 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The right to remain silent
|
|
|
Subject: BS: The right to remain silent From: dick greenhaus Date: 13 Dec 05 - 05:45 PM Stop bashing us, upset US tells Canada OTTAWA (Reuters) - The United States made an unprecedented foray into Canada's election campaign on Tuesday, warning politicians not to bash Washington in their bid to win voter support on January 23. "Canada never has to tear the United States down to build itself up," U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins said in a televised speech. "It may be smart election politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But it's a slippery slope and all of us should hope it doesn't have a long-term impact on our relationship." An administration that oddly is both thick-headed and thin-skinned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Rapparee Date: 13 Dec 05 - 05:52 PM As an editorial in the Toronto Star once said, "We're not anti-American. We're pro-Canadian." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Peace Date: 13 Dec 05 - 05:59 PM No Canadian ever said that our politicians are any smarter than y'orn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: katlaughing Date: 13 Dec 05 - 07:31 PM Not so veiled threat, eh? Idjits! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Peace Date: 13 Dec 05 - 07:41 PM The long-term impact on whatever friendship existed took place when Canada did not support the US effort in Iraq. We paid very heavily for that with the following embargo on Canadian cattle. Forget that anytime soon? Not likely. Sorry. I no longer feel that 'friendship' exists between our countries. Between the people, maybe. Between the Capitals, I don't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Peace Date: 13 Dec 05 - 07:45 PM The mad cow stuff was trumped up and it was Bush's way to put my country in its place. The blow to our economy was bad. It's not the kind of thing that gets forgotten just because it's convenient for Washinton to have us forget it. In short, f##k Washington. With friends like that . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: dianavan Date: 13 Dec 05 - 08:13 PM Someone should tell Washington that Canadians are not interested in being friends with those that do not honour their agreements. They should also mention that we are a sovereign country and still believe in free speech and the right to protest. The arrogance of the United States is astounding. What makes them think that they are deserving of any respect at all? Personally, I am not interested in friends who lie, steal and torture. The United States as we know it today is a criminal. We don't let criminals tell us how to conduct our internal affairs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: pdq Date: 13 Dec 05 - 08:18 PM The mad cow problem was not that simple. It was just days ago that the US was able to get Japan to lift their total embargo on US beef. I don't remember how many other countries joined the parade originally but we had to show a strong response, right or wrong. All over one Canadian cow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Arne Date: 13 Dec 05 - 08:39 PM What??? I'm surprised! It seems like only yesterday that Dubya welcomed Canadian 'intervention' in U.S. political affairs.... When an intrepid "reporter" from Canada's TV news show "This Hour Has 50 minutes" (IIRC on the show title) asked Dubya to respond to the endorsment of Dubya's candidacy by Canadian Prime Minister Poutine, Dubya was only too happy to have his support. ;-) Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 Dec 05 - 08:47 PM Australians are used to having the US ambassador eager to grab the media so he can stick his |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: gnu Date: 14 Dec 05 - 06:50 AM Mad about cows? Yup. And softwood lumber. And potatoes. And Iraq. And missile defence. And friendly fire. I laughed when George visited Jean and was served Prince Edward Island potatoes and Alberta beef. Hey... wait a minute... maybe that's what happened. Anyone find George has been a little testy lately? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: John MacKenzie Date: 14 Dec 05 - 07:20 AM He's more of a little testicle gnu. G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: George Papavgeris Date: 14 Dec 05 - 07:36 AM Awww, c'mon guys, even bullies want to be loved! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Dec 05 - 08:31 AM This one doesn't know what love is, George. That's why he's shacked up with HAlliburton. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: GUEST,A Date: 14 Dec 05 - 08:42 AM In the grand scheme of things, I don't think any USA citizen gives a crap as to what Canada and their people think about US and I suppose the reverse is true also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Rapparee Date: 14 Dec 05 - 08:49 AM Don't forget that it was a US Ambassador who said, in 1948, that the Palestinians and the Israelis should settle their differences "in a true Christian spirit." Or that a US Senator to Anwar el-Sadat in 1975, while viewing the Suez Canal, that it was beautiful and that he'd "always wanted to see the Persian Gulf." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: gnu Date: 14 Dec 05 - 09:05 AM George himself said, just after being elected to his first term, that he wanted to meet the Mexican President ASAP because Mexico was the US's most important trading partner. Of course, there is quite a difference between "bashing" and "Bushing". But, same goes for "pissing off" and "pissing on". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Beer Date: 14 Dec 05 - 09:27 AM Forgot about the "Spuds" and the Albertia beef. Thanks Gnu for that laugh once more. Beer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: CarolC Date: 14 Dec 05 - 11:21 AM 22 Minutes I guess this is an example of why cronyism is a stupid way for a government to choose the people who will represent it in other countries. On the other hand, I also suppose it's not at all surprising at this point in US history (or any other, for that matter) that a US ambassador to another country would not have the slightest idea what the function of an ambassador is. BTW, may I take this opportunity pass along a joke my Canadian sister-in-law told me a couple of days ago? (Because its funny and it made me laugh.) She's extremely unhappy with the government of the US, and somewhat unhappy with the government of Canada. She said, "the US may be 'The Great Satan', but Canada is 'Satan's Little Helper'". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 05 - 11:25 AM In the grand scheme of things, I don't think any USA citizen gives a crap as to what Canada and their people think about US and I suppose the reverse is true also. Indeed! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 14 Dec 05 - 11:31 AM Making a mountain out of a molehill. Canadiens and Americans are very close financially and culturally. It would take an army of drop bears to make any significant split between our two countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: John MacKenzie Date: 14 Dec 05 - 11:44 AM At least the nominal head of state in Canada has the decency to live in another country, and NOT interfere with their elections. Giok ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: George Papavgeris Date: 14 Dec 05 - 12:07 PM Duck, Giok! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: gnu Date: 14 Dec 05 - 01:47 PM Duck? Nay!! Giok : Long live the Queen. On accounta Chuck's pic on our money would just be wrong. For the most part, we like Beth, but, Chucky? Oh well, pip pip and all that, eh what? Nice to be part of the Commonwealth... the most powerful military force on the earth. Otherwise, the Yanks might try to tell us what to do. Oh, yeah. Regarding the beef, wood, spuds, etcetera. We were thinking of bundling a package deal including the above with potash, iron, cobalt, uranium, nickel, copper, tar sands oil, water, etcetera... along with a dose of common sense and good manners. Again. As stated above. Canadians and Yanks are just about as close as two peas in a pod. It's just that our political ideals and systems are different. Essentially, youse have been fucked and we are just being bent over... but, we don't bend as easily. At least, we will see come the election in January. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Georgiansilver Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:20 PM I'm saying nothing! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: gnu Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:24 PM Well... neither am I, really... nothing that matters in the end of it all.... maybe it's called venting... ah, pissing and moaning, perhaps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Teribus Date: 14 Dec 05 - 03:29 PM Or as Arne might say micturating |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: George Papavgeris Date: 14 Dec 05 - 03:53 PM Oh, I doubt Arnold could pronounce that. Oh - Arne; sorry! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: GUEST,petr Date: 14 Dec 05 - 04:05 PM the ambassador is an idiot, as was the last one who said Canada 'will pay' for not supporting the US's Iraq debacle. the softwood lumber duty was imposed shortly after Canada sent troops to Afghanistan. and yet note that there is no duty on raw logs being exported to the US (funny that). after 5 Nafta panel rulings against the US they finally reduced the duty in half (although they still have to return the 5billion$ already paid).. The best solution would be for Canadian govt should impose an export tax on raw logs. as far as mad cow, North American beef industry has been integrated for years, it would be naive to assume there is no BSE in US cattle, (as has proven to be the case recently) second, the embargo was limited to cattle over a certain age and younger beef was still ok.. (this is because the US beef industry cannot meet the demand anyway, nothing to do with risk). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Arne Date: 14 Dec 05 - 06:31 PM You said it, not me, Mr. Tee. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: gnu Date: 14 Dec 05 - 07:11 PM Straight up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Beer Date: 14 Dec 05 - 11:13 PM Martin's got my vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: CarolC Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:29 PM I find myself wondering if this whole spectacle might have been set up jointly by the Bush people and Martin's people to help Martin get re-elected. Any chance of that being the case? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:39 PM I think liberals in general have a difficulty with ockam's razor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: CarolC Date: 15 Dec 05 - 01:46 PM Re: Ockam's razor, "simple" is in the mind of the beholder, rarelamb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Charmion Date: 15 Dec 05 - 02:14 PM That same ambassador, Mr. David (call me Dave) Wilkins of North Carolina, repeated his election comments yesterday on a CBC Ottawa radio show that features a studio audience. Comment from the floor: "When you receive criticism from your good friend and neighbour, perhaps you should examine your behaviour and see if you're doing something wrong" [or words to that effect]. The CBC host sighed audibly when a small boy stepped up to the mike with a softball: "What made you want to be an ambassador?" "Oh," said Mr. Wilkins with great enthusiasm, "what a good question!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Peace Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:11 PM Pedant alerat: "Occam's razor" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:15 PM Thanks, I didn't know how to spell it, and now I know ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Peace Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM I have my own problems with words like alerat. There's another spelling out there somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: Peace Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:19 PM I will, in future, remain alerat for that misspelled word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The right to remain silent From: GUEST,petr Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:25 PM I listened to excerpts of the CBC interview, and it wasnt all softball questions. the reporter did ask a couple of times whether the white house was behind the criticism, a question that Wilkins dodged. Of course the White HOuse is behind it, this guy is not known for shooting from the hip. THe problem is the WHite HOuse doesnt get it, the same kind of bullshit talking points the Republicans use in the US just dont work in Canada. BUsh is very unpopular, as are the obvious trade irritants (softwood lumber, beef, etc.) and while Wilkins' comments actually played in to Martins hands, the word is that the WHite House was not happy about the comments that Martin made at the climate conference and that Bill Clinton was invited to make an appearance in which he said that its time for the US to take action on climate change. oh, and I know the US has made more progress on reducing green house gases than Canada, except a large chunk of Canada's increase is 20% growth in exports of Natural gas and oil to the US since 1990. |
