Joan, it is true that we place less of our money into our military then the US does.....we put in just enough to go in afterwards and clean up the mess the US forces have made. Our troops are called the "peacekeepers" - which is just fine with me.
If you enjoy Banff during the summer, you'll love it during the winter....that's when it's the most beautiful...I hope you're a skiier/snowboarder!
doggydaddy, "Your comment about socialism is simply unjustified...because I don't suscribe to your political views doesn't make me a socialist"
If it walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, taxes like a socialist, well then according to you it must be a capitalist. Sorry doggydaddy dude, you are a socialist.
But then again, you don't or wouldn't appreciate a person with convictions. Oh boo-hoo the world doesnt like us Yankees. If we are so wretched, why are there 12-20 illegal immigrants living in this warped, economically down trodden country?
I like him a lot better than I like most people. To you he's a dog. TO me he's an adopted son who is short, hairy, walks on all fours and doesn't speak clearly. I have no problem with any of these. <
I personally don't think that us bashing the heck out of all canadians or them bashing the heck out of all of us is called for. Either way, that is just my honest opinion.
And back on track, I think that what GW has done (or not done in his case) for this country has all made us look at our decision and realize that we made a bad one to vote him in. (the first and reelection). I think he has made us as a Country read into the lies that all the politicians are giving us. Maybe we will all make a better decsion this time around. I am personally on board for Clinton or Obama, have not yet decided which one deserves my vote. That is what the political debates are for. Each has their own set of lies......or cover ups, and lets just hope we can see through them this time around.
I feel that anyone running for the presidency this time around has "balls" so to speak. Stand up and be willing to take on the mess that Bush has made, good for them. I also believe that it is going to be either Obama or Clinton. What better time to make history change?
***Edited By: weimngolden on 11/7/2007 2:02:13 PM*** Reason: ...
Anyone who thinks Canada's is a Socialist government doesn't know anything about Socialism, or about Canada. There will always be people who throw the term like a stone at anything they don't like, especially if it has anything to do with government administering processes that Americans are used to having (mostly) privatized. Go ahead if it makes you feel better, but it won't make you look informed, or friendly
Did you know there were more Canadians who came to the US to fight in Vietnam than there were American draft-dodgers who fled to Canada? Did you know Canadian women have had the vote longer than American women, and that Canada abolished slavery long before America did? And managed to get out from under British rule AND slavery without having to fight bloody wars to make it happen.
On many objective scales of livability, Canada comes up higher than America does, and not just because the crime rate is so much lower up there.
Just because I was born in the US and love my country, doesn't mean I think my government has it all over every other government in every single way. It's the adaptive cultures that survive and prevail, the ones that know how to learn from the things that work in other cultures' systems.
We need to have Bush in the presidency right now like we all need a hole in the head.
What kind of President turns down a bill for FULLY funded (by raising the tobacco tax) CHILDREN's Health Bill and then requrests hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Iraq war? The Children are the future of this country and if he can't consider them and be fully engoulfed in this war and his own personal agenda in this mission to realize this, he isn't worthy of any of our support. And we wonder why the support for him as president is dropping rapidly?
Despite Lucky Lady deleting her entry, I’m still posting this response;
First, I’d like to point out that I have absolutely no issues with the actual people who are serving or who have served in the armed forces, US or Canadian. I also have family members and close personal friends who have and who are serving in the Canadian army. I believe all of these people (again, US and Canadians) are strong, brave, patriotic heroes that need and deserve our respect. I’d like to apologize if you’ve taken any of my comments as an attack against these people. My comment: "Oh, yeah. ...nice of your country to show up 2 years later, bomb a couple of places, and now you all get to boast that America [helped to win] the war." , was not an attack against the people who were following orders, but against those who were making them.
Lucky Lady, As for this gentleman who fled to the US to be diagnosed with fibromyalgia (please note the proper spelling of this disease), I’m sure that while he was on the 5 month wait list here in Canada he was receiving pain medication to deal with the excruciating pain that comes with fibromyalgia. Oddly enough, fibromyalgia, once diagnosed is treated with pain medication (along with anti-depressants, diet, massage and relaxation techniques). Sorry that he “slipped through the cracks”.
Also, I don’t believe that a personal attack includes making social comment on a specific country or a president of a country. I do not see how I attacked your veterans (as indicated above). If you’re personally offended that I made any negative comment about the US, then you, Irish, and LOR are all guilty of the same when it comes to myself and Canada. I did find it offensive that a comment was made indicating that I was a socialist. When I clearly stated that I was not, yet another comment was made indicating the same thing. And instead of lowering myself to that level, I chose to “walk away”. I do not consider that being “royally slapped down”.
Lucky Lady wrote: “One more observation on Canada & Canadians, I find it despicable that you pay little attention to who slips into your country, figuring it they're terrorists, what the heck, they only want to use Canada as a springboard into this country to do us harm. Now, I DO thank you for taking our hippies, drug addicts, draft dodgers, & military deserters (for the most part the dredges of our society), but I resent the heck out of your country's willingness to support terrorists by welcoming them into your country at the expense of our country's national security.” I’d really like to see the material to back this up. I believe that ONE of the terrorist from 9/11 was reported to have come into the US from Canada, and now my country is being blamed for hosting terrorists. I find this to be a fine example of the US displacing the blame of 9/11 from themselves after all those reports came out that the Whitehouse knew about the potential air attacks before they happened. Again, a little research would be nice from your part before you come touting your one-sided spew.
Lucky Lady wrote: “Incidentally, regardless of the fact that the dollar has been devalued I sure don't see any foreign countries turning up their noses at OUR Country's foreign aid!” Actually, if you care to know, www.globalissues.org has released reports indicating that the US only “donated” 0.07% of their GDP (gross domestic product) to foreign aid in 2006…Canada: 0.14%. And last year, your country was so much richer then ours!
Lucky Lady wrote: “Curious, too, & a clear reflection of the world's problems, that someone who promotes "peacekeeping" & professes to dislike "making personal attacks" can so blithely write some of the nastiest & most hate-filled posts of all.” It makes me laugh that you can’t even see that you’re doing the same thing. Me, “attacking” the US is no different then all of your nasty, hate-filled comments directed specifically towards me. Take the blinders off lady, get a clue!
I guess people forget the mess Bush had to clean up after Clinton. Bush has done a hell of a good job considering what was handed down to him.
No one seems to have an answer. What qualifies Hillary to be president? She's never run a town, county, state, nothing! She's never owned a business, she never served in the military, she's never done anything to make people assume she can somehow manage and protect an entire country. She's a phony, a liar, and one scary, vicious woman. If you think she cares about you and your children, you are mistaken.
LOR, I'll take a crack at answering your question. What qualifies a person to be President is being a natural-born US citizen, more than 35 years old, who (customarily needs to) get a major party nomination and (must) go on to garner 270 electoral votes in the general election. I'm not tring to be snide here -- my point here is that any number of us are qualified to run but only one will win and right now she leads the pack in popular support. Maybe she will win, maybe not, but right now she's the front-runner because of the number of people who look up to her, instead of to any of the other candidates, as a leader.
People disagree about whether her early years with the Children's Defense Fund constituted public service. I believe it did. The people who get elected President are virtually always US Senators or Governors, or have been. She's a second-term US Senator, as you know of course, being as she's one of yours (I can hear you snorting from here, LOL). People disagree about whether her years as First Lady in Arkansas and DC constitute Governor's Mansion and White House experience. Those who think it doesn't will point to the fact that it wasn't she who was elected. But for those like myself who think it does, they (we) point to her policy-making roles in those administrations. But like her or hate her, does anyone really doubt she had more influence over appointments and public policy decisions than even the Vice President during her husband's tenure? How does that not count as 8 years of day-in-day-out White House experience?
And oh yeah, when the National Anthem is being played at a barbecue, she always remembers to hold her hand over her heart!
***Edited By: JoanEK on 11/7/2007 12:28:19 PM*** Reason: added sentence
"What kind of President turns down a bill for FULLY funded (by raising the tobacco tax)"
Think about this for a minute. Raising taxes on tobacco (not to mention the anti-smoking lobby) means fewer people will smoke. So essentially, they are proposing to fund a policy whose fiscal need will only grow, with a funding source that will shrink. It does not make sense.
I don't like Hillary. Any woman who does not have the power and self-respect to dump a philandering husband does not have the guts to run this country.
illini wrote: "I don't like Hillary. Any woman who does not have the power and self-respect to dump a philandering husband does not have the guts to run this country."
On the contrary, although I agree with you that she should have divorced her husband, I believe that it takes a lot of power to stay with a spouse who has cheated. I also believe that it shows that Hilary has the ability to stick with the promises she makes (whether it be wedding vows or political promises).
" Let's not forget that Clinton was NOT re-elected; maybe you can give Hillary some credit for that? "
Maybe you need to brush up on your history Illini, before making statements that are not true. Bill Clinton WAS re-elected to a second term. He won the 1992 presidential election and was re-elected in the 1996 presidential election:
" He was re-elected, lost favor with the public, and the senate and house."
Not a true statement either. Clinton remained popular with the public throughout his two terms as President, ending his presidential career with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since Eisenhower.
What do those polls really mean? Right now Bush has an approval rating in the 20's, but so does the newly elected Democratic congress. I think we're all just p*ssed off an in a negative mood. You need some kind of way to normalize approval of our government with our general happiness. We were a lot happier, more optimistic in the 1990's.
Clinton is morally depraved, and lied to the American public trying to cover it up. If that did not make the public dislike him, then they weren't paying attention.
I give him zero respect, and Hillary not much more. She stays with him to mooch off of whatever residual popularity he still has, to be elected herself.