lol... who wouldn't

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

In case you haven't noticed, it's something that Americans do too.

Yes, imagine how frustrating when "they" make unwarranted generalities about "we".

Don't let an acerbic or didactic post turn you off from a thread. There is no diatribe that cannot be picked apart using deductive logic and common sense

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Whoah... skimming through this thread, I just caught this and your response to Traveler. Now I'm worried that all reading will think I was just "me-too-ing" you...

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Not to come across as daft, but do you attribute this to the fact that the "sample space" is going to be skewed here, since Canadians angry about American politics are more likely to post on a board called "US Politics Online" than your average Canadian? I think that's pretty much a given, but, I suppose one never knows. I wonder if, when the US had international goodwill, after the 9/11 attacks and before the Iraq invasion, the internet and political discussion forums were as prevalent as they are now, would we have seen a lot of Canadians on the site, saying "rah-rah, America"...

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Absolutely - that was my point. The Canadians that one is most likely to encounter on a US political discussion forum are those Canadians that are most enraged by US politics. I'd call it a biased sample.

I think you have a point. Iraq seems to have changed everything. It seems to have moved a fair number of mild-mannered Canadians from the "I'm not much of a fan of the USA" into the "I hate the USA" camp.

And yes, I recall being engaged on US discussion forums prior to the Iraq war. Canadians were pretty rare on US boards. Indeed, I recall one small forum I was a member of since the late 1990's. It was about half-half Canadian-American members (the forum oddly enough was hosted in Singapore by some ex-pat Brit). When the Iraq war began, that single issue divided and destroyed that wonderful little forum that we all loved.

Indeed, at every forum I've ever engaged, it seems as if Iraq has permanently polarized the membership between Americans and non-Americans.

I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-limp-brained Americans. I shovel this stuff because it's what I really think but also because I'm a very sarcastic person and I love to see how many Americans respond to it since they don't generally "get" sarcasm.

I've never stated or held thoughts that Canada is, by virtue, better than America. We're pretty close on lots of things, but in recent years, America has gone backwards.

With a huge war happening, you guys think mostly about reality shows and the threat of gay marriage. So when I accuse many Americans of having their heads up their asses, I can back that up with countless examples.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would give America the best and liveliest debates next year. That's a fact because both of those candidates are informed, and aren't afraid of the truth. However, who are Americans going to pick? It'll be Obama or Clinton on side, Thompson or maybe Giuliani on the other. Glossy, handsome, slick, candidates who poll what they're going to say less the truth be so inconvenient to the rest of you.

So, go ahead, be mad at me for being Canadian. If that's the only argument you've got, than you fall into the category of being one of those limp-brained Americans who have the inability to think with introspection.

When in a hole, one ought not to keep digging.

Nothing I've said is unwarranted. I think that America isn't really that tough. It's mostly posturing or stubbornness. I think Americans, in general, place sensitivity over truth. So when I challenge Americans to get wise, to think more, and I'm sarcastic about it, they get all sentimental, all hurt, all shocked. I'm not against America, I'm against not thinking. I'm against sitting around and doing nothing while there's a war happening. I'm against occupying the middle east, a blunder of terrible proportions that England, France and Russia have already learned over the last century, but that America continues to ignore.

Many Canadians have their heads in the sand. Canada has lots of things that need to be improved, I could give you a laundry list. But this site isn't about my country, it's about yours, and I call things the way I see them. If the truth hurts, I can't apologize for it, being offended is the first step in admitting that you've had a subtle prejudice outed by someone. Look around you, intelligent and worldly Americans on this site don't represent the hoards of sheep out there. And that's mostly who I'm talking about.

Again, I feel that criticizing Americans is fair. It's meant to shake up your ideas about yourselves. If all you do is feel hurt, that's your problem. I'm not out to wound, I'm really out to get down to the truth of things.

As for the thread, I could, in 10 or 15 years, be elected as a senator or a congress person. I don't evade talking about difficult things, I don't make up my mind without knowing about something in many different ways, and I don't really care much for personal attacks, although I'll stab you if all you give me is "you hurt my feelings by saying that". Buck up. My positions are good and sound, I listen to people of all parties, and I like compromise.

After 6 and a half years of Bush, I don't think anyone here could say they would've had done a worse job than him, so that's how I'm more confident now than ever that I could run in a few years when I look less youthful. I came from a lower middle class situation too, so unlike Bush, I don't have to pretend to be a man of the people, I was actually born that way. Anyone who was is more authentic than the pretenders out there.

We have a right to do it, its our damn country!

How would they like it if DrGoodTrips started to criticise their domestic policy which didn't concern him? Of course you being close(ish) to the border kind of lumps you in a little but you get the point.

I don't understand that one bit.

I guess but then the thread starts to become about that one person and poster and that is giving them credit/acknowledgement they don't deserve. Maybe an easier way is to ignore it.

When the AFL-CIO organized a presidential debate at Chicago's Soldier Field, leaders of the labor federation quietly went out of their way to make sure that Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich would be on the stage.

While some debate organizers have talked about excluding so-called "lesser" candidates -- those like Kucinich with low poll numbers and small bank accounts -- from the debates, the AFL-CIO wanted progressive populist from Cleveland front and center Tuesday night. Why? Because leaders of the labor organization recognize the importance of candidates who stand on principle rather than merely engage in political calculations.

They also recognize that Kucinich's determination to express his principles -- which happen to parallel those of labor activists on worker rights, health and safety concerns and, above all, trade policy -- would put frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards on the spot.

The senators from New York and Illinois and the former senator from North Carolina have shaky records on a host of issues that of high priorities for union members. Clinton close ties to Wall Street and have led her to support much of the free-trade agenda favored by multinational corporations -- a fact highlighted by Edwards when he referenced a recent feature in a financial magazine on Clinton's appeal to big business by saying, "You will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying I am the candidate that big corporate America is betting on."

Edwards may be "the angry populist" now. But he has not always been on labor side. Edwards -- who supported North Carolina's anti-union "Right-to-Work" law when he ran for the Senate in 1998 -- broke with the AFL-CIO to cast several key votes in favor of the Bill Clinton administration's free-trade agenda when he served in the Senate.

Kucinich, a longtime union member who has maintained a 100 percent AFL-CIO ranking during his years in Congress, broke with Clinton to side with labor on those critical votes. In fact, he's often been more aggressive than union leaders when it comes to challenging trade pacts that are stacked against workers, communities and the environment in the U.S. and abroad.

On Tuesday night, Kucinich wowed the crowd of 15,000 union activists in Chicago when he promised to use a little-known provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement to pull the U.S. out of the deal.

"In my first week in office, I will notify Mexico and Canada that the United States is withdrawing from NAFTA," declared Kucinich. "I will notify the WTO, that the United States is withdrawing from the WTO."

As the applause rose from a rumble to a thunderous roar, Kucinich shouted, "How about it America? Do you want out of NAFTA? Do you want out of the WTO? Listen to the workers of America, let them hear from you!"

It was the most rousing moment of the night, perhaps of all the Democratic debates up to this point.

Kucinich did exactly what the AFL-CIO's leadership had hoped he would. He showed the most cautious frontrunners -- all of whom continue to back NAFTA, albeit with apologies and calls for reform -- just how much enthusiasm there is for a radical shift from the misguided trade policies of Bill Clinton and George Bush. That's a lesson that 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry never really got, to the detriment of his bid for blue-collar votes that year.

None of this is meant to suggest that Kucinich will win any official endorsements from the individual unions of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, which as of this week are formally freed by the federation to start picking their favorite contenders. Labor organizations tends to go with perceived winners rather than allies who are trailing.

But on Tuesday night, Kucinich won the hearty applause of one of the largest crowds ever to listen to a presidential debate. And he earned high marks from analysts like Hotline's Chuck Todd, who says the AFL-CIO forum was: "Easily (Kucinich's) best debate."

He also proved the vital importance of including non-frontrunners in presidential debates that, without candidates like Democrat Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul, would be a lot shorter on ideas and a lot longer on empty political positioning.

A lot of foreigners on this site are made to feel by some Americans that since we're on this site and not living in America that that means we should only write things that Americans might agree with. Mrs.M, for instance, believes me to be some blowhard from the north who just hates America, because I disagree with her about probably everything. She's got a right to her opinions, as does anyone, but calling us anti-American just because you feel like your pride is hurt doesn't make sense. Any grown adult should be able to process something, let it swirl around, and then respond in a way that's like, I disagree with you because this and this and that.

Canadians, in general, don't really think too much about whether we feel superior or not to America unless America is doing something really boneheaded that makes us think so, like invading countries that didn't attack you. Like when 50% of you still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Many Americans are brainwashed by ideology, and it needs to be pointed out.

I think the reason why some Canadians might feel superior to Americans is that in Canada, we don't talk too much about how free we are. American politicians are always beating their chest on your behalf about all your freedoms, the most free nation. Well, we know you're not the most free. Your government passed a law in the middle of the night that no one in the gov't actually read that grants the President the power to listen in on you, in secret, without a warrant. Not free. We let gays get married now. It's really no big deal up here. In America, the gay issue was the big distraction in 2004, and Americans ended up voting, in part because of gay marriage, right in the middle of wartime. Doesn't that seem like a strange waste of time?

We're a center-left country, while America is a mostly center country that has gotten hijacked by a sometimes far-right fringe with surprisingly far-left tactics on many policies.

But the biggest difference in why some Canadians feel superior is probably because we feel like we'll vote for the smartest candidate out there, while America likes to laugh off the smart one and go for the inoffensive candidate who is the most likeable. That approach in the voting booth makes a difference on who is going to lead you and where that ship is going to sail. Bush is all the proof anyone needs of that.

I didn't call you anti-American, I said you had a smartass opinion. Most "grown adults" wouldn't write something like this and not expect to piss off a few people:

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I'm not phoney enough to run for office.
I'm not good at lying or pandering to crowds....

Those seem to be qualifications for today's candidates which I don't have. So while technically, I could run for president, I wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning.

If Ron Paul or Gravel won a nomination, that might inspire me to run. But I think I have a better chance of winning the big lotto than of that happening.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

I'd absolutely love to, actually; and I'd be good at it. Unfortunately, my choice of religion and lifestyle basically makes it an impossibility in this country at this particular time. In fact, I've just recently come out of a rather bloody internal struggle over which direction I really wanted to go with my life.