Canadian Election

[Ben]

Though it goes against better judgement to bring it up, all I can say is....phew!

*Ben breaths a sigh of relief*

[ladymako71]

and we still have 4 more months before we can see what happens on this side of the border...

[syvalois]

Though it goes against better judgement to bring it up, all I can say is....phew!

*Ben breaths a sigh of relief*


and can I add in minority yeah!

[JohnnyCanuck]

Though it goes against better judgement to bring it up, all I can say is....phew!

*Ben breaths a sigh of relief*


and can I add in minority yeah!


Thank nelvanna it wasn't a conservative minority. It would seem to me from the propaganda I had read Mr Harper isn' a big fan of minorities of any type.

[HappyCanuck]

Though it goes against better judgement to bring it up, all I can say is....phew!

*Ben breaths a sigh of relief*


and can I add in minority yeah!


Thank nelvanna it wasn't a conservative minority. It would seem to me from the propaganda I had read Mr Harper isn' a big fan of minorities of any type.

Especially those of us who are gay, non-Anglophone (from what I read), or green with bulging eyes and scales....

[Sir John A.]

LOL, seems I'm the odd man out here!

BTW: Stephen Harper is a very nice man and some people have a very mistaken impression of him. I mean, he's one of the world's biggest Beatles fan!

[ladymako71]

yeah but you have far more choice on that side of the border then I'm stuck with down here mate.

[Sir John A.]

oops

[Sir John A.]

I wouldn't know what to do if I were in your shoes buddy.

The Republican party is a lot more right wing than our Conservative party in Canada so I wouldn't really support them.

For example, our "right-wing" party supports pot decriminalization for small amounts, civil marriage with equal benefits for gays, government run public health care system, moderate gun control, government run drug plan, increased post-secondary education funding, increased funding for green energy research ....Could you see the Republican party supporting these?

However, the Democrates have a lot of politicians and supporters that I really disagree with as well....

[kozzi24]

Kerry doesn't seem to be much of an improvement over Bush. Our choice doesn't have much choice, like a restaurant that serves only chicken and turkey.

[DelBubs]

Kerry doesn't seem to be much of an improvement over Bush. Our choice doesn't have much choice, like a restaurant that serves only chicken and turkey.
Compared to what I've seen of Bush, Kerry seems like a blessing. I cannot see Kerry working solely for the corps like Bush does. Bush seems to me like a spoilt rich boy who's been given a country to play with cos of the money his daddies thrown his way.

[kozzi24]

Kerry (and his wife) aren't po' people themselves.
There's some merit that the breaks to corporations trickle down, but I'm no economist and am skeptical on the claims from BOTH sides when it comes to that.
In my adult lifetime, the Democrats have made many more campaign promises that they had no intention of keeping, often did a political show of "trying" and failing and probably should have been making some promises to begin with.. I'm not going to get into the lists of thousands of lies, but one relevant to many of the regulars here and fresh on my mind because of something Jo said on another post I read today: Clinton's promise of gays in the military. Did anyone really think that was anythin but an attempt to snag the gay vote?
My mind's not made up, and shouldn't be because it's not the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November yet. But the choices don't look too good right now. John Kerry's endorsement by Bill Clinton who says he respects Kerry's War record because "John Kerry was laying his life on the line for his country (while I was dodging the draft and smokin' dope in the back seat with all the unwed mothers in Arkansas)" DOES NOT help him on hypocracy factor alone.

[Major Mapleleaf Jr]

As much as I loathe Bush, I have to say that I disagree with people calling him stupid. You don't graduate from Yale, much less at the level that he did, if you're stupid. All the money in the world can't buy you a diploma from one of the top colleges in the country. You either bust your ass and work hard, or you fail. Yale doesn't need Bush's money, believe me.

[kozzi24]

Yes and no. I have a lot of exposure to Brown University students. Ivy League, ultra expensive, students from near 100 countries, admission policies that just don't let in truly stupid people.
But there is a vast difference between educated and smart. I've met too many Brown students with excellent GPA who are DUMB AS POSTS!!!
Intellectualism and common sense do not go hand in hand. Neither do education and intelligence.

[Sir John A.]

The consequences of a Kerry victory on the Canadian economy worry me very much.

Kerry has said he'd like to see the border permanently closed to Canadian beef and has also mentioned that he doesn't like Free Trade.

If he went though with this it would destroy our economy.

[Major Mapleleaf Jr]

That's true, Kozzi, but money can only get you so far. If Bush was REALLY as stupid as people make him out to be, do you think he'd have gotten this far? Surely someone would've out-thought and out-maneuvered him by now. There's a difference between committing actions that are stupid, and actions that are merely against someone else's politics. Apparently there are a lot of people in the country who support Bush and what he has done, or this race wouldn't be any contest at all.

[Sir John A.]

FYI: Bush graduated from Yale....then got a master's at Harvard.

[kozzi24]

Part of Bush's success has been surrounding himself with a strong and experienced cabinet. I did vote for him in 2000 and probably will again this year. Nor do I believe he's as stupid as he manages to come across sometimes. But he ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer by a long shot, and his Ivy League education only paints him as rich to me, not as smart.

[syvalois]

I did vote for him in 2000 and probably will again this year.


why vote for him again? From what I've seen in the rest of the world, Bush is considered like evil and if he get reelected will cause a 3rd world war. Ok, I'm a little bit hard on him, but except in the US, everyone I know from UK, France, Québec and Canada would vote for anything but Bush.

[kozzi24]

why vote for him again?
Because from what I've seen so far--and there a couple months left till November so there's more seeing to do--John Kerry is no improvement. I feel that Kerry getting elected will increase the disappointment of failed promises made by someone trying to beat an incumbent with no substantial improvement in character or values or outlook. We'd get a pale imitation of Bush (and how scary is THAT?!), be changing c-in-chief midwar and flushing an entire cabinet before any headway in the ugly things that still need to be dealt with since they developed after Vote 2000. I could list all the examples, but it boils down to the same thing across individual issues: I just don't see Kerry as substantial improvement enough to counterbalance a lot of the disarray that results in administration changes. There are too many people gunning for US because they truly feel that America itself

is considered like evil and will cause a 3rd world war..
George Bush is only the face of America these days.
I am a very strange mix of conservativism and liberal values. I am an independent voter who thinks the "party vote" should be permanently removed as a ballot option!

[Ben]

Though there is certainly no problem with this topic yet, as people are simply stating their opinions, I will ask that everyone tread lightly as to not allow this topic to deteriorate to name calling and arguments, as it has a great potential to do so, just in it's nature.

That being said, cary on, I will refrain from discussing my opinions on this matter as I don't trust myself to behave.

Ben

[DelBubs]

Gotta Love Bush - Illegal Wars and ****ting on the sacrifices of others while he hid behind his fathers contacts and money. The man is a danger to the free world while he does the bidding of Haliburton and the other corporations making money from the deaths of American troops in Iraq. Oh and Bush is a liar, he promised not to touch the 200 billion put away for welfare and then had too after frittering away the 500 billion plus that Clinton had made for the US after Reagan and Bush snr had put the country into a negative deficit. Clinton may have been a lot of things, but he wasn't willing t do the bidding of people trying to make a fast buck of the sacrifices and jobs of others. GOD BLESS AMERICA, not while Bush is in charge I don't think.

====================
August 26, 2004

It Takes Real Courage to Desert Your Post and Then Attack a Wounded Vet

Dear Mr. Bush,

I know you and I have had our differences in the past, and I realize I am the one who started this whole mess about "who did what" during Vietnam when I brought up that "deserter" nonsense back in January. But I have to hand it to you on what you have uncovered about John Kerry and his record in Vietnam. Kerry has tried to pass himself off as a war hero, but thanks to you and your friends, we now know the truth.

First of all, thank you for pointing out to all of us that Mr. Kerry was never struck by a BULLET. It was only SHRAPNEL that entered his body! I did not know that! Hell, what's the big deal about a bunch of large, sharp, metal shards ripping open your flesh? That happens to all of us! In my opinion, if you want a purple heart, you'd better be hit with a bullet -- with your name on it!

Secondly, thank you for sending Bob Dole out there and letting us know that Mr. Kerry, though wounded three times, actually "never spilled blood." When you are in the debates with Kerry, turn to him and say, "Dammit, Mr. Kerry, next time you want a purple heart, you better spill some American red blood! And I don't mean a few specks like those on O.J.'s socks -- we want to see a good pint or two of blood for each medal. In fact, I would have preferred that you had bled profusely, a big geyser of blood spewing out of your neck or something!" Then throw this one at him: "Senator Kerry, over 58,000 brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam -- but YOU didn't. You only got WOUNDED! What do you have to say for yourself???" Lay that one on him and he won't know what to do.

And thanks, also, Mr. Bush, for exposing the fact that Mr. Kerry might have actually WOUNDED HIMSELF in order to get those shiny medals. Of course he did! How could the Viet Cong have hit him -- he was on a SWIFT boat! He was going too fast to be hit by enemy fire. He tried to blow himself up three different times just so he could go home and run for president someday. It's all so easy to see, now, what he was up to.

What would we do without you, Mr. Bush? Criticize you as we might, when it comes to pointing out other men's military records, there is no one who can touch your prowess. In 2000, you let out the rumor that your opponent John McCain might be "nuts" from the 5 years he spent in a POW camp. Then, in the 2002 elections, your team compared triple-amputee Sen. Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden, and that cost him the election. And now you are having the same impact on war hero John Kerry. Since you (oops, I mean "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!") started running those ads, Kerry's polls numbers have dropped (with veterans, he has lost 18 points in the last few weeks).

Some people have said "Who are you, Mr. Bush, to attack these brave men considering you yourself have never seen combat -- in fact, you actively sought to avoid it." What your critics fail to understand is that even though your dad got you into a unit that would never be sent to Vietnam -- and even though you didn't show up for Guard duty for at least a year -- at least you were still IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War! Cowards like Clinton felt it was more important to be consistent (he opposed the war, thus he refused to go) than to be patriotic and two-faced.

The reason that I think you know so much about other men's war wounds is because, during your time you in the Texas Air National Guard, you suffered so many of them yourself. Consider the paper cut you received on September 22, 1972, while stationed in Alabama, working on a Senate campaign for your dad's friend (when you were supposed to be on the Guard base). A campaign brochure appeared from nowhere, ambushing your right index finger, and blood trickled out onto your brand new argyle sweater.

Then there was the incident with the Crazy Glue when your fraternity brothers visited you one weekend at the base and glued your lips together while you were "passed out." Though initially considered "friendly fire," it was later ruled that you suffered severe post traumatic stress disorder from the assault and required certain medicinal attention -- which, it seems, was provided by those same fraternity brethren.

But nothing matched your heroism when, on July 2, 1969, you sustained a massive head injury when enemy combatants from another Guard unit dropped a keg of Coors on your head during a reconnaissance mission at a nearby all-girls college. Fortunately, the cool, smooth fluids that poured out of the keg were exactly what was needed to revive you.

That you never got a purple heart for any of these incidents is a shame. I can fully appreciate your anger at Senator Kerry for the three he received. I mean, Kerry was a man of privilege, he could have gotten out just like you. Instead, he thinks he's going to gain points with the American people bragging about how he was getting shot at every day in the Mekong Delta. Ha! Is that the best he can do? Hell, I hear gunfire every night outside my apartment window! If he thinks he is going to impress anyone with the fact that he volunteered to go when he could have spent the Vietnam years on the family yacht, he should think again. That only shows how stupid he was! True-blue Americans want a president who knows how to pull strings and work the system and get away with doing as little work as possible!

So, to make it up to you, I have written some new ads you can use on TV. People will soon tire of the swift boat veterans and you are going to need some fresh, punchier material. Feel free to use any of these:

ANNOUNCER: "When the bullets were flying all around him in Vietnam, what did John Kerry do? He said he leaned over the boat and 'pulled a man out of the river.' But, as we all know, men don't live in the river -- fish do. John Kerry knows how to tell a big fish tale. What he won't tell you is that when the enemy was shooting at him, he ducked. Do you want a president who will duck? Vote Bush."

ANNOUNCER: "Mr. Kerry's biggest supporter, Sen. Max Cleland, claims to have lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. But he still has one arm! How did that happen? One word: Cowardice. When duty called, he was unwilling to give his last limb. Is that the type of selfishness you want hanging out in the White House? We think not. Vote for the man who would be willing to give America his right frontal lobe. Vote Bush."

Hope these help, Mr. Bush. And remember, when the American death toll in Iraq hits 1,000 during the Republican convention, be sure to question whether those who died really did indeed "die" -- or were they just trying to get their face on CNN's nightly tribute to fallen heroes? The sixteen who've died so far this week were probably working hand in hand with the Kerry campaign to ruin your good time in New York. Stay consistent, sir, and always, ALWAYS question the veracity of anyone who risks their life for this country. It's the least they deserve.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com


PS. George, I know you said you don't read the newspaper, but USA Today has given me credentials to the Republican convention to write a guest column each day next week (Tues.-Fri.). If you don't want to read it, you and I will be in the same building so maybe I could come by and read it to you? Lemme know...

[syvalois]

Because from what I've seen so far--and there a couple months left till November so there's more seeing to do--John Kerry is no improvement. ...

Sorry, I'm missing some of your explaination, my bad english. But I was just think how glad I am that Canada is not a major player in international decisions, because when we elect someone it do not have so much repercussion in the rest of the world (Imagining Chrétien...ouf, yeah really good thing), but USA do have that responsability.

Anyway, from my point of view, anything is better than Bush. Reelectiong him would say to the rest of the world you agree with what he did, but then again, it's not me voting and it's not my country. But thanks for the answer even if I did not catch everything.

[kozzi24]

No problem on my end Sylvie. Happy to share any perspective. You must understand though, that I generally do not think like other people.
Ah...so I should vote as most Americans do these days? That is, not vote for someone, but vote against someone?
I don't think war records matter much to American voters anymore. If war records did matter, out-and-out draft dodger Clinton would have never won. I actually never did and never would have voted for Clinton because he never served in the military. It's not me being gung ho, but me being realistic. The least used but most important job of the US president is as commander-in-chief during conflict, and I do not want someone with NO experience in that role. I don't differentiate between combat and non-combat posts. Someone could have been a volunteer on a rank-and-file fire department and have never gone to a fire--at least that person knows a bit of rank and file.
For Bill Clinton to stand up and salute Kerry's war record during the primary...simply nauseating in its hypocracy.
Clinton rigged the budget to last as long as he did. It was downturning a bit, and then the world trade center was taken away. All things considered, the economy has been okay.
Clinton ravaged the services and secret services including FBI and CIA enough that if he didn't make 9/11 possible, he made it EASIER.
I give a lot of credit for the Bush administration for some of the 9/11 decisions. While the liberal media wanted to know if the horrendous decision to shoot down any further planes that would be full of Americans was made and who made it, I applauded the fact that someone recognized the savage necessity of possibly having to shoot down such planes to save potential ground victims. (Thus my answer in "not just talking heads."
There are many dangers left here that I do not feel confident that Kerry can address as well as Bush's administration has. He still has 2 months to convince me.
I don't like Bush's role as lackey for big business, but there's a lot of BS on both sides of those pastures. F'rinstance: why all the debate over Universal Health COVERAGE when the richest nation on earth should have Universal health CARE? Docotrs, hospitals insurance companies and especially the drug companies don't want that...it's bad for their business.
I suppose I didn't really clarify anything. These are dangerous times we live in and we have to consider our own safety. I don't see to much as simpole black and white like Michael Moore seems to.
Neither do I have a party, candidate or agenda to support. I analyze most everything to cut through the propaganda (which is all the debate from BOTH sides of the Kerry's service is) and figure out what they're NOT telling me and why they're not telling me!

[Sir John A.]

Even the CBC is admitting that a Kerry victory would be a disaster for Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/uselection2004/columns_velk.html


John Kerry, who blithely ignores economic axioms in favour of buying special interest voters, says he will change the American tax code to prevent the rationalization of the North American Economy and thinks "outsourcing" - a necessary corollary of trade - is a bad thing. Kerry as president would damage Canada's short-term job market, and permanently impair continental growth.

Kerry has said he's like to see the boarder permanently closed to Canadian beef and John Edwards wants to scrap NAFTA, and agreement that 30% of Canadian jobs are dependant upon.

[kozzi24]

But can we trust an article by an economist who can't count centuries since Columbus landed?

[Sir John A.]

But can we trust an article by an economist who can't count centuries since Columbus landed?

At first I read "seven hundred" but on second look it said "several hundred".

[kozzi24]

So in the category of "couldn't have looked it up."
Good enough article, though.