murderers
Being detained and deported is far better than being in trouble and being convicted in Islamic countries under Sharia. Homosexuals in Saudi Arabia: beheaded. "Adultering" women in Nigeria stoned to death. 13 year old girls getting clitorises chopped off "female circumcision." Hands and feet cut off for stealing.
Yes, we have due process. They seem upset at how we only detain people, and not kill, maim or stone them or severely repress women by making them hide their faces and chopping off their clitorises.
A cursory inspection of Islamic countries and their governments on human rights, due process and corruption will bring forth a wealth of corroborating evidence, facts and direct accounting of these travesties being perpetrated.
The US may not be the most progressive concept, but it is most probably in the top 5 "least worst, least corrupt" places to live in the world. Know it, believe it. All you have to do is be an expatriate to just about anywhere in the world and you'll want to come back to the US.
Yes, the US is evil. Very evil. Yeah right.
Don't pay attention to this self deprecating religious zealot cultist lampoon.
Kinda funny how we never seem to hear the Susan Sarandons of the world complaining about the situation in other parts of the world, isn't it?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Sarandon, Streisand, Sheen, Robbins, Moore and the rest of the crew are actors, performers. They aren't scientists, doctors, engineers or useful type-people. They are know-nothing actors that have mastered only the art of simulacrum. They bend the truth and capitalize (particularly Moore) on the havoc the wreak with baseless, uneducated opinions.
They also never, ever EVER live outside of a pampered life of luxury or outside their little citadels of wealth and decadence. At least a Princess Di type wanted to clean up land minds, and do a good turn, but she didn't have to be a raging communist to do a good thing.
Next time you hear Moore babbling about shit, about Flint, about the NRA, remember he got rich off of splicing Heston in an "Interview," omitting that the average Flint "blue collar" worker for GM made $100,000, etc, in "Documentaries". He is rich, live in a 1.2Million dollar apartment and sends his daughter to private school and done a bit of laying off his own employees. He is a rich hypocrite. All these freaks are.
The best thing to do is form your own opinion, and be aware there is a lot out there, but don't self-deprecate. You don't owe anyone an apology. Just because we exist in a higher state in the western world doesn't mean we have to live a life of an apologist. And we certainly should regard Islamofascism as something potentially dangerous and destructive if that's the gut feeling we get from it. Its up to them to impress us, we have the upper hand, and regardless of what people say its harder to stay on top than getting there, so in my estimation we earned it, the higher you soar the harder it feels when you fall.
Our less progressive "enemies of America" are employing propaganda and our all to easily manipulated troupe of near-communist retard Hollywood idiots to basically try and convince westerners that they owe the cretins of the world something simply by virtue of success.
I would also like to say all politics are local, and if you want to change something, do it locally. International politics is corrupt and arbitrary and too complex to understand, and its merely entertainment. People like to attack un-solvable problems solely for entertainment value. Heated political arguments are almost entirely useless because most are irrevocably incorrigible. Pro-Islamist evangelism has only gone to show me one thing, ignore the bleating mouthpieces for a corrupt cult. Get on with your own life and know that you did nothing wrong by leveraging what was given to you. Anyone in your position would do the same, most probably they would plant a cleat in your back when the walk on it.
I would also like to say I believe in philanthropy, and my life has been touched in many great ways by my friends and family, and I have tried to do the same with my abilities for others.
The US made it to the moon. It was a huge accomplishment, and took a great love of science and exploration for the good of mankind to accomplish it. The people who hate us come from places where the average age is 25, too young to remember WW2, or the Moonshot, and think of Allah and the crescent moon when they look.
The US and the western societies have not been perfect, nor have a perfect track record, but certainly its fair to say, it's the least worst way at the time being for administering a society. Sit back and enjoy it while it lasts. The Russians tried to resist it. The Chinese and the Islamofascists try and resist it. But their systems just don't work properly, and are best sandboxed, quarantined and ignored until they implode.
Of course I think Canadian do put the war of 1812 higher than it deserved. It wasn't until I moved from Canada that I started learning that the Americans did better in battles other than the battle of New Orleans. I'd been taught in Canada that was the only battle the Americans won - after the war was technically over. The reality was far more complex but is overlooked or unknown by most Canadians. Not that this is a bad thing, of course. The Plains of Abraham never were good for American troops during the war of 1812 or the earlier invasion during the American revolution.