Dumb Americans [Archive] - Powerlineman.com Forums

duckhunter

09-02-2008, 08:30 AM

Canadian Government Encouraged Criminals to Kill Seals

In the last posting on our website on this issue (2/24/06), we reported that the Canadian Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Officers turned a blind eye to the activities of nine Cape Breton fishermen who cruelly and illegally slaughtered 220 gray seals in a protected wilderness area of Nova Scotia.

It appears now that the DFO officers actually encouraged the illegal slaughter.

"We were encouraging it," DFO spokesman Jerry Conway said on 2/23/06, a day after the men received summonses from provincial Natural Resources Department conservation officers as they stepped onto the dock Tuesday at Main-a-Dieu, Cape Breton County.

The pending charges are under the Wildlife Act, the Wilderness Protection Act, and the Environment Act. The nine men are to appear in Sydney provincial court on May 8.

The men killed the seals on Hay Island, a small outcropping off Scatarie Island, a provincially-designated wildlife management area. Because it lies within 1.6 kilometers off Scatarie, Hay Island is automatically included in the management area, a fact that at least two levels of government say they were unaware of.

"Not only wasn't this department (DFO) aware that Hay Island was not considered to be part of Scatarie, but the provincial Fisheries Department weren't aware, because both were encouraging the development of this fishery," Mr. Conway said, adding that when the seal hunt was established, sealers were informed they could harvest gray seals from Cape North through to the Bay of Fundy. No specific areas were closed to them."

So both the Federal and Provincial Fisheries Department were admittedly ignorant of the fact that this was a protected area.

"This is the kind of ignorance routinely displayed by the Canadian Department of Fisheries," said Captain Paul Watson. “Here they are in charge of protecting wildlife, and yet, they admit they don't know where the boundaries are."

A letter from the Natural Resources Department in 2003 alerted both government departments to this area being off limits, Mr. Conway admitted.

And as recently as three weeks ago, a group trying to develop a sealing industry in Nova Scotia was lobbying Provincial Environment Minister Kerry Morash to allow seals to be slaughtered specifically on Hay Island.

"The minister advised them that Hay Island is not open to hunting and they subsequently have been advised again and by DFO and DNR officers that there was to be no hunting on Hay Island and they chose to ignore that advice," Mr. Conway admitted.

Ewen MacIntyre, spokesman for the Natural Resources Department in Coxheath, said DFO regulates the seal fishery and that his department is involved simply due to the location of the hunt.

"As far as we are concerned, the onus is on the sealers to know where they can and cannot hunt," he said.

Victoria-The Lakes Member of the Legislature Assembly Gerald Sampson says he was approached last month by a number of northern Victoria County seal hunters who want Hay Island excluded from the wildlife management designation.

"They told me that they had harvested seals there previously and wanted permission to harvest seals there again," he said, adding he directed them to Mr. Morash and Neil Bellefontaine, a senior DFO official.

"I don't know if they received permission or if that was the group that was charged," he said.

Jay Luger, spokesman for the Grey Seal Research and Development Society, which wants to develop a grey seal industry, has refused to comment on the illegal slaughter on Hay Island.

It is expected that the arrested sealers will use the fact that DFO encouraged them to kill seals as their defense on the charges. It is also expected that the courts will be lenient.

"It is not as if they did something serious like photograph a seal hunt," said Captain Paul Watson. "Eleven of my crew were sentenced to jail for 22 days or a fine of $1,000 for the "crime" of witnessing the slaughter of one seal. These bastards viciously slaughtered 220 seals illegally and I bet their sentence, if they in fact are even found guilty, will be significantly more lenient than those convicted of trying to stop the killing of the seals. Justice is not blind in Canada; it is applied with great clarity and prejudice."

duckhunter

09-02-2008, 08:31 AM

MONTREAL — Montreal police violated a woman’s rights by rejecting her job application because of a prior shoplifting conviction, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

The woman, whose name has been withheld from court documents, pleaded guilty to theft in 1990 and was officially pardoned five years later. When she applied to be a police officer in 1995, the department ran a background check and discovered the conviction.

The woman was told her application was rejected because she didn’t have the “good moral character” to meet hiring standards.

But the country’s highest court said the rejection infringed on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Writing for the majority, Justice Marie Deschamps wrote that a person who has obtained a pardon is protected by the charter when applying for employment as a police officer.

She said the police department only based its rejection on the woman’s shoplifting conviction.

The court said while it’s true a police officer must demonstrate “exemplary behaviour,” the department could not use this one mistake against her.

Marc-Andre Dowd, vice-president of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, which originally championed the file, was satisfied with Friday’s ruling.

“The importance of this judgment is that it reinforced the value of a pardon,” Dowd said in an interview.

PA BEN

09-02-2008, 08:39 AM

If you or anyone else hates us. Why can't you answer a simple question?
Here in case you forgot the question; "WHY DO YOOOOUUUU HATE US SO MUCH?????

wtdoor67

09-03-2008, 04:05 PM

How can you say we are dumb when we elected George Bush pres. twice?

duckhunter

09-04-2008, 08:44 AM

I guess the same way we elected "Slick Willy" twice.

wtdoor67

09-04-2008, 09:07 AM

I guess the same way we elected "Slick Willy" twice.

Didn't Slick Willy leave us in the black?

RWD

09-04-2008, 04:12 PM

Depends on whose accounting software you use.

I voted for Bush twice and am proud to say so. All I have to do is look at where we might have been if either of the other two guys got in.

Now that said, Bush is not a favorite of mine but I would vote for him again in a heartbeat over the same two idiots he won against.

RWD

wtdoor67

09-04-2008, 04:53 PM

If I did I wouldn't admit it. Nobodies accounting software. Just ever paper, news commentator etc. that speaks of it.

What I can't understand if McCain wasn't good enough 8 years ago, why is he suddenly so great?

For ever segment of the economy that's doing well I can give you a bunch that are doing poorly. Just noticed that those old Visegrip Pliers that have always been around are going to China. Been made in Nebraska since 1924. Sad.

graybeard

09-05-2008, 07:50 PM

Hay Batts can you prove that second tour claim I've never heard that one before. Besides having been an officer and sitting in front of a subcomitee and talking about things you heard of is a srtike against him for me as a VET.

wtdoor67

09-06-2008, 12:48 PM

Yeah, technically he did 2 tours. Both kinda abbreviated I think. He was first on the USS Gridley CG 21 (a guided missile frigate I think) in early 68 which was deployed to Viet Nam waters and after about 4 or 5 months he transferred to swift boats. Then after training for them he was deployed to Viet Nam. I've never read his book but I believe he probably exaggerated his experiences. There's a blurb by an RD2 who was aboard the Gridley who seemed to know Kerry quite well. Said he spent quite a bit of time BSing with him when on watch etc. Since he also spoke French they had that in common and I think this guy had quite a bit of education for an enlisted man.

From reading I think Kerry's wounds were somewhat superficial except for one. He still has a piece of scrapnel in his thigh from one. Like all politicians you have to take anything about them with a grain of salt unless you have first hand information.

LostArt

09-07-2008, 11:43 AM

Steve, I responded to your PM. Let me know something.

hi fly tear n tie

09-14-2008, 03:27 AM

I don't come on line too often, now I know why.Who wants to listen to that little @#$%^ of a so called lineman do nothing but insult Americans. I live and work with Canadian linemen and they are all great people and never say a bad thing about Americans.Many of them have lived and worked in the US in the past when the Canadian dollar was not even as good as a peso. I'm pretty sure Canadian Lineman is about 4 feet tall, and has the hands and build of a bank teller,wife probably left him for a real lineman.So Canadian Lineboy I feel sorry for ya and we all should have some understanding for you, it must be lonely sitting by yourself in front of your screen.I don't think even your fellow Canadian lineman would support you, I think you are all alone one your views here.You don't hear American Linemen slamming Canadians like you do so maybe look around and see you are the only angry,lonely,little Canadian yapping on this site. This is comming from an American whom loves his Canadian brothers.:)

neil macgregor

10-12-2008, 11:56 AM

i dont know you guys over there in our old colonies just dont seem to be getting along think we,ll have to come over and teach you how to get along:)

HEAVY DUTY

10-12-2008, 07:15 PM

dear fellow american linemen,

overlook people like this. my father-in-law just married a women from canada and she is very different. strange.........very strange..........if she is any indication of what comes from canada then i never want to go there. it may want to rub off on me............god bless america....my home sweet home

wtdoor67

10-12-2008, 09:54 PM

Just like that female comedian said about the English royals. Buncha pasty faced inbreds. Very true.

This old boy I worked with once had a damn funny story to tell about the English. He was in the Korean War and was on a boat either coming or going, don't remember which. Anyway there were English soldiers and Americans on the troop ship. Said they were involved in one hell of a crap game below decks. One Englishman was winning regularly and ever other word from his mouth was "God Save the Queen" or "God Bless the Queen" or some such shit. This one American who was losing finally became pissed and jumped up and said. "F--k the Goddamn Queen". The limey looked at him and said. "You couldn't even approach her Yank". I thought that very funny.

neil macgregor

10-14-2008, 04:09 PM

Robert Roy MacGregor, (baptized March 7, 1671 – December 28, 1734)

McGregor Despite Them

A term of endearment???

you spell macgregor with an A

wtdoor67

10-14-2008, 06:58 PM

I was in the military with a Macdonald. I asked him if it was spelled Mcdonald. He was almost insulted that I would ask. He was Irish and said the Mcdonald was the Scottish way of spelling it.

mainline

10-14-2008, 09:03 PM

madcowboy33

10-14-2008, 09:55 PM

Canadian Lineman, I could give a crap if you think we are dumb, we could still whoop your ass any day of the week, Oh! wait you guys are'nt fighters. I think your jealous, maybe your a little kid trying to get attention, whatever you are a JACKASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

neil macgregor

10-15-2008, 04:17 PM

I was in the military with a Macdonald. I asked him if it was spelled Mcdonald. He was almost insulted that I would ask. He was Irish and said the Mcdonald was the Scottish way of spelling it.

wrong!
if he was called mcdonald he was from scotland either way it was spelled

neil macgregor

10-15-2008, 04:21 PM

Although I have Scottish in my background it is back generations. I don't claim Scottish as a heritage. I have visited Scotland on a number of occasions because of a friend living in the Highlands.

Scots have travelled the face of the earth and you can find a pipe band in the most unlikely of places. Because of this many people "claim" to be Scottish, or as I have heard them claim "Scotch". (MacGregor just rolled his eyes.) Most "claimants" have never been to Scotland - some cannot even find it on a map.

The further ones lineage is from ancestoral roots the foggier ones claim becomes.

My friend is a McDonald from the Lord of the Isles. Calling him Irish might raise some ire, but calling him English would raise some swords.

next time you hear some one say "scotch" smack them for me then tell them it,s scot,s not scotch thats whisky

madcowboy33

10-15-2008, 07:44 PM

You better damn well look up your history, before calling Canadains non fighters. you might just get punked.

Sorry I meant Pussies, again get F$cked SBatts!!!!!!!!!!

Fiberglass Cowboy

10-15-2008, 07:51 PM

:mad: SBatts... :mad: FU(K'S YOUR PROBLEM, STEVE? Haven't talked to you in a few years since i came home from IRAQ. NOW you show up in a pissed off mood; defending 1 ASSHOLE Canadian Lineman badmouthing Americans, And defending NON-UNION trash-talking former Phone-Phoney linemen Want-To-Be ELECTRIC (LiL' MUNI) linemen; talking shit about Power Linemen? Kind of medication are you on anyways, BROTHER ??? Enjoy the golden years. CHILL THE FU(K OUT, ALREADY.

ERIC ELDER
UNION STEWARD
KCP&L JOURNEYMAN LINEMAN
IBEW LOCAL # 1464
LEE'S SUMMIT,MO.

SGT. ERIC J. ELDER
MOS 21 QUEBEC - POWERLINE DISTRIBUTION SPECIALIST
249TH ENGINEERING BATTALION, DELTA COMPANY
UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE

OLE' SORE KNEES

10-15-2008, 07:54 PM

If that's your position, count yourself as the first, top notch DUMB.

The Old Lineman

LOL, Guess he did'nt check here.....................

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Dumb+Canadians&aq=f&oq=

RWD

10-15-2008, 10:16 PM

Looks like apathy in Canada. Lowest voter turn out on record. Too bad.

RWD

Squizzy

10-16-2008, 12:29 PM

I wonder how many African Americans would be taken off the electroll roll this time and weather if they are a member would uphold their complaints this time either that or Michael Moore faked some good footage...

Koga

10-20-2008, 11:20 PM

Koga

10-24-2008, 05:29 PM

But I'm not as old as you . I do remember alot of the early sixties news. And have witnessed first hand school integration problems. Never started or participated in any of the fights, mini riots or what have you. My opinion on the subject of race today can be summed up, a lot of "good christian" folks are going to be real dissapointed at the pearly gates when they ask St. Peter where thier kind of people stay and hang out.

Koga

HEAVY DUTY

10-24-2008, 11:44 PM

we should not even post anything on a thread that says dumb americans.......for one thing, just look who started the post. need i say more.....

Squizzy

10-31-2008, 09:35 AM

But here in Louisiana, They pay em , put on a chartered bus and ride em down to the voting booths with a marked copy of suggested candidates in thier hand. Been going on as long as I can remember. I think its called vote buying everywhere exept here. Here they just say its helping the poor folk exercise thier right to vote. There was an old joke about The state selling some old voting machines to Mexico. The very next election Edwin Edwards won the Presidency down there. Wouldnt surprize me.

Koga

Sounds like the sh!t the Liberal party got up to here, just up the road at the polling booth they got a couple of Sudanese "imports" to hand out "how to vote cards to all the "new" citizens complete with Sudanese instructions. The Union guys handing out cards for Labor were not impressed, thats ok next time we will be doing them in Vietmanese:cool:

copperpenny

12-13-2008, 02:27 AM

Don't paint with such a broad brush. Not all Americans are loud mouthed, fat, flip flop mashing heathens. It is the same as me bad mouthing all of Canada for being thong wearing french speaking Queebs, who for some reason feel the need to eat french fries with mayo. Canada the land of the bland as was was stated in a Prayer For Owen Meany. Making stereotypes is unbecoming and largely unintelligent. America is a nation of individuals, yes, some of us are jingoistic right wingers, some of us are bleeding hearts, and a lot of us are just honest hard working people. Many of us are saddened by the actions of our government over the past eight years. We have squandered much good will for nothing. For all of this, I am proud of my country, I think the people are by and large decent people who will act as generously as any in the world. I think that you speak too broadly and too harshly in condemning an entire people. It is not very becoming for one who claims superiority.

Dare I wade in . I'm new here .
Well said Mainline .
Let me just say that this guy isn't Canadian . I'm Canadian . My grandfather who fought in WWII was Canadian .
Here in Canada , we judge on an individual basis . If we judged a country on it's past practices , Canada would speak to no one , including itself . We all have our ghosts .
The member of this forum that claims to be Canadian , has a number of issues . Issues that can easily be dealt with .
1) Has to get out more . I went to Florida for Hurricane Wilma in '05 . I met a lot of real people there . I was blown away by their hospitality and concern for my well being . Intelligence and compassion go hand in hand . You exhibit neither . Try and experience something beyond your computer screen .
2) Believes that what he sees when he Googles is true or accurate . The point that a bunch of computer nerds from all over the world , gravitate towards what they want to see , doesn't make it so . That's like believing the school yard rumor mill . If enough people say it , it must be true .
3) And finally , just like Forest Gump would say , dumb is , what dumb does . You take the cake , the trophy , and the Frozen Igloo Award .
I also doubt that your a Power Lineman . Emphasis on Man .

Copperpenny
Canadian
The True North , Strong , unbiased , and Free.
________
Lincoln Y-block V8 engine (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Lincoln_Y-block_V8_engine)
________
Town Panel (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Town_Panel)

OLE' SORE KNEES

12-13-2008, 05:29 PM

Dare I wade in . I'm new here .
Well said Mainline .
Let me just say that this guy isn't Canadian . I'm Canadian . My grandfather who fought in WWII was Canadian .
Here in Canada , we judge on an individual basis . If we judged a country on it's past practices , Canada would speak to no one , including itself . We all have our ghosts .
The member of this forum that claims to be Canadian , has a number of issues . Issues that can easily be dealt with .
1) Has to get out more . I went to Florida for Hurricane Wilma in '05 . I met a lot of real people there . I was blown away by their hospitality and concern for my well being . Intelligence and compassion go hand in hand . You exhibit neither . Try and experience something beyond your computer screen .
2) Believes that what he sees when he Googles is true or accurate . The point that a bunch of computer nerds from all over the world , gravitate towards what they want to see , doesn't make it so . That's like believing the school yard rumor mill . If enough people say it , it must be true .
3) And finally , just like Forest Gump would say , dumb is , what dumb does . You take the cake , the trophy , and the Frozen Igloo Award .
I also doubt that your a Power Lineman . Emphasis on Man .

Copperpenny
Canadian
The True North , Strong , unbiased , and Free.

Good Post Copper !!

IronLine

12-14-2008, 08:24 AM

Spoken well my friend, spoken well. I'd buy ya a beer but I can't go to Canada :D Thats my claim to fame now, I tell people that out of all the countries I've been too I've been banned from 50% of 'em ;)

copperpenny

12-14-2008, 01:34 PM

If you were just a little bit closer there IronLine , I come to you and have that beer . Canadian of course .

Swamprat , good to hear you say that . You know how liberal we are in Canada . They leave mental patients out on day passes here , and unfortunately , some have access to computers. Again I doubt that he's who he says he is . 99% percent of the LineMan I've met , are good natured , down to earth , beer drinking , hard working kind of guys . He might be the 1% ?

I'd suggest letting this thread die , and get on with other threads that deal with real issues concerning LINEMAN .
________
hashish (http://trichomes.org/hashish/full-melt-hash)
________
Manufacturing UK (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Manufacturing_UK)

OLE' SORE KNEES

12-21-2008, 05:41 PM

I would'nt waste my time with this canadian "lineman".....LOL.....it is quite evident he's a 1 county boomer....that is ....if he even is a lineman..at age 41....LOL

show mo

12-21-2008, 06:51 PM

Isn't that the politically correct name you should be using. I think your just a narrow back (electrican's) who wishs he was a real man!
With out the 2nd we would be like our neighbors. God I glad im AMERICAN

lugnut

12-23-2008, 12:56 AM

don't let it get to you swamp. i haven't read all of this thread but i could probably guess how the parts that i haven't read actually go.

there are tons of people out there that hate our country. sadly enough, a lot of them are in our country. i never would have believed this to be true if you someone would have told me that 5 years ago. about 4 years ago i got to exsperiance absolute hate first hand.

FLASHBACK

i was in new mexico for formal military training (flight school). there was an anti-war protest going on out side the main gate when i left for lunch. when i pulled up to the gate a fellow walked in front of my truck and approached my driver side window (which was roled down). he looked me in the eye and spit in my face and called me a F'in baby killer and told me that he hoped that my kids would have their throats cut while i watched them bleed out.

i have 2 precious little girls. the thought that someone could feel so strongly and wish harm on my family because i fight for my country and his freedoms so he doesn't have to; well, i just don't know how to feel about that at all. to be honest, i'm not to sure i ever really got over that. i held my composure because that's what i'm trained to do.

this guy ain't nothing, hell, he ain't even part of our country. i worry more about the people on our soil that don't like us instead of some sour old man with a keyboard.

i certainly understand how it aggrivates you. it definatley disturbs me but what can you do about it other than argue a point that he will never see your side on.

canadianlineman

i've worked in the past with canadian forces overseas (outstanding individuals i might add). our countries work very well together and get a lot done. i have seen multinational forces work hand in hand to complete some of the hardest missions ever thought up. these guys were like brothers and still keep in touch to this day. i know that linemen aren't that much different than guys in the military. when it comes to keeping the lights on no other countries do it as fine as canada and the united states. this life is very short, way to short to live it filled with feelings like you've conveyed here.

i know that this likely doesn't change anything about the way either one of you feel but hey we're all brothers in this world, why not treat each other like it??

duckhunter

12-23-2008, 03:06 PM

Andrew Coyne.com
Home · Columns · Essays · Links · News · Feeds · Tunes

September 1, 2007
The unique stupidity of Canadian politics
Bloody September already. A last long weekend of bliss, and then -- politics. More specifically, Canadian politics. Even now the beast's rough, misshapen form can be detected, dragging itself this way; in another week, maybe two, it will be upon us....
The federal Liberals are well prepared for the fall session, having staked out a series of facile, simple-minded positions on difficult, complex issues: a plainly unattainable 35% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by next year; a unilateral withdrawal from a multilateral mission in Afghanistan; hints of bailouts for manufacturers, and so on. The Conservatives, for their part, seem to have lost all interest in policy, contenting themselves with packing diplomatic posts with party supporters and other delights of office. Before long they will be haranguing each other in Question Period, to the immense uninterest of the public.

At the provincial level, the election in Ontario promises to be the most tedious non-event in living memory. The Liberals can hardly dare to issue a platform, having broken every promise in the last. The Tories, principled sorts, have declined to offer much of any. Ontarians can have little clue what impact the election of either party would make in their lives, or what difference it would make which one they choose.

Is there any politics on Earth that is shallower, more boorish, less worthy of the attention of serious people than Canadian politics? Answer: There is none. Canadian politics is uniquely stupid. Our politics may not be quite as crude as the Americans, as cynical as the French, as corrupt as the Japanese. But for sheer vacuity, there is none to match us.

We are conditioned to deny this, to expect that politics is always and everywhere a game for morons. But it wasn't always quite as bad as this, and it isn't in other countries.

Have a look sometime at Prime Minister's Question Period in the British Parliament (you can watch it on the Web site of the American public service network C-SPAN). Or the Australian, or New Zealand's for that matter. The questions as often as not are actually questions, the answers bear a striking resemblance to real answers. No, really.

Debate is generally at a higher level in Britain, even outside politics, but the detail and seriousness with which the parties approach policy questions is notable. Here's a typical news story, such as you might read in any given week:

"Parents in areas of low quality state education will be able to club together to set up their own schools with the benefit of charitable status, under Conservative plans to be announced within a fortnight.
"The proposals, which will strip underperforming local authorities of their right to veto such plans, are likely to form a centrepiece of the next Tory election manifesto.

"The idea for new 'pioneer' schools, designed to appeal to parents fed up with local provision but unable to afford private education, will be outlined in a report to the shadow Cabinet on public services ..."

Bear in mind, this is from the David Cameron Conservatives, widely criticized as lightweights. Yet when was the last time anyone suggested anything half so bold here, whether on education or any other matter? The only debate in this country is whether to spend more money, or even more.

American politics can be ugly, but there is no counterpart in Canadian politics for the statesmanship of a Senator John Warner, no mavericks of the quality of John McCain. Here all is partisanship, and mindless partisanship at that.

Why is Canadian politics so moronic? It isn't that our politicians are especially stupid, as people: Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff are all intelligent men. They just behave like idiots. It's institutional, a culture of vapidity that drags even the best down to its level.

The dominance of the brokerage parties, combined with our peculiarly rigid tradition of party discipline, explains it in part: in few other countries is the party line so strictly enforced, to such trivial effect.

The supporting players also contribute: in particular, the expanding influence of the premiers in national debates -- power without responsibility, as it is said, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages -- has had a predictably coarsening effect, reducing what was an already overly regional politics to infantile calculations of profit and loss.

The role of the press gallery, marooned in Ottawa with only politics for amusement, must not be overlooked.

But two other factors should be mentioned. One is the size and shape of the Commons itself. Watch those British debates again: the two sides of the House are so close to each other they can almost touch.

In consequence, rather than bellow across the aisle, they are obliged to talk to one another. Nor do they sit at rows of desks, with all of the associations -- of schoolboys, or bureaucrats -- these imply. Rather, they recline on benches, as in ancient times.

And a last, more uplifting factor: peace and prosperity. That our politics is so banal is in part a tribute to our good fortune. We can (or so we imagine) afford it. In the absence of any obvious national crisis, we turn our minds to other things.

What 's that quote from Brecht? "Unhappy the land that has no heroes. Unhappier still the land that has need of heroes."

duckhunter

12-23-2008, 03:11 PM

A recent poll found that a majority of Canadians, including a whopping three-quarters of Quebecers, believe that U.S. foreign policy was the root cause of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This shouldn’t be so shocking; their previous prime minister, Jean Chretien, said practically the same thing a few years back (which I wrote about in NRO here.) In other words, they believe that the Americans brought 9/11 on themselves.

What makes this such a jaw-dropping finding, and prompts my question about the intelligence of the average Canadian in general (and of Quebecers in particular), is that it comes only a few months after Canadian authorities broke up a conspiracy among Islamic extremists in Canada in which a dozen men and five minors were arrested. They were apparently planning to blow up the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Canadian parliament, storm the national public-broadcasting building…oh, and they were going to behead the Canadian prime minister, too .

How can anyone in Canada, knowing this — and I assume it was news published there both in English and French — still believe that foreign policies, American or any other, have much to do with terrorism? How many such plots need to be broken up before the Canadians, or at least some Canadians, get the point? Do these same Canadians who think U.S. foreign policy is generating terrorism also think that Canada’s foreign policy would be to blame if their prime minister were decapitated on live television? Canada, after all, has over the past several years gone to no small lengths (especially under Chretien) to distance itself from the United States, and publicly opposed the war in Iraq. (As did Germany, by the way…but that didn’t stop Islamic terrorists from plotting to blow up two trains in Germany this summer, either.)

So let me for a moment address our Canadian friends (and I swear, I still do still think of them as friends), and try to state the obvious one more time. Unfortunately, I don’t speak French, but I’m sure some helpful Canadian colleague will translate this for me: It’s not about foreign policy, it’s about who we are. As long as we are a secular, tolerant, open, and free society — and by “we” I mean all of us in the West, including Canada — the terrorists will continue to strike, because everything we are, our very way of life, is repellent to them, and they are going to do everything they can to destroy it completely.

Is that clear enough, or will it finally sink in only when pieces of the Canadian parliament are falling out of the sky in burning flinders?

On the other hand, let’s not be too hard on our friends to the north. We have plenty of people down here in the Lower 48 who believe the same silliness about how this or that policy — and, of course, support for the Israelis — caused 9/11. (A small number of Americans are even so reality-deprived that they think the Bush administration pulled off 9/11, despite tapes shown this week on al-Jazeera of some of the hijackers meeting with Osama bin Laden and training for the attack.) And let’s face it: If we’re going to get into a “who can say stupider things than whom” contest with the Canadians, we have to acknowledge that Michael Moore is an American, which would give us an unfair head start right away.

The real problem here is that the Canadian poll results are just another example of a kind of denial that has set in among certain people, both inside and outside of the United States, over the past five years. These people desperately want to find some reason, some issue that can be solved, as the mainspring behind Islamic terrorism. Otherwise, they would have to confront the terrible reality that there is nothing we can give the terrorists that will stop the killing. We can change our policies, but we can’t change our culture or beliefs—or at least change them enough to suit the Islamic fascists who would turn the world into one big Taliban-run Afghanistan if they could. And so rather than face the fact that we’re at war with a relentless enemy with whom no negotiated peace is possible, such people retreat into fantasies about how the whole thing could be settled somehow if we could only figure out how to stop doing whatever it is they don’t like.

Blaming America, and American policies, might bring many Canadians a sense of comfort (and to some, no doubt, that smug feeling of superiority that too many Canadians seem to exhibit regarding Americans), but it is a foolish and only temporary escape from reality. The terrorists are going to continue to try to kill Americans, Canadians, Frenchmen, Germans, Russians, Australians, and anyone else they can get their hands on who won’t bow to their impossible demands.

Instead of ignorantly pointing fingers at U.S. foreign policy, the Canadians — citizens of our sister nation — should join the Americans in an attempt to lead the Western community in defending our common values of tolerance and liberalism, extolling them in one voice in the face of our would-be oppressors, and cooperating with each other to find, capture — and if need be, kill — the kind of people who would blow innocent men, women, and children to pieces for the sake of their own demented ideology. Any other course of action would be…well, stupid.

duckhunter

12-23-2008, 03:12 PM

Changes to Canada's immigration act passed in the House of Commons on Monday evening. Basically the changes mean that skilled immigrants will get in and unskilled immigrants won't. Sounds like sense finally infected Ottawa. But no.

Conservatives say the measures are needed to get labour into Canada, even though StatsCan reports that immigrants aren't filling any gap in the employment system. Unless you count unemployment as a gap that needs filling.

And critics say that limiting immigration to people who actually might help the country is discriminatory. To show the lunacy which grips Canada, the Liberals promise to reverse the policy when they form the government. Canadians simply won't stand for not letting in people who have no skills and no interest in Canada, and the Libs know that.

NDP Jack "Russell" Layton yip-yipped about missing an historic moment. I suppose he wanted Canada to agree to ship the poor of the world wholesale to Toronto.

These puffed wheat for brains leftards believe that we owe the world a piece of our pie and that importing more hungry mouths attached to fat derrières is the way to prosperity. When Canada is turned into a Third World country, who will be helped by that? Canadians think that can't happen. But it happened in South Africa, which now can no longer produce power for its hospitals. Who is helped by that development?

We are killing Canada.

duckhunter

12-23-2008, 03:13 PM

The 3 previous posts were sent out of love.

lugnut

12-23-2008, 06:22 PM

You seem to be confused, lugnut.

I didn't spit in your face, it was one of your own Americans apparently.

There in lies the problem. You confuse your own hate with how you feel about things in your country and then there is the rest of the world.

I'm Canadian. I don't hate you, I don't have that kind of time, I just don't agree with you on most things.

I know this guy that is Vietnamese. He has fairly good reason to hate your country, but you know what?? He dosen't either.

You americans simply need to get over it. It isn't all about you.

i never accused you of it. i was telling swamp that it doesn't matter what people like you think. i don't really care if you like us or if you don't, i'm more worried about what people in america think about our country than what people north of the border think.

wtdoor67

12-23-2008, 07:54 PM

Lugnut.

You're not claiming to have been in USAF flight school are you?

IronLine

12-25-2008, 05:34 PM

We're already here ;) Merry Christmas ya'll :D

IronLine

12-26-2008, 04:37 PM

Hell the only way to get wages to go up in my company is to invest in a set of knee pads and a hardhat to wear under the VP's desk. ;)

Not expecting to ever see a raise! :D

loodvig

12-26-2008, 05:11 PM

Hell the only way to get wages to go up in my company is to invest in a set of knee pads and a hardhat to wear under the VP's desk. ;)

Not expecting to ever see a raise! :D

If that's the case I hope they rubber up first!

Koga

12-27-2008, 01:31 AM

Thats good !!!:D:D:D

Stinger

12-28-2008, 09:51 AM

Hey CL- We ain't so dumb to realize that canada is just a colony of France- you act like them, talk like them, and kiss their ass and you know what the rest of the world thinks about France. Unfourtantely with with the man we elected president we will probably be a bigger socialist government than you- but do not worry we anit dumb enough to let him continue in office if we are not satisfied with him. We have different parties in our country. I think Canada has three parties- Socailist, Exterem Socailist, and Commie soliciast. I had a canadian lineman on my crew. Every ttime we did something he would always say " thats not the way we do it in Canada" Told to pack his drag bag and go back where he came from. Funny thing, he did not want to, liked it here in the USA and the wages. So with with being said, let the year 2009 arrivie and lets truly live with Peace On Earth and Goodwill Towards Men. lets try to put an end to world hate and work to live in peace regardles of our origin, race, creed or religion.

Dave@PSE&G

12-28-2008, 04:23 PM

Funny thing...
There are a hell of a lot of people trying to "sneak" in to become a "dumb American".
Exactly what does that tell you?

PA BEN

01-09-2009, 10:08 PM

A young Canadian man, searching for a way of getting drunk cheaply,
because he had no money with which to buy alcohol, mixed gasoline with
milk. Not surprisingly, this concoction made him ill, and he vomited
into the fireplace in his house. This resulting explosion and fire
burned his house down, killing both him and his sister.:eek:

OLE' SORE KNEES

02-02-2009, 07:36 PM

Dave@PSE&G

03-02-2009, 12:44 AM

I think this tread should be brought back. It is far too relevent to be forgotten.

;)

Suit yourself. Fire away.

Dave@PSE&G

03-02-2009, 03:24 PM

"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Friendly as they generally are, Canadians have always made me uncomfortable. There's something a shade off about them. They remind me of the aliens in sci-fi movies who move about undetected among the human population until they're tripped up by some joke or colloquialism they haven't been programmed to understand."

- CNN host Tucker Carlson, from Chapter 1 of his book
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Soviet Canuckistan."

- Conservative pundit and failed politician Pat Buchanan describes Canada, 2002.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task."

- Stephen Harper in his article "It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada," December 12th, 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"First of all, anybody with any ambition at all, or intelligence, has left Canada and is now living in New York. Second, anybody who sides with Canada internationally in a debate between the U.S. and Canada, say, Belgium, is somebody whose opinion we shouldn't care about in the first place. Third, Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he's nice, but you don't take him seriously. That's Canada."

- Tucker Carlson on the December 15, 2005 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I think if Canada were responsible for its own security -- you would be invaded by Norway if it weren't for the United States."

- American conservative pundit Tucker Carlson on the November 30 2004 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting."

- American conservative pundit Tucker Carlson on the November 30 2004 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Conservatives, as a general matter, take the position that you should not punish your friends and reward your enemies. And Canada has become trouble recently... It's -- I suppose it's always, I might add, the worst Americans who end up going there. The Tories after the Revolutionary War, the Vietnam draft dodgers after Vietnam. And now after this election, you have the blue-state people moving up there."

- Conservative pundit Ann Coulter on the November 30 2004 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave@PSE&G

03-02-2009, 04:15 PM

Well, everything must be absolutely fine now because Stephan Harper is presently our Prime Minister and has recently been re-elected to the position for his second term. :)

So you're pretty quiet on the Ignorance in the USA thing.

By the way, what happened to you not ragging on me???:rolleyes:

I'm not ragging on you. Trust me, if I was, you'd know it. I'm just playing tit-for-tat with you.

I'm glad to hear that Harper is in his second term. I guess Canadians are tired of their failed socialist ways, and wanted someone to correct the liberal mistakes that is Canada. Sort of like what we're trying to avoid here. Hence our complaining about the liberal agenda.

Understand now?

Dave@PSE&G

03-02-2009, 04:31 PM

Nothing like an average American dumbass to kick off Cinco de Mayo!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/236/2468848922_f959e85c08.jpg?v=0

In Houston, a Texan protesting amnesty for illegal immigrants argues
that anyone who can't master English doesn't deserve to live in America.

So much for "Send us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...":confused:

Hey slick, I hate to break it to you but Cinco De Mayo is May 5th.

Right now, English is the common language of America. It should be made the official language, but the liberals think it will offend those who don't speak english. When you stop to think about it... Who gives a shit what people from Guatamala or Mexico or France, or anywhere else, think about whether we speak English here or not! Especially if you're an illegal alien!

I don't have a problem with people who want to come to America to make a better life for themselves. I only ask that they 1)Sign the book on the way in, 2) Contribute to society(pay taxes, social security, etc.) instead of milking it dry, 3)obey our laws, and 4) learn to read, write, and speak English so we don't have to carry them and their families for as long as we do now. The generations of immigrants past have done it and they should, too. Or they can just turn around and return to where they came from.

This must seem like a crazy notion to you, because Canada is used to the socialist way where a portion have to work harder to feed, clothe, and care for the rest. Here in America, we're trying to avoid that particular cancerous existence.

Dave@PSE&G

03-02-2009, 04:48 PM

I see you agree with the woman pictured.

Yeah, I do. Except with the way she spelled "official". Nice try.

Dave@PSE&G

03-02-2009, 05:12 PM

Is editing after the comment is answered legal??? I see you added a whole lot to your original comment.

Quick thinking. What is it a 4 minute delay before your mind actually starts to work???:rolleyes:

No, I just thought it would be easier for you to follow if I kept all thought on one topic together instead of breaking it up into different posts. I can do it either way. If you want to post "like a big boy", we can do that for you.

Dave@PSE&G

03-02-2009, 05:23 PM

Good, when do you think you will grow up??:)

Right now. I have adult responsibilities to address. But hey, it was fun playing with you. I have to go now to shovel the snow off the walkway. I believe that's what you Canadians call "light yardwork".

Let's do this again real soon. ;)

Dave@PSE&G

03-02-2009, 07:35 PM

I have a question.

How did you get from here:

http://marinadedave.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/george_washington.jpg

To here

http://fred2blue.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bush-expression_1016531i.jpg

????

200+ years of kicking ass and taking names! ;)

Dave@PSE&G

03-03-2009, 01:52 PM

Yea, you kicked a lot of ass in Vietnam. And you're kicking lots in Iraq. You couldn't catch Pancho Villa after he raided Columbus, New Mexico even though the whole US Army gave chase, the Spaniards shot the crap out of the US troops on San Juan Hill when about 700 Spaniards inflicted over 1400 on 15,000 attacking US troops, I recall how well Custer did against the Sioux (lot of ass kicked there). Yup, ass kickes for sure. You didn't do too well against a few Canadians in the War of 1812 niether, did you??

You can sure suppy ammo to use against you, can't you??? Having a battle of the witts with you is like beating up and unarmed opponent.:D

Geo W looks quite intelegent in this picture. Can you belive this guy was elected twice???? Dumb Americans.

How can you still defend his policies?? Your economy is in taters, you have less repect in the world since Nixon, he is a dumb as LBJ (Gulf of Tonkin Incident comes to mind just like WMD), your manufacturing is leaving - excuse me - left, and your country is sliding into financial ruin with debt so large your Great Great Granchildren won't be able to pluck you out.

Yea, you can really kick ass.

Dumb Americans.

:rolleyes:

Ok, I'm done. You win. Hooray for you!!

Dave@PSE&G

03-03-2009, 01:53 PM

I figured this one belonged here too

http://persistentillusion.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/paris-hilton.jpg

No arguement here. She really is a dipshit.

Boomer gone soft

03-03-2009, 02:39 PM

old_muni_man

03-03-2009, 04:24 PM

I think it's true that a lot of people from other countries automatically hate you when they find out your American.... I go scuba diving when I can and I have run into this a few times.

I have never encountered it with anyone from Canada...in fact I can't say I ever met anyone from Canada I didn't like....the same with the British, Auzzies and Kiwi's. We have more in common with them than differences.

But if you want a uncomfortable boatload of people try going diving with Frenchies.....I've never met a person from france that would treat me half decent once they figured out I am USA.

Do the French like Canadians?

duckhunter

03-03-2009, 04:54 PM

The French don't even like themselves!

When the wife and I went to Ireland in 2003, we stayed in B & Bs. There were people from all over the world, and they all said the same thing about the French. My in-laws have been to France 3 times, they say once you get away from paris the country folks are real nice.

Dave@PSE&G

03-03-2009, 06:48 PM

CL,

just for the record...not all Americans are stupid, backward, rednecks.

Swamp and Dave do not represent the majority of Americans, nor are the representative of some "silent majority".

They are, simply put, ignorant loud-mouths who think paste and click is the same as original thought.:D

I am proud to have Canada as a friend and nieghbor. I firmly believe these ignorant pukes who worship at the altar of Capitalism can learn something from your country.

IT'S NO ACCIDENT CANADA HAS THE STRONGEST BANKS IN THE WORLD AT THIS TIME.:cool:

I'm ignorant because I don't think like you? Well don't that sound socialist?

Yeah, you're right and I'm wrong. Whatever, dick gone soft. Let's see what happens in a few years when it time to pay the piper for this government expansion. Then we'll see who the ignorant one is, jerkoff. You should move to the country to the north that you so admire, where you and CL can become domestic partners and live happily ever after.

I can't express with a keyboard how must disgust I feel towards these 2 knuckleheads.

Dave@PSE&G

03-03-2009, 07:27 PM

Not only are you an ignoramus, sir, you are a buffoon. It doesn’t take much to Google a subject and read what you find there if you can’t use the local public library. I guess you must be factually literate to be able to do this, though.

Apparently you would rather give your opinion …….

based on your own opinion.

As I said before …….

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Google and read what? That Canada's banks are strong? What does that have to do with the government expansion happening in the U.S.? :confused:

All I offer is my opinion on various topics. Unlike the liberals in the world, I ask questions before I accept that everything will be fine.

And you offer what, exactly? :confused:

The last word will be mine, just wait and see. Pathetic liberal sheep being led to slaughter. I almost feel bad for them, but they really need a wakeup call for their pipe dream policies. :rolleyes:

Boomer gone soft

03-03-2009, 08:11 PM

Dave@PSE&G

03-03-2009, 09:45 PM

Hey Dave,

Again I ask, where was all of your indignation when we wasted not just 1 but 600+ Trillion dollars and countless lives on King George's war? Where were your paste and click posts of those kind of lies? Where's your anger over wall streets abuses of the American (actually the world's) people? Where's your solutions to the problems your party caused?:confused:

sure is quiet.....

still waiting.....

You two sound like the you should be letting your hair go unkempt wearing sandals and a sandwich board reading the book of Revelation on Times Square.....but then again, you'd have to use your own words.;)

I've stated my position on that before, but I'll repeat it again just for you.

I was all for the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11, just like 99% of America was. While we are there, the issue of Iraq comes up concerning WMD's. The U.N. wanted to send inspectors in to see what the deal was. Saddam Hussien refused to allow them into Iraq 12 or 13 time different. When he did let them in, it was limited access. No Americans were on the team of inspectors. However, Saddam was more than happy to play cat and mouse. He recieved one last request which came with the explanation of what would happen if he didn't allow access for the inspectors. He thumbed his nose at the last request. So, the U.S. led forces invade iraq and remove Saddam from power. Things moved along at first, but we found nno WMD's, and we tried to fight a "pretty" war because of democratic whining about taking the oil, civilians being injured or killed, bombing mosques, etc. That is when the wheels started to fall off the wagon. It is also where Bush f**ked up. When the plan in place began to bog down, he should have re-evaluated the strategy and laid a new course. He was stubborn and refused, and just dug the hole deeper.

The liberals like to use revisionist history. Almost all were for the Iraq invasion (check voting records). When things got messy, like Bush said it probably would, they lost their balls. And why not, they didn't have anything to lose, Bush did. So they f**ked around as much as they could to assure that the war would remain a campaign issue that would play in their favor. I'm not suggesting that they prolonged it, they just didn't cooperate in a way that would have possibly made things easier. They all cried about the amount of money, but now they can't throw enough away.

As for the banking, I've said all along that the CRA, started by Carter, expanded by Clinton, led to the current problem. Here's how:

1)Congress decides that banks should ease loan restrictions so that low income people could buy a house. When it started, the home values were down, so the amount of risk was higher, but not outrageous.

2)With more people able to get homes, there are fewer available homes on the market. Construction starts increase, as does home value. A demand has been created. High risk borrowers still get loans, but the risk is inching higher.

3)Speculators, or flippers, see potential profits and easy financing, and they get into the game. This is where it gets ugly. Flippers buy up more available, usually distressed properties, and restore them. The demand, still rising, puts the flippers in position to demand more for their properties. Prices rise some more. High risk borrowers still get loans, but the risk is higher because now they are borrowing 100%- 110% of the homes value. ARM's become popular for the high risk people, because it keeps the payments lower for awhile, and since interest rates have been stable, it's a safe play. So they're told. The banks, meanwhile, are loving it because they get paid fee's for every contract, and they are earning interest on loans.

4)What set things up to fail was this: when banks buy and sell mortgages amongst themselves, they do so with a default guarantee, an unofficial insurance policy, to put the bank buying the risk at ease.This has apparently been going on for years, but there had been a very low default rate, so if a couple of loans went bad, they could cover it. This includes Fannie and Freddie. They were getting a piece of the action as well, buying up a lot of these loans. Because these are gov run, and some legislators were able to see some risky business going on, they asked questions about how these government "banks" were doing business. The dems in charge, who along with some republicans took campaign funds froim Fannie and Freddie, swore that everything was cool. No problem. In hindsight it was right then that the red flags should have gone up. If the government "banks" were being reckless, then private banks were probably doing it also.

5)The beginning of the end:Now the gov institutions, as well almost all major banks, were involved in these sub-prime loans (ARM's). The ARM's begin to expire, shooting the montly payment out of reach for the high risk borrowers (lower income people). They begin to default because they can't refinance because they can't afford a fixed rate mortgage payment, and the ARM is too much,also. So the banks have to start paying off on these "insurance" bets. But because so many ARM's were written, the default rate spikes, and now the banks are hemmoraging cash paying off the bad loans they sold. Suddenly, housing starts to slow because things have stopped moving. Construction slows down. People begin to lose their jobs. more defaults. Now Fannie and Freddie are holding mortgages that can't be paid. Suddenly, the major banks announce that they are on the verge of bankruptcy, they are about to fail. Now the feds start to pump cash into them... You know the rest, it leads us to today.

The real killer is greed. The banks (the CEO's especially), the flippers, the mortgage brokers looking for fees. They're all guilty. But like I said, it was the CRA that set this thing in motion. If I had seen it coming, I would have said something. But I didn't, you didn't, no one did. Now we are screwed.

That leads us to this: how does the government fix the mess we are in? The dems in charge have decided to spend so much money the Iraq war looks like chump change. Not only because of what they are spending now, but the interest we will pay, the cost to future generations, and the likely inflation that will occur due to the amount of cash pumped into the economy.

I don't agree with the way the government is going about it. Plain and simple. You say that makes me a f**king asshole. So be it. Time will tell for sure who the real f**king asshole is. Time will tell...

Dave@PSE&G

03-03-2009, 09:47 PM

Let me guess. Your favourite source of information is Rush Limbaugh you don’t need no stinkin’ Google nor Pubic Library.

Out of morbid curiosity, and I know I shouldn't even venture here, are you aware that there are other places on this earth than the USA that have influence on world affairs??

Are you aware there are other places on earth???

:confused:

After your normal 4 minute delay you’ll point out that it is not pubic, eh?

No jerkoff, I asked because I didn't understand what it was you were refering to.

Go canuck yourself.

Dave@PSE&G

03-03-2009, 09:48 PM

Dave@PSE&G

03-04-2009, 01:08 AM

Hey Dave,

Everything you said here is something that a liberal/pinko/dope smokin' faggot would have said. Are you sure you're not in the closet??

Ifn Carter had 1 term and Clinton had 2 terms that makes 12 years. Carter was sworn in in 1977 and Bush left office in 2009. Simple math and my calculator says that Regan, Bush and Bush had 17 years to change it all. That's 142% more time than Carter/Clinton. Now I don't really understand you system of govenment so can you tell me how Carter/Clinton had more to do with the failure of the Geo Bush administration policies and the US banking system collapse in 2008??

Canada has had way more Liberal govenment years than Conservative. Considering I am a Conservative I can rightfully blame the Liberal for all our woes because the Conservatives are rarely in, especially with a majority govenment.

How do you justify saying that the problems are the Democrats fault?

Also can you shed a little light as to why under ther Regan and then Geo Bush administration unemployment dramatically rose to record levels.

Now that I know you're not just another pretty face I look forward to being enlightened. Perhaps it will give me some insight into getting a Conservative Govenment in power in Canada more often.

Maybe we could loan the money to President Obama. The Bank of Canada just anounced today that Prime Rate is 0.5%

Yup that's 0.5%

Ok, pay attention. Carter initiated the CRA, or Community Reinvestment Act. It was considered at the time to be a good thing, but it was left to a degree where the banks didn't have to take too much of a risk. Reagan's administration left it in it's original size and scope, as did Bush Sr. Bill Clinton expanded it greatly, to the point where lending institutions were penalized if a certain % of their loans didn't conform to CRA guidelines. This expansion of the original legislation is what set things in motion. From what I can tell, either Bush didn't care about the CRA, or he wasn't aware that it was taking us down the slippery slope. He did nothing to correct it, so what's the difference.

If everything I said here is commie/pinko/liberal, you can be sure that it is a coincidence. Your pal asked, I answered. That's what happened.

I didn't blame the democrats for the banking meltdown, I said that they covered up a bad situation(Fannie and Freddie). Had they done the right thing and owned up, it might have caused some red flags to go up in the private banking sector and perhaps this shit could have been avoided.

As for your Reagan question, I don't know what you are talking about. Apparently unemployment was down under Reagan. As were taxes. What was up was the GDP. See for yourself. Take a look at the wikipedia link. Look at the 4 main points of reagans policy. it is exactly the opposite of now. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Does that answer your question?

loner

03-04-2009, 01:09 AM

i have to agree with cl about dumb americans only for these reasons,how many wetbacks are entering canada everyday,how many get welfare,subsidized housing,jobs over legal citizens,how many schools in canada have to teach in two languages?

Dave@PSE&G

03-04-2009, 01:12 AM

Dave@PSE&G

03-05-2009, 01:06 AM

In the 1st 2 years of the Regan administration unemployment reached a 30 year high, interest rates an all time high, homelessness increased 10 times, union were interfered with by the federal govenment, and fear that Regonomics would push the USA into another depresion line the 1930's were pervelent.

Regan had a theory that he could cause a "short sharp shock" to the economy and defeat inflation that every President since Nixon had vowed to defeat. Regon's "short sharp shock" got away on him and caused 18 months of ecconomic pain that was felt around the world. It did defeat inflation and fears of massive uncontrolable deflation caused panic in the investment world. The early '80's caught manufacturing and the distribution system by total surprise and the wearhouses filled as munufactures kept producing but consumers stopped spending. This lead to massive dumping of manufactured goods through the back door with the results being bankruptcies, both personal and corporate, reaching a 50 year high.

House prices plunged and many just walked away from thier property.

Yea, Ronnie was a fun guy.

Get it right. The interest rates during the Carter Administration started @6.75% and ended @16.5%. When Reagan took office they were still rising, and his policies were able to stop the rise and began to drop rates within 18 months of taking office. During this time, unemployment spiked for a short period, but dropped way down after that.

I don't know where you get your facts from. Probably in the recesses of your liberal mind where conservatives are the evil gnomes and the liberals are the heroes, being everything to everyone. Do me a favor. If you want to spit out numbers and facts, check your sources for accuracy first so as not to waste my time.

Boomer gone soft

03-05-2009, 05:05 PM

I've stated my position on that before, but I'll repeat it again just for you.

I was all for the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11, just like 99% of America was. While we are there, the issue of Iraq comes up concerning WMD's. The U.N. wanted to send inspectors in to see what the deal was. Saddam Hussien refused to allow them into Iraq 12 or 13 time different. When he did let them in, it was limited access. No Americans were on the team of inspectors. However, Saddam was more than happy to play cat and mouse. He recieved one last request which came with the explanation of what would happen if he didn't allow access for the inspectors. He thumbed his nose at the last request. So, the U.S. led forces invade iraq and remove Saddam from power. Things moved along at first, but we found nno WMD's, and we tried to fight a "pretty" war because of democratic whining about taking the oil, civilians being injured or killed, bombing mosques, etc. That is when the wheels started to fall off the wagon. It is also where Bush f**ked up. When the plan in place began to bog down, he should have re-evaluated the strategy and laid a new course. He was stubborn and refused, and just dug the hole deeper.

The liberals like to use revisionist history. Almost all were for the Iraq invasion (check voting records). When things got messy, like Bush said it probably would, they lost their balls. And why not, they didn't have anything to lose, Bush did. So they f**ked around as much as they could to assure that the war would remain a campaign issue that would play in their favor. I'm not suggesting that they prolonged it, they just didn't cooperate in a way that would have possibly made things easier. They all cried about the amount of money, but now they can't throw enough away.

As for the banking, I've said all along that the CRA, started by Carter, expanded by Clinton, led to the current problem. Here's how:

1)Congress decides that banks should ease loan restrictions so that low income people could buy a house. When it started, the home values were down, so the amount of risk was higher, but not outrageous.

2)With more people able to get homes, there are fewer available homes on the market. Construction starts increase, as does home value. A demand has been created. High risk borrowers still get loans, but the risk is inching higher.

3)Speculators, or flippers, see potential profits and easy financing, and they get into the game. This is where it gets ugly. Flippers buy up more available, usually distressed properties, and restore them. The demand, still rising, puts the flippers in position to demand more for their properties. Prices rise some more. High risk borrowers still get loans, but the risk is higher because now they are borrowing 100%- 110% of the homes value. ARM's become popular for the high risk people, because it keeps the payments lower for awhile, and since interest rates have been stable, it's a safe play. So they're told. The banks, meanwhile, are loving it because they get paid fee's for every contract, and they are earning interest on loans.

4)What set things up to fail was this: when banks buy and sell mortgages amongst themselves, they do so with a default guarantee, an unofficial insurance policy, to put the bank buying the risk at ease.This has apparently been going on for years, but there had been a very low default rate, so if a couple of loans went bad, they could cover it. This includes Fannie and Freddie. They were getting a piece of the action as well, buying up a lot of these loans. Because these are gov run, and some legislators were able to see some risky business going on, they asked questions about how these government "banks" were doing business. The dems in charge, who along with some republicans took campaign funds froim Fannie and Freddie, swore that everything was cool. No problem. In hindsight it was right then that the red flags should have gone up. If the government "banks" were being reckless, then private banks were probably doing it also.

5)The beginning of the end:Now the gov institutions, as well almost all major banks, were involved in these sub-prime loans (ARM's). The ARM's begin to expire, shooting the montly payment out of reach for the high risk borrowers (lower income people). They begin to default because they can't refinance because they can't afford a fixed rate mortgage payment, and the ARM is too much,also. So the banks have to start paying off on these "insurance" bets. But because so many ARM's were written, the default rate spikes, and now the banks are hemmoraging cash paying off the bad loans they sold. Suddenly, housing starts to slow because things have stopped moving. Construction slows down. People begin to lose their jobs. more defaults. Now Fannie and Freddie are holding mortgages that can't be paid. Suddenly, the major banks announce that they are on the verge of bankruptcy, they are about to fail. Now the feds start to pump cash into them... You know the rest, it leads us to today.

The real killer is greed. The banks (the CEO's especially), the flippers, the mortgage brokers looking for fees. They're all guilty. But like I said, it was the CRA that set this thing in motion. If I had seen it coming, I would have said something. But I didn't, you didn't, no one did. Now we are screwed.

That leads us to this: how does the government fix the mess we are in? The dems in charge have decided to spend so much money the Iraq war looks like chump change. Not only because of what they are spending now, but the interest we will pay, the cost to future generations, and the likely inflation that will occur due to the amount of cash pumped into the economy.

I don't agree with the way the government is going about it. Plain and simple. You say that makes me a f**king asshole. So be it. Time will tell for sure who the real f**king asshole is. Time will tell...

Honestly, what planet are you from?

You are the only person (other than perhaps Scabrat and Rush), trying to pin this thing on Carter.

Get real.

The problem was deregulation and lack of oversight of the banking industry.

You'll note the period.:D

That, my friend, is why Canada has the strongest banks in the world.

Boomer gone soft

03-05-2009, 05:29 PM

Ok, pay attention. Carter initiated the CRA, or Community Reinvestment Act. It was considered at the time to be a good thing, but it was left to a degree where the banks didn't have to take too much of a risk. Reagan's administration left it in it's original size and scope, as did Bush Sr. Bill Clinton expanded it greatly, to the point where lending institutions were penalized if a certain % of their loans didn't conform to CRA guidelines. This expansion of the original legislation is what set things in motion. From what I can tell, either Bush didn't care about the CRA, or he wasn't aware that it was taking us down the slippery slope. He did nothing to correct it, so what's the difference.

If everything I said here is commie/pinko/liberal, you can be sure that it is a coincidence. Your pal asked, I answered. That's what happened.

I didn't blame the democrats for the banking meltdown, I said that they covered up a bad situation(Fannie and Freddie). Had they done the right thing and owned up, it might have caused some red flags to go up in the private banking sector and perhaps this shit could have been avoided.

As for your Reagan question, I don't know what you are talking about. Apparently unemployment was down under Reagan. As were taxes. What was up was the GDP. See for yourself. Take a look at the wikipedia link. Look at the 4 main points of reagans policy. it is exactly the opposite of now. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Does that answer your question?

Unemployment was down during Reagan? Not that much:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603210007

Interest rates in 1981 were 20%. They're almost zero now.

BTW, wikipedia is not a great source to quote. It is made up of people's opinions with little or no documentation.

wtdoor67

03-05-2009, 07:07 PM

BTW, wikipedia is not a great source to quote. It is made up of people's opinions with little or no documentation.~~~~~~~~~~~

You're right of course. Don't think many people realize that. My younger son is always cracking up by going on there and posting a bunch of bogus stuff and it usually takes quite a while before they realize they've been had. Pretty funny.

Dave@PSE&G

03-05-2009, 08:55 PM

Honestly, what planet are you from?

You are the only person (other than perhaps Scabrat and Rush), trying to pin this thing on Carter.

Get real.

The problem was deregulation and lack of oversight of the banking industry.

You'll note the period.:D

That, my friend, is why Canada has the strongest banks in the world.

Do they drug test you at work? I think you must be stoned. I did not say that it was Carter's fault. I said it started with a program that he initiated. In it's original form it was a useful tool to help some people. It was also not a very risky move for the banks in it's original size. When Clinton expanded the program, it now became a higher risk for the banks. Then the greed and fraud and other misc. bullshit went on and presto, here we are. Read the post again, I am not blaming Carter or Clinton. It wasn't their fault directly.

The only blame I laid on anyone was with the guardians of Fannie and Freddie. When there was speculation that there were problems, the dems in charge (Barney Frank) swore that there wasn't a problem. Again, if someone, ANYONE, would have 'fessed up, perhaps the private banks might have been checked also, which might have enabled us to avoid the meltdown.

I'm starting to think that all you want to do is be a beligerant ass. I'm not interested in going back and forth so you can get your jollies. If you want to exchange ideas, great. If all you are interested in is arguing, find someone else. I'm sick of it.

Dave@PSE&G

03-05-2009, 09:06 PM

Unemployment was down during Reagan? Not that much:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603210007

Interest rates in 1981 were 20%. They're almost zero now.

BTW, wikipedia is not a great source to quote. It is made up of people's opinions with little or no documentation.

The interest rate peak you mention is the carryover from Carter's term. Please don't even attempt to tell me that Reagan caused that. The rates are indeed at zero now. That was an effort to free up the cash flow between banks, but it didn't work. That's why I get uptight about the tax bill. When Obama dumped so much cash into our economy, he is setting the table for a spike in inflation. Do you know what the fed traditionally uses to combat rising inflation? It lowers the prime rate. Being at zero, there is no where for it to go. It's like taking a knife to a gunfight.

That's good to know about Wikipedia. But you will notice, I did include another source for the same information in an effort to be thorough.

wtdoor67

03-05-2009, 09:10 PM

Swimpfag, you poor misinformed piece of Limbaugh shit. Do you not realize a plethora of crap found on the innernet is just that. It's crap. You just have to be intelligent enough to sort out the facts.

Hint.......Ask Rush if you're in doubt. He only speaks the truth. You poor little miserable Buttwipe.

You own a Dictionary? Wow, what's the world coming to? Be nice if you knew how to use it.

duckhunter

03-06-2009, 08:02 AM

I notice ther are no interest rated shown under the last Bush administration? Too low to show or does that just screw up your theory?

Dave@PSE&G

03-06-2009, 11:02 AM

Interest rates

1974-02-25 8.75
1974-03-22 9.00
1974-04-01 9.25
1974-04-04 9.50
1974-04-08 9.75
1974-04-11 10.00
1974-04-22 10.25
1974-04-25 10.50
1974-05-02 10.75
1974-05-07 11.00
1974-05-10 11.25
1974-05-17 11.50
1974-06-27 11.75
1974-07-08 12.00
1974-10-08 11.75
1974-10-22 11.25
1974-11-06 11.00
1974-11-13 10.75
1974-11-25 10.25
1975-01-13 10.00
1975-01-28 9.50
1975-02-03 9.00
1975-02-18 8.75
1975-02-24 8.50
1975-03-03 8.25
1975-03-10 8.00
1975-03-19 7.75
1975-03-25 7.50
1975-05-20 7.25
1975-06-09 7.00
1975-07-18 7.25
1975-07-25 7.50
1975-08-11 7.75
1975-09-15 8.00
1975-10-27 7.75
1975-11-04 7.50
1975-12-01 7.25
1976-01-12 7.00
1976-01-21 6.75
1976-06-01 7.00
1976-06-04 7.25
1976-08-02 7.00
1976-10-01 6.75
1976-10-29 6.50
1976-12-10 6.25
1977-05-13 6.50
1977-05-27 6.75
1977-08-22 7.00
1977-09-16 7.25
1977-10-07 7.50
1977-10-24 7.75
1978-01-10 8.00
1978-05-05 8.25
1978-05-26 8.50
1978-06-16 8.75
1978-06-30 9.00
1978-09-01 9.25
1978-09-15 9.50
1978-09-28 9.75
1978-10-13 10.00
1978-10-27 10.25
1978-11-01 10.50
1978-11-06 10.75
1978-11-17 11.00
1978-11-24 11.50
1978-12-26 11.75
1979-06-19 11.50
1979-07-27 11.75
1979-08-16 12.00
1979-08-28 12.25
1979-09-07 12.75
1979-09-14 13.00
1979-09-20 13.25
1979-09-28 13.50
1979-10-09 14.50
1979-10-24 15.00
1979-11-01 15.25
1979-11-09 15.50
1979-11-16 15.75
1979-11-30 15.50
1979-12-07 15.25
1980-02-19 15.75
1980-02-22 16.50
1980-02-29 16.75
1980-03-04 17.25
1980-03-07 17.75
1980-03-14 18.50
1980-03-19 19.00
1980-03-28 19.50
1980-04-02 20.00
1980-04-18 19.50
1980-05-01 18.50
1980-05-07 17.50
1980-05-16 16.50
1980-05-23 14.50
1980-05-28 14.00
1980-06-06 13.00
1980-06-13 12.50
1980-06-17 12.00
1980-07-07 11.50
1980-07-23 11.00
1980-08-22 11.25
1980-08-27 11.50
1980-09-08 12.00
1980-09-12 12.25
1980-09-19 12.50
1980-09-26 13.00
1980-10-01 13.50
1980-10-17 14.00
1980-10-29 14.50
1980-11-06 15.50
1980-11-17 16.25
1980-11-21 17.00
1980-11-26 17.75
1980-12-02 18.50
1980-12-05 19.00
1980-12-10 20.00
1980-12-16 21.00
1980-12-19 21.50
1981-01-02 20.50
1981-01-09 20.00
1981-02-03 19.50
1981-02-23 19.00
1981-03-03 18.50
1981-03-10 18.00
1981-03-17 17.50
1981-03-24 17.00
1981-03-27 17.50
1981-04-01 17.00
1981-04-20 17.50
1981-04-29 18.00
1981-05-04 19.00
1981-05-11 19.50
1981-05-18 20.00
1981-05-22 20.50
1981-06-01 20.00
1981-07-08 20.50
1981-09-16 20.00
1981-09-22 19.50
1981-10-05 19.00
1981-10-13 18.00
1981-11-02 17.50
1981-11-09 17.00
1981-11-16 16.50
1981-11-24 16.00
1981-12-01 15.75
1982-02-02 16.50
1982-02-17 17.00
1982-02-23 16.50
1982-07-20 16.00
1982-07-29 15.50
1982-08-02 15.00
1982-08-16 14.50
1982-08-18 14.00
1982-08-23 13.50
1982-10-07 13.00
1982-10-13 12.00
1982-11-22 11.50
1983-01-11 11.00
1983-02-25 10.50
1983-08-08 11.00
1984-03-19 11.50
1984-04-05 12.00
1984-05-08 12.50
1984-06-25 13.00
1984-09-27 12.75
1984-10-16 12.50
1984-10-29 12.00
1984-11-08 11.75
1984-11-28 11.25
1984-12-19 10.75
1985-01-15 10.50
1985-05-20 10.00
1985-06-18 9.50
1986-03-07 9.00
1986-04-21 8.50
1986-07-11 8.00

If you notice they started to spike around the time Regan was elected, prior to being sworn in and didn't have relief until 1983 but did not stabilise untill 1985. Although they did climb under Carter they did start to stablise in mid 1980. They reached near usery rates immediatly after Reagonomics stated in November 1980.

Are all Canadians this f**king stupid?

Carter - 1/21/76 6.75%
2/22/80 16.50%
A rise of 9.75% under Carter.

Reagan- 2/22/80 16.5%
4/2/80 20% (Peak %, 2 months into 1st term)

It went up 3.5% under Reagan, for 2 months, then steadily dropped. How can you sit and say that reagans policies raised rates? Looks to me like his policies corrected things.

**I got my information from the numbers you just posted.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK, STUPID!

Dave@PSE&G

03-06-2009, 10:47 PM

Really, so why did you miss this???

1980-04-02 20.00
1980-04-18 19.50
1980-05-01 18.50
1980-05-07 17.50
1980-05-16 16.50
1980-05-23 14.50
1980-05-28 14.00
1980-06-06 13.00
1980-06-13 12.50
1980-06-17 12.00
1980-07-07 11.50
1980-07-23 11.00
1980-08-22 11.25
1980-08-27 11.50
1980-09-08 12.00
1980-09-12 12.25
1980-09-19 12.50
1980-09-26 13.00
1980-10-01 13.50
1980-10-17 14.00
1980-10-29 14.50
1980-11-06 15.50
1980-11-17 16.25
1980-11-21 17.00
1980-11-26 17.75
1980-12-02 18.50
1980-12-05 19.00
1980-12-10 20.00
1980-12-16 21.00
1980-12-19 21.50
1981-01-02 20.50
1981-01-09 20.00
1981-02-03 19.50
1981-02-23 19.00
1981-03-03 18.50
1981-03-10 18.00
1981-03-17 17.50
1981-03-24 17.00
1981-03-27 17.50
1981-04-01 17.00
1981-04-20 17.50
1981-04-29 18.00
1981-05-04 19.00
1981-05-11 19.50
1981-05-18 20.00
1981-05-22 20.50
1981-06-01 20.00
1981-07-08 20.50
1981-09-16 20.00
1981-09-22 19.50
1981-10-05 19.00
1981-10-13 18.00
1981-11-02 17.50
1981-11-09 17.00
1981-11-16 16.50
1981-11-24 16.00
1981-12-01 15.75
1982-02-02 16.50
1982-02-17 17.00
1982-02-23 16.50
1982-07-20 16.00
1982-07-29 15.50
1982-08-02 15.00
1982-08-16 14.50
1982-08-18 14.00
1982-08-23 13.50

Over sight??

My mistake. Sorry.

Still, under Reagan the economy settled down in a relatively short period of time, and the country enjoyed several years of prosperity in the 80's. Of course when a lot of people look back on it, they will say that Reaganomics ruined the country (which is bullshit), but I don't remember too many people complaining about the money they were making.

Reagan believed that shrinking government and reducing the tax burden on the upper 1%-3% of taxpayers would benefit everyone because that 1%-3% were the players. They put their money in the markets, invested in businesses (which would create jobs), bought cars, boats, clothes, toys, and just spent money, period. Obama and the dems are just throwing cash out there with no "plan B". Tell me something; if this tax bill doesn't get the economy on it's feet, what will happen next? We will be in a tremendous hole, with no course of action because tax cuts will be out of the question due to the size of the debt. If it does work, we still have a tremendous debt to repay. It is a lose/lose situation.

Meat

03-07-2009, 02:39 AM

You guys wear me out. You guys need to take a page out of Meat's book: No religion(Atheist by choice)No interest in politics( I know there isn't a darn thing I can do about it anyway) I hate Rep. and Dems. equally. I'm loyal to my family and my local union.Good night and god bless ya!

Boomer gone soft

03-10-2009, 01:23 PM

As ever bit of information we humans have at out beckoning call since the invention of the printing press any and all printed matter, including that found on the Internet, must be subject to careful scrutiny by the reader. That is why a number of sources concerning the subject must be used on the part of the person basing their opinion on that information.

That said Wikipedia is a fairly good source of information to start with as it is so readily available and most articles list a bibliography of sources for information. It is inconceivable for an unsophisticated youth, as Swamprat suggests, to have a bearing on the Information found in Wikipedia making it “ain't worth a shit...Wtdoor67's kid and a lot of other people just fu$k that site up. It ai't "Reliable". Wikipedia simply wouldn’t have lasted as long as it has. However, I use many other sources other than Wikipedia as I have shown.

Wikipedia certainly has more credibility than much of the “documentation” Swamprat has ever posted on this site. When Swamprat actually posts someone else’s opinion, and that is quite unusual because Swamprats opinion is based on Swamprats opinion, it is usually a kook like Rush Limbaugh’s or the controversial like. :rolleyes:

Actually CL,

Scabrat has learned that wiki may not be reliable.....he's into quoting blogs these days....what a dumbass.:rolleyes: