NOYB wrote:

Instead of buying all of those natural resources from you guys, what's to
stop China from marching onto Canadian soil and just taking it?

Talk to residents of Montreal and you'll hear that they believe Hong
Kong has already purchased most of Quebec.

--
Skipper

*JimH* wrote:

Canada does not rely on the US Military for anything!

And the Tooth Fairy is real.

LOL

--
Skipper

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:39:29 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:



Personally, I'd vote for supporting Canada's entire military budget,
but only if they bomb Quebec back into the stone age.

~~ mutter - French speaking dorks - mutter ~~

Better be careful. Just this weekend I saw the top Quebecer in
Parliament talk about Quebec having it's own army. How many miles from
Quebec border to your town?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

Instead of buying all of those natural resources from you guys, what's
to
stop China from marching onto Canadian soil and just taking it?


Because China these days doesn't behave like the United States?

Bzzzzt. Try again.

In article , says...
Len wrote:

You can say that but where is the proof?

One of the great things about America today, is that the Looney Left has
been relegated to little more than barking dogs BECAUSE of their inept
leadership in the past. Most of Americas problems can be traced to these
loonies. Korea, Cuba, Iran, forced redistribution of income, and an
assortment of problems brought on by illegal aliens. These lefties are
outraged because their outrageous policies have cause voters to give
them no say whatsoever in the leadership of this country. Look at a
political map of the US. Find the red and blue states. There is the
proof you're seeking, the libs have been swept to the corners. Tends to
keep most of the country clean.

You mean unpopulated, don't you?

All the money and all the smarts reside in the corners Snippy.

You, of course, don't.

jps

"Len" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:31:44 -0400, " *JimH*" wrote:


Care to support your claims with some proof?
Just because you say so does not make it fact.

(Yawn)
Jim, you act like a boring child repeating a senseless question.
But the fact you're accompanied by so many alikes makes it necessary
to go on....
These aren't just claims or statements, they are facts.
You can look 'm up....

I'll try to enlighten you (mission impossible iii)
What is a fact?
Gorbatsjov was the person who had the right intentions up front and
grabbed his chance to stop a dynasty of dictators and reform with all
respect due to human values. He luckily had the chance during the last
days of a "week" man like tsjernenkov.
Whatever president of he us, Eastern Europe would have changed like it
did.

I'll also tell you what a (dumb and manipulative) statement is.
The statement that "it was Reagan who had scared the russian crooks so
bad that Gornatsjov had no choice but to abandon the reign of evil and
become friends with the great world leader".
My goodness, this is funny.... And to know that there are people who
actually believe that.... Alzheimer kicks in hard and early I
guess.... ....

The true reason is they couldn't outspend us! We were ever advancing our
military and delivery systems. Imagine if you will the soviet military mind
when he learns that US attack subs have been consistently inside soviet
protected waters for 10 years and most of the soviet subs have been shadowed
undetected for much of that time. Regan began a policy of informing the
Russians of these facts by allowing the soviet subs to detect our subs as we
come up behind then by our pinging them (One ping is like a radar lock for
aircraft). This gave away a tactical advantage but put pressure on the
government.

Along with pressure on the military Regan put the world press to use. IF
you grew up in Poland you probably couldn't hear many of his speeches. He
simply pointed out that the Soviet economic system didn't work, that
educated people were trying to leave Russia while our country had to patrol
it's borders to keep people out.

I differ with your statement: "Whatever president of the US, Eastern Europe
would have changed like it did." I think it would have taken another 10
years and would have been very brutal with many internal fights and quashing
of rebellions. Regan policies and speeches created enough support for
Gornatsjov (sp) that he could turn internal Russian politics on a different
course instead of the self destructive one it was on.

I'd be interested in where you get your news and the books that were used in
your education system. We have many here in this country that have a
similar view of world events and I'd like to pin down the sources of this.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:47:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:12:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:39:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


Len, I do not think that a lot of the Americans on this newsgroup
can
comprehend what an "Ugly American" really is. They look into the
mirror
and
only see a reflection of what they want to see.

Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American."

We, "Ugly Americans", will then respond with a poratriat of an Ugly
Canadian and an Ugly European.

You are a stupid little man.

Ugly American: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. All the same.

Not to mention Ugly Muslims.

http://tinyurl.com/extdp

OK. But, it has nothing to do with the three debacles I pointed out to
the
child.

True, but let's not limit the term Ugly. I mean, what about Algeria
in the late '50s? Ugly French. The Greenpeace "Rainbow Warrior"
murder committed by the Ugly French Government.

In fact, if you really want to use the term ugly, about all 140
governments in the world can be termed "ugly" in one sense or another
with one or two exceptions - Canada being one.

Ya know, you're OK. :-)

Back to binis, aka "business": The existence of one sin doesn't make
another
sin acceptable. Or, as mothers used to say, "Just because all your friends
are jumping off a bridge doesn't mean you have to, also". This country's
mission is to set an example for perfection, even though that's elusive.

Absolutely true in terms of what our Mom's used to say.

But my word view isn't limited by what others may say or think. There
is no such thing as perfection. And who said that we are perfect?

Consider the social progress we've made over the past 40 years or so.
40 years - think about it. In 40 years, the vote was enforceable
extended to minorities, women were given active roles in shaping
government and business, technology has increased 1,000 fold which has
mean a freerer flow of information. As a society we've changed more
in 40 years adopting some foreign values, rejecting others.

The very fabric of our society is changing as we speak. Whites are
about to become a minority believe it or not - in another ten years or
so.

And yet, when the fecal matter hits the rotating cooling device, who
does the world look to? Where do immigrants want to immigrate to?
What other society tolerates the virtual imprisonment of some Muslim
women (adhering to cultural values) while at the same time promoting
values that celebrate their unique humanity?

We are more than we think we are and at the same time can improve on
what we are. It's the very essence of American society - open, free
wheeling and willing to accept change.

There will always be fringe elements that ignore what an open society
is and attempt to close it if only to try and control it. The
progressives had their turn, it's now the conservatives turn and
eventually - probably not in our lifetime, but eventually, it will
even out and something new and wonderful will emerge from the conflict
and confluence of different ideas and values.

I don't think our story is over yet - believe me. I see kids today,
including my own - doctors, military, state trooper, who are smart,
engaged and looking forward to their time to set things straight.

The apparent dichotomy of our society can be illustrated by a story
that I enjoy telling. Last year over Christmas, my oldest boy came
home with some of his friends - six in all, male and female and we
went to Midnight Mass. The "kids", officers all, were resplendent in
their Dress Blues and after mass, they were standing waiting for us to
come out of the church.

I happened to be standing close to a friend of mine and his wife who
are vehement anti-war activists - very serious folks. He and I were
on the Vollies together and we've been friends for years.

Anyway, this little girl, about ten or so standing close to us, said
aloud pointing to my extended family "Are those Army men?" And my
friend bent down and said with pride and"No - they are Marines".

Then he turned to me, shook my hand and said "I pray that we never
have to ask them to do what they do so well."

That's the how it should work.


Well said, I wish I had said it rather than responding to the bait.

JimH,

Notice the typical liebral ploy......

statements made by "Len" are to be accepted as fact no matter
what.......facts presented by you are only opinions.


" *JimH*" wrote in message
...

"Len" wrote in message
news
You want facts?
Fact: Reagan inherited an economy from Carter with double digit
inflation,
double digit interest rates and gas shortages.

Is not a fact, but the way you set your period-boundaries and focus on
Carter.
You don't relate to previous presidencies. You just pick what
you can use. Presenting this statement as a fact also denies other
influences like world economy.
Such simplifications usually deminish the value of an argument. It
doesn't deserve the term fact.
All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like
Reagan.
But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic
performance.


LOL! Do you realize what you just said?



Fact: Ronald Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a financial boom with
government
revenue substantially increasing during his 2 terms.

You can say that but where is the proof? In your words this is
interpretation cause there may have been other explanations for the
development you mention, if it was there in the first place.
Sorry, still no fact, even by your own standards...


Sure it is. Show where it is not true.



Fact: Reagan cut federal spending as a share of the GDP almost 1%
during
his 2 terms.

No comment from you. Good, so we agree on this fact.


Fact: Reagan is the only president in the last forty years to cut
inflation-adjusted non-defense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent
during
his
first term.

Again, no comment from you. You must once again agree with this fact.


Fact: Reagan cut the budget of 8 agencies out of 15 during his first
term
and the budget of 10 out of 15 during his second term.

You can tell me anything here. I see your declarations but I see no
proof. But I guess you expect me just to believe what you say...


Are you saying that Reagan did not cut the budget of 8 agencies out of
15
during his first term and the budget of 10 out of 15 during his second
term?



Fact: Reagan brought the USSR to its feet (financially) with them
trying
to
compete with our Strategic Defense Initiative and a continued space
program.
This was one factor in bringing out the collapse of the USSR.


Interpretation and immense speculation. Sorry, no fact, not even
close.


You can choose to ignore those facts. You previously argued against
facts I
made about the Carter economy then closed with a statement you really
know
nothing about it. Such is the case once again my friend. You really
don't
know what you are talking about.

Fact: Reagan was one of the most popular US Presidents in history,
getting
525 of 538 electoral votes and 59% of the popular votes in the 1984
election.

Does that say something about Reagan or about the american public or
about the tv show the us political process really is...?

LOL!!


How about 'dem apples Len?

As far as facts were remotely in sight (most of your post was
speculation, selective use of history and interpretation): where can I
find the proof, Jim?


Try google.........it is a great search tool and quite easy to use. Let
me
know if you need help figuring out how to use it. The proof is there.


And all done without an attack on you or an insult to you.
Well in that case, you must feel you're a better person than I am....


If you say so.



Now come back once you learn to play nice.
I don' take orders.


Fine. Do as you want.



But seriously Jim. You are blowing my using the term "acting like a
boring child" out of proportion. Your roleplaying like being that much
offended ( "attack" is way too strong a word for this, "insult" is
also too strong) for gaining moral territory in our discussion is
indeed really childish....
And that is no longer a term used jokingly but now is an empirical
fact for me.

When we take a little distance we will have to conclude that we're not
going to be soulmates. You will probably keep using your "being
offended" and we'll both grab useable facts or what is presented as
facts to prove our point.
Maybe we'd better leave it at that.

Whining again Len?

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:46:10 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:

The true reason is they couldn't outspend us! We were ever advancing our
military and delivery systems. Imagine if you will the soviet military mind
when he learns that US attack subs have been consistently inside soviet
protected waters for 10 years and most of the soviet subs have been shadowed
undetected for much of that time. Regan began a policy of informing the
Russians of these facts by allowing the soviet subs to detect our subs as we
come up behind then by our pinging them (One ping is like a radar lock for
aircraft). This gave away a tactical advantage but put pressure on the
government.

Along with pressure on the military Regan put the world press to use. IF
you grew up in Poland you probably couldn't hear many of his speeches. He
simply pointed out that the Soviet economic system didn't work, that
educated people were trying to leave Russia while our country had to patrol
it's borders to keep people out.

I differ with your statement: "Whatever president of the US, Eastern Europe
would have changed like it did." I think it would have taken another 10
years and would have been very brutal with many internal fights and quashing
of rebellions. Regan policies and speeches created enough support for
Gornatsjov (sp) that he could turn internal Russian politics on a different
course instead of the self destructive one it was on.

I'd be interested in where you get your news and the books that were used in
your education system. We have many here in this country that have a
similar view of world events and I'd like to pin down the sources of this.

Jeff,

My sources are the news, opinion-papers and comments by america-
watchers (of various bloodtypes).

In terms of who deserves the most credit it is unmistakenly
Gorbatsjov. Why is it there is such a need to blow up the part Reagan
played? Don't you think any president with a smart advisor would have
done not exactly the same but would have added in the same amount?

Let me put it in another way: What would have become of this alleged
"Reagan-directed-end-of-the-cold-war" if Gorbatsjow hadn't been there
but another Brenzjnev-type or Chroestjow-type?

As another poster here said, Reagan was in the car, he wasn't the
driver but he was in the car. I admit to that. But any us president
would have been in that car.

Regards, Len.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:32:29 +0100, Len wrote:


In terms of who deserves the most credit it is unmistakenly Gorbatsjov.
Why is it there is such a need to blow up the part Reagan played? Don't
you think any president with a smart advisor would have done not exactly
the same but would have added in the same amount?

Let me put it in another way: What would have become of this alleged
"Reagan-directed-end-of-the-cold-war" if Gorbatsjow hadn't been there but
another Brenzjnev-type or Chroestjow-type?

I give Gorbachev quite a bit of credit, but it could be they both needed
each other to succeed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/