From Media Matters.org

So our greedy Canadians are going to Jesusland? Good place for them. So if the greedy move south do the compassionate USAmericans move north? And, if I can be so bold as to assume that, then, let me go further and state the obvious. There are half as many compassionate USAmericans as there are greedy Canadians and we have 1/10th their population. So that's what, 3, USAmericans moving north each year?

Another thing we all need to clear up here and this would be as good a place as any. Canada is actually not just north of the USA. We forget Alaska up here like a hat worn off to the side of Canada, like a French beret, and the southern part of the USA is like a pair of German lederhosen covering Canada's ass. Could this be where the myth has sprung from that the USA is protecting us? But looked at in this way, it is Canada that is indeed giving the USA a free ride.

Well this post has certainly erroded into bash you we bash you back...I guess it can be expected because the story is a great big bash! Coulture is fluff, not taken seriously as a writer, I have seen her on CNN and can't believe they bother, not just bashing Canada, but Americans that don't fit her type.

We all know and have said repeatedly the people of the U.S. and the people of Canada are basicly good people for the most part, many are ignorant of the political policies of their respective countries and that is in large part due to the corporate influenced media.

Until we all become more educated and demand more and better news coverage, as well as clear transparent representation from our elected officials, we won't have a hope in hell of convincing anyone that North America is in deep shit! Both countries are increasing poverty and those living it know, but are not saying much for now, perhaps because many have had nothing for so long, but wait till more of the 'haves' become 'have nots'...it won't be pretty!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Canada should trade Alberta for the 11 blue states. I'd bet Jerry would love that.

The people in Alberta, our most socially conservative province, are still more liberal than the most liberal state.

---
It's all up to us, all of us, now. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. He has kept his promises and earned his sleep.

What you are describing is a "typical" Ontarian(?). What Ontario thinks has come to define what Canada thinks. And that just ain't so.

---
RickW

http://jokelibrary.150m.com/words/quotes4.html In 1787 Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Madison "I hold that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing." In 1956 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when quote was read, Senator Watkins declared: "If Jefferson were here and advocated such a thing, I would move that he be prosecuted." In 225 years, the US has gone 180 degrees, from individuality to lockstep; from philosophic anarchy to Oceania.......--- RickW

I think Jefferson was joking.

"I think there should be no mercy shown to these sub-humans. I believe that a thousand of them should be killed tomorrow. I think a thousand of them held in the Iraqi prison should be given 24 hour[s] -- a trial and executed. I think they need to be shown that we are not going to roll over to them ... Instead of putting joysticks, I would have liked to have seen dynamite put in their orifices and they should be dropped from airplanes ... They should put dynamite in their behinds and drop them from 35,000 feet, the whole pack of scum out of that jail."

—Michael Savage, on Abu Ghraib Prisoners

now everyone knows Savage is a jooo, a Mossad agent for all intents and purposes. In this wonderful world of slander, can anyone expect to top those that aspire to remain at the top of the pyramid? I think not.

savage is a psycho. not even Himmler would spout off like that.

Anyone can be made to change with the right stimulus, even if that stimulus might be a gun. 
 
The Bandler Method 
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/bandlertrial/bandler1.html">http://www.geocities.com/bandlertrial/bandler1.html</a> 
 
Savage and Bandler, two of a kind.

Ahh yes, here we see that most unnattractive attribute of an american... It's complete arrogance. Ms Coulter seems to have missed a few important points in her little rant against my country.
#1 "We could have taken them [Canada] over so easily"

Never heard of the war of 1812? You know that's the one where the Canadians not only defended our border against american aggression but drove the american forces back and burned down your beloved whitehouse.

#2 "They don't even need to have an army, because they are protected, because they're on the same continent with the United States of America. If we were not the United States of America, Canada --

We don't need an army like yours because we keep to our own business up here. When's the last time you saw an anti-Canada protest? The only country on this planet that Canada needs to "be protected" from is the united states.

#3 "I mean, we're their trading partner. We keep their economy afloat."

Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word "trade"! It's a two-way thing. I'd like to see how well your country would do if we suddenly shut off the energy flow, just for one example.

#4 "Because they speak French"

Grow up!

---
Canada for Canadians

One thing I've noticed about clouter. Whenever I see her ranting on television, she seems just so out of place.... not in the sense of her politics, but in the way she speaks publicly. While eading some of her BS, I can't help but interpret it as being sarcastic in nature because it just strays so far beyond reality. Then, I remember who's saying it....

Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson (and don't forget George Junior)- They make me feel sorry for the majority of the US citizens who have to put up with them and the damage they cause to the US national image. It's too bad that the great US democracy has decided that disagreement=treason.

With this whole military argument (Coulter), I still don't understand why people talk about a so-called 'national threat'. The criticism that Canada doesn't have a military and that the US is 'protecting' us is so much neo-con craziness. Who are we supposed to be afraid of? Where are these foreign forces going to come from? It's like everyone is ignoring geography (yes it still matters even with the Internet). Canada is protected by several very large masses of water and equally large pieces of land (including the territory that the US occupies) - how are these so-called enemy forces going to get here? Terrorist attacks like September 11 are terrible. Unfortunately, there is never a guarantee of complete safety even from nationals (Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber) let alone outside threats. Massive military build-ups won't combat those threats.

I would argue that Canada doesn't need a large military to defend itself for at least a few reasons (I'm sure there are more): 1) Most of the world likes us just fine (or is indifferent) and those that don't like us are not really interested or aren't in a position to attack us (oddly, some nations actually think war is a bad thing even if they don't agree with our politics); 2) How on earth (ha, ha) are you going to take over a country that has one person every fifteen square kilometres (I'm pulling that number from memory, but I think it's close). The resources required to successfully take over Canada (and I mean fully and completely) are beyond any military -- there's just too much land; 3) The only (sane) benefit of invading Canada would be the control of our natural resources, but a nuclear attack would essentially ruin them so that's kind of pointless.

So who am I supposed to be afraid of? Right now, the only foreign power I'm afraid of is the US Government (please don't generalize this to mean the US and all of its citizens, because I'm quite fond of the United States).

Why doesn't anybody ask the politicians these questions instead of playing along with the hyped-up garbage that most of the media is pushing on us?

I don't want to make any unjustified comments, so case in point on my 'neo-con craziness' comment above - the missile defence shield (aka-'Star Wars' - Lucas sued the gov't so they had to change the name). Who is this system going to protect us from? If it's terrorists that we're supposed to be afraid of, then surely a defence like this won't help. Does anybody even know who has ICBM technology (really long-range missiles) besides the US and the former Soviet Union that would be capable of attacking us, thereby making this defence useful? Britain? I don't think Israel has any... maybe China. Is that the threat? How about nuclear weapons?

The missile defence shield has been proven (many times over at the cost of billions of dollars) not to work (just like the patriot missle) and I would suggest that putting more weapons into the stratosphere is a really bad idea just on the possibility of a failure or crash -- kind of like carting all of that nuclear waste across the great lakes - there's just too much risk.

Canada has a military presence for peacekeeping, national emergencies, and because it wouldn't look good if we didn't have a military (although I don't agree that we need one). I'm proud of the fact that our military is small by choice, not by lack of resources and hope that any future expansion is ballistic-free (the military does a great job with national emergencies - ice storm, etc.).

This is the part where I get really preachy (you should almost be able to hear me banging on the pulpit now)...

Spread the word. Don't get sucked into the pseudo-debate that Coulter and Carlson (and others -- including extremists on the left) want you to. Ask the hard questions and demand real answers, be proud of what you think is right, be willing to listen when you don't agree, learn all you can and use what you learn.

Patriotism and disagreement can coexist. Spread the word.

Perry