Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties

Comments Filter:
  • by Jason1729 (561790) on Monday May 05, 2003 @04:59AM (#5879669)
    We have vast oil resources in Western Canada. It is exported to the US very cheaply, and here in Eastern Canada, we import oil from the Middle East at much higher prices.

    Jason
    ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
  • by York the Mysterious (556824) on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:02AM (#5879679) Homepage
    They put out a huge ad in the NY Times earlier this year just to let everyone know that they were the US' largest supplier of oil. Apparently not many people know. -Tim
  • Re:Respecting Canada (Score:2, Informative)

    by EGSonikku (519478) <(petersen.mobile) (at) (gmail.com)> on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:08AM (#5879709)

    http://www.revoketheoscar.com/

    Bowling for Columbine is mostly a work of FICTION.
    Some people do anything for notoriety. It's even sader when people accept things as fact without any thought to research.

  • Re:And Marijuana (Score:3, Informative)

    by TC (WC) (459050) on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:13AM (#5879726) Journal
    The U.S. administration is unhappy that marijuana possession in Canada is now a ticketing offense (parking meter sort of thing) instead of a criminal offense.

    Well... not quite yet... The intention to do this has been announced, but no legislation has yet been passed.
  • by Galvatron (115029) on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:19AM (#5879751)
    As far as I can tell, the headline is simply the author's interpretation of the State Department's report, not the wording of the US government. In actual point of fact, the State Department seems mainly concerned with police funding (which has nothing to do with civil liberties), low penalties for marijuana possession (also not a civil liberty) and privacy laws. Privacy obviously is a fairly important civil liberty, and clearly the US government is going too far with its anti-terrorist legislation, but the headline is also a tad too alarmist. Indeed, the article does not even specify which privacy related laws the US objects to in particular.
  • by Moofie (22272) <lee@ringofsaturn. c o m> on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:27AM (#5879775) Homepage
    If by "liberated" you mean "purchased for cash money from the people who owned it at the time who were not Canadians", then yes, your sentence is true.

    If by "liberated" you wish to draw spurious parallels between the purchase of Alaska and the deposing of Saddam, you're an idiot.
  • by ArcticCelt (660351) on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:30AM (#5879781)
    Completely wrong. Canada used to have nuclear weapons but realised that the nuclear arm race was an insane business. In 1978, Canada Prime Minister Trudeau stated, at the U.N., that Canada was the "the first nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons. USA never asked Canada to stop. In fact USA was very pissed off because Canada did not continue to build more weapons with them.
  • by Jason1729 (561790) on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:31AM (#5879784)
    You only ship the amount you don't use there (that you might want to export elsewhere). What do you mean you buy it back from higher prices? from who? We don't want or get any of you wheat anyway, Ontario produces plenty for our own use and to export to other provinces.

    You're on shaky ground to begin with with agriculture as an example. Most farming in Canada is subsidized by the federal goverment, and most of that money comes from Ontario.

    What is this hatred you Westerners have against being a part of Canada? My comment was that you give cheap oil to a foreign country instead of your fellow countrymen, and your response is that you are forced to sell your surplus wheat within your own country instead of outside as if that were a bad thing.

    Jason
    ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
  • Re:wow (Score:5, Informative)

    by shamilton (619422) on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:31AM (#5879785)
    Uh, 50% income tax? Maybe 30% on a healthy salary... the highest is around 43% above ~$100,000 CAD.

    And round here, these things aren't enforced nearly as much. House is worth $1,000,000, paying property tax for $300,000? Nobody cares to hear about it. And you're certainly not getting thrown in JAIL for dodging taxes.
  • by AndrewRUK (543993) on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:31AM (#5879787)
    What ths State Dept. report says is
    "Some US law-enforcement officers have expressed concern that Canadian privacy laws, as well as funding levels for law enforcement, inhibit a fuller and more timely exchange of information and response to requests for assistance. Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from Government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations." (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19 987.htm)
    Sounds to me like they're complaining that Canada cares too much about privacy and preventing Government intrusion, and I would consider that to be caring about liberty.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:34AM (#5879795)
    I don't think it would go down too well with Aussies and the Brits. Come to think of it you'd probably piss off a whole bunch of countries that make up the Commonwealth.

    You could at least give up on caring about the UN though.
  • IRA (Score:5, Informative)

    by malx (7723) on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:49AM (#5879844)
    Astonishingly, there is no mention in the report on the United Kingdom of the IRA.

    There is a section on the IRA in the appendix on "other Foreign Terrorist Organisations" which notes that the IRA "retains the ability to conduct paramilitary operations" but it accepts that "the IRA reiterated its commitment to the peace process and apologized to the families of what it called "non-combatants" who had been killed or injured by the IRA" without noting that its activities of "kidnappings, punishment beatings, extortion, smuggling, and robberies" are active and continuing.

    The report does not mention that two of the leaders of the IRA Army Council were allowed to become Sinn Fein Ministers in the (currently suspended) government of Northern Ireland.

    Sinn Feinn, a major political party in Northern Ireland, is acknowledged by everybody except itself as the political wing of the IRA. The name translates into English as "Ourselves Alone" - illuminating its racist basis. Sinn Fein is not mentioned in the report.

    Most astonishingly, NORAID's role in fundraising for the IRA within the USA is not mentioned in the report either.

    Americans should realise that many British people who are temperamentally and politically inclined to give full support to American foreign policy find it severely compromised by America's sentimental and hypocritical blindness to the IRA threat.
  • Re:Respecting Canada (Score:2, Informative)

    by EGSonikku (519478) <(petersen.mobile) (at) (gmail.com)> on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:49AM (#5879845)
    Sure.

    http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

    I'm not saying to love America,but dont NOT like it based on a work of fiction. Truth be told I live here and I have some problems with it, but by and large I love my country, the government could use some work, still not as bad as some people make it out to be.
  • by Ainu (135288) on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:57AM (#5879865)
    Schedule B

    Constitution Act, 1982
    Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982
    PART I
    Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

    Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
    Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

    Rights and freedoms in Canada
    1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
    Fundamental freedoms
    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.

    Democratic Rights

    Democratic rights of citizens

    3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

    Maximum duration of legislative bodies

    4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.

    Continuation in special circumstances

    (2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

    Annual sitting of legislative bodies

    5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months

    Mobility Rights

    Mobility of citizens
    6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
    Rights to move and gain livelihood
    (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
    (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
    (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

    Limitation
    (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
    (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
    (b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

    Affirmative action programs
    (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
    Legal Rights
    Life, liberty and security of person 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
    Search or seizure
    8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
    Detention or imprisonment
    9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
    Arrest or detention
    10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
    (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
    (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
    (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

    Proceedings in criminal and penal matters 11. Any person char
  • by ndogg (158021) <the DOT rhorn AT gmail DOT com> on Monday May 05, 2003 @05:57AM (#5879868) Homepage Journal
    The State Dept., more precisely, said this about Canada and terrorism:


    At the end of 2001, the Canadian Parliament passed into law an antiterrorism act that toughens penalties for terrorists and terrorist supporters and provides new investigative tools for Canadian law-enforcement and national-security agencies. It also makes terrorist fundraising illegal and allows officials to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists, but it cannot be applied retroactively to activities before the law was passed. In July 2002, Canadian officials published a list of banned terrorist organizations pursuant to the antiterrorism act, which consisted of al-Qaida and six of its known affiliate groups. Addendums to the list in late November and mid-December added nine more groups, including HAMAS and Hizballah, and Canadian officials expect the list to grow further as they examine and evaluate more organizations.

    The Government of Canada has been a helpful and strong supporter of the United States in the fight against international terrorism. Despite some differences in approach, overall antiterrorism cooperation with Canada remains excellent and is a model for bilateral cooperation on counterterrorism issues. Seven US law-enforcement agencies have officers posted to Ottawa and other Canadian cities. Canadian law-enforcement personnel, in turn, are assigned to the United States.

    Some US law-enforcement officers have expressed concern that Canadian privacy laws, as well as funding levels for law enforcement, inhibit a fuller and more timely exchange of information and response to requests for assistance. Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from Government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations.

    The US Attorney General and Canadian Solicitor General conduct policy coordination at the US-Canada Cross-Border Crime Forum, established during the Prime Minister's 1997 visit to Washington. (The Forum met most recently in Calgary in July 2002.) Under the US-Canada Terrorist Interdiction Program, or TIP, Canada records about one "hit" of known or suspected terrorists per week from the State Department's Visa Lookout List.

    Additionally, Canada and the United States will hold a new round of talks under the auspices of the Bilateral Consultative Group on Counterterrorism Cooperation, or BCG. This bilateral group is tasked with reviewing international terrorist trends and planning ways to intensify joint counterterrorist efforts. It last met in June 2001 and was expected to meet in mid-2003. Other cooperative mechanisms include groups led by the immigration and customs services known as Border Vision and the Shared Border Accord, extradition and mutual legal-assistance treaties, and an information-sharing agreement between the US Drug Enforcement Administration and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In 2002, Canada cooperated with the United States in implementing most provisions of the Smart Border Action Plan. This plan and its bilateral implementation have become a model for securing national frontiers while ensuring the free and rapid flow of legitimate travel and commerce.

    Canada has continued to be a strong supporter of international efforts to combat terrorism. Besides signing and ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Financing and implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1373, Canada is active in the G-7, G-8, and G-20 and promotes the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering's Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing and other international efforts to counter terrorist financing. In the autumn, Canada also became the first country to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism, which was opened for signature in June. Canadian armed forces participated in Operation Enduring Freedom with the largest deployment of Canadian troops overseas since the Korean war. Canada also maintained a naval task force group engaged in interdiction operations

  • Re:canadian forces? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ebbomega (410207) on Monday May 05, 2003 @06:12AM (#5879903) Journal
    Right.

    Canada has had dick all to do with any military action in the last 100 years.

    Learn your history before you start criticising.

    You want us to take up arms? How about that time you guys tried to invade us and we burnt your White House down?

    Or how about that time that we were busy bombing the crap out of the Nazis while the US was happily being isolationist for 2 years while he tried to take over the world?

    Or how about the time that we organized the UN to intervene at the Suez Canal despite England's Security Council veto?

    Or how about how we've supplied troops to just about every single UN mission since its inception?

    Or wait. Of course none of that happened. It wasn't in the US papers, so it's pretty obvious that Canada doesn't have a military.

    I knew a good number of Doctors from my hometown alone (a rather small town in British Columbia) who were working at the MASH units in the first Persian Gulf war who were risking their lives trying to keep UN soldiers alive (including a good number of Americans). But again, it wasn't in any American newspapers so it obviously didn't happen.
  • Re:wow (Score:2, Informative)

    by CrazyDuke (529195) on Monday May 05, 2003 @06:13AM (#5879904)
    Sorry to piss on your little parrade, but after income, sales, property, luxery, and the slew of other taxes here in the U.S., the average middle class American spends about 55% of their income in taxes.

    (Funny, why does my AC option keep disappearing?)
  • Re:Nifty Numbers (Score:2, Informative)

    by SugarKing (315423) on Monday May 05, 2003 @06:17AM (#5879910)
    Yeah I guess those people being held in Guantanamo Bay and throughout the US without a trial or bail of any kind really isn't curtailing civil liberties.
  • Re:Pot legalization (Score:3, Informative)

    by Galvatron (115029) on Monday May 05, 2003 @06:35AM (#5879959)
    Two points: First, the Supreme Court found that the states could not decide for themselves to legalize pot for medical purposes. Federal anti-drug laws override state laws, so pot is illegal for all uses everywhere in America.

    Second, it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism, really, except that it happened to be mentioned in the same article. I would imagine whoever was writing the State Department report probably just let himself wander a bit when discussing impediments to US-Canadian law enforcement cooperation.

  • Re:Hysteria. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mark Hood (1630) on Monday May 05, 2003 @06:55AM (#5880015) Homepage
    Not to mention how many died of the flue.

    I know you meant 'flu' but I can't pass up the opportunity to

    1. Mock your spelling :)
    2. Point out that Carbon Monoxide poisoning (which is often caused by faulty or blocked flues) kills on average 50 people per year in the UK
    Stats from our very own trustworthy government. [dti.gov.uk] ;)

    My (admittedly naive) extrapolation says that if 50 people from 60 million in the UK died from CO poisoning, the US with approx 300 million [census.gov] ought to suffer around 250 deaths a year. You can't scale to the whole world this way (few people in developing countries have gas fires) but it seems clear that even this kills more people than terror attacks.

    And if you want to compare other 'enduring terrors' have a look at New Internationalist [newint.org].

    Put your fear in perspective...

    Mark

    PS In line with all spelling flames this post contains at least one speling mistake.

  • Canada (Score:1, Informative)

    by pudge (3605) * <slashdot@pud[ ]net ['ge.' in gap]> on Monday May 05, 2003 @07:17AM (#5880102) Homepage Journal
    In Canada, it is illegal to say you dislike certain people for certain reasons. They have a ways to go before they can criticize the U.S.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2003 @07:26AM (#5880144)
    Interestingly, the referenced article (from the parent - pointed to The Straight Dope) claims that the invasion plan of the 1920s was the last time the US plotted to invade Canada.

    However, it is now generally accepted in some circles that the great American War Machine was prepared to crush our little separatist movement for us back in the 1970s.

    As a history lesson for those of you who think anything before 1990 is ancient history, this nasty bunch called the FLQ was running around kidnapping people and bombing things inside Quebec - oh, those wacky frenchmen!!! Anyway, it's rumoured that the reason our then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau called out the army to solve this little problem was because the US President told him that if he couldn't solve it, they would.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2003 @07:52AM (#5880237)
    And of course he wanted America out of Saudi, which he has now achieved. A brillant mind, as well as a twisted one, he also cunningly used the most powerful military machine in the World to eradicate a secular Iraq, and he doesn't even qualify for a vote in the US, let alone hold high office. Slam dunk!
  • by tealover (187148) on Monday May 05, 2003 @07:54AM (#5880259)
    Yeah, they do tend to tilt more toward the socialist policies.

  • Point to clarify (Score:3, Informative)

    by etherlad (410990) <ianwatson@gmail . c om> on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:53AM (#5880678) Homepage
    I just want to point out for those of you it may have missed...

    Canadian government not falling in line with the American government is one thing.

    Canadians not liking the American government is another thing.

    Americans not liking the Canadian govenment is yet another thing.

    None of the above say that Canadians hate the US. The vast majority of us don't (although, granted, many of us may think of US citizens as a whole as "arrogant").

    So please stop with the "Blame Canada" rhetoric. It's been said a billion times, and was only funny about the first four.
  • by Karl Cocknozzle (514413) <kcocknozzle@hot m a i l . com> on Monday May 05, 2003 @08:55AM (#5880698) Homepage
    I agree that pot should be legalized, but you have to recognize that so long as the majority of the US is against it, the US government is going to try very hard to keep Canada from doing it.
    ...I'd agree with you except that a majority of Americans [norml.org] do not support the current marijuana witch hunt.

    In fact, the War on (some) Drugs has little to do with the will of the people, and everything to do with being a scapegoat for hysteria, and a way to justify egregious pork budget increases.

    And it is a witch hunt... People are so scared of the flowers of a harmless plant that job applicants are mercillessly rejected if they "Test positive" for marijuana. In some states, the "pot paranoia" is so pervasive that they've enacted "Smoke a joint, lose your driver license" laws to further stigmatize marijuana smokers. Without a driver license, where can you work in this country? If you live in a city that doesn't have GREAT public transportation (thats most of them) you simply won't get a job.

    In the U.S., felons (for non-Americans, a felon is somebody convicted of a "serious" crime) can't vote. Even though arrests for drugs are about proportional to the proportion of the various races in our society, minorities serve vastly longer sentences than whites arrested for the same offense... They are three times less likely to be offered "diversionary sentencing" (ie. non-jail) to avoid felony conviction, and FIVE TIMES more likely to do jail time for a first-offense.

    Of course, since white people in the U.S. on average have more money than their minority counterparts they can afford a lawyer who can get them out of trouble without jail.

    So even though it might not have been the original intent, what you have is a de facto concerted effort to disenfrachise "undesirables."

    The only advice I have is to write your congressmen and tell them you want legalized buds-- And keep your eyes peeled for cops.
  • Re:canadian forces? (Score:4, Informative)

    by RickHunter (103108) on Monday May 05, 2003 @09:23AM (#5880889)

    Not to mention Vimy Ridge. Or the invasion of Italy during WWII. Or the Korean War. Or this little operation called "Operation Overlord". Or the Battle of Britain. Nope, no Canadian involvement in any major military operations in the past century at all.

  • by alteridem (46954) on Monday May 05, 2003 @09:47AM (#5881084) Homepage
    There is a difference. What Canada wants to do is decriminalize pot so that it will be more like a speeding ticket. Also, larger quantities will still be criminal (trafficing will still land you in jail.) The argument is that we (Canadians) do not feel that people that have been caught with small amounts of pot should end up in jail or have criminal records ruining their lives. A kid that smokes a joint at a party shouldn't have his/her entire life stripped away for a stupid mistake. Think of it more like drinking under-age (illegal, but not criminal), you get caught at a high-school party being stupid (who hasn't), your life isn't over.
  • by Larsing (645953) on Monday May 05, 2003 @09:48AM (#5881109)
    Historical fact #1:

    Before the USA, Britain and France, after a war that can only be described as "accidental", imposed a horrendously humiliating peace accord on Germany, which paved the way for Nazism, Germany was actually a highly flourishing democracy.

    Historical fact #2:

    The American war of independence was fought with French money, French wepons and, to a not insigifficant degree, French troops, in order to achieve French ideals.

    Once again, Welcome to old Europe!
  • by shking (125052) <{ac.ba.guuc} {ta} {mcilubab}> on Monday May 05, 2003 @09:55AM (#5881185) Homepage
    Canada supplies 9 percent of overall U.S. oil use and 15 percent of overall U.S. natural gas use. Canada, not Saudi Arabia, is the single largest supplier of oil and gas to the United States.

    sources:

    • US Energy Information Administration, Canada Country Analysis Brief, February 2002.
    • Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, "2000 Statistics, Key Facts."
    • America's Gas tank [nrdc.org] a joint Sierra Club / NRDC report
  • by prinzip (603175) on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:03AM (#5881279)
    FACT: Alaska was not purchassed from the canada, alaska was purchassed from the russia.
  • by barryfandango (627554) on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:14AM (#5881385)
    As much as i love that quote, its authenticity is in dispute. You can read about the source here: http://irregulartimes.com/honest.html [irregulartimes.com]
  • Re:canadian forces? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Darlock (7305) on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:23AM (#5881473)
    You're such a troll but I will bite anyway.

    > Let's not get into WWII. If you think the US
    > didn't do dick or spill blood in WWII, then you
    > have a real problem.

    Yes, you are correct, Americans did die in WW2. Lives lost is not a good thing, no matter when and where it happens. That was not the point though. The point was that the U.S. sat on the sidelines for 2 years while the rest of the "free" world was getting their asses kicked.

    > Supplied troops to every single UN mission?

    Yes. If you are referring to the current war with Iraq. That is not a UN mission. That's why were are not involved.

    > How many of anyone in your hometown gave their
    > lives to depose today's hitler?

    None. Because there is no equivalent of "Today's Hitler" in the world. Calling Sadam Hitler must be something that CNN came up with. Don't get me wrong, Sadam is bad but he isn't the equivalent of Hitler.

    > After all, we deserve it, don't we? You are
    > morally superior to us, aren't you?

    Nobody said we were morally superior. We have our problems. We make mistakes. We're human. We just don't FORCE our views on everyone else.

    > And as for the "riding the backs of the US
    > military", I suggest you look within your own
    > country for the criticism. Because I've seen it
    > come from your own country more than anywhere
    > else. From canadian news letters to the
    > editors, from canadian news pundits, from
    > canadians being interviewed on the street, from
    > canadian politicians.

    Yes, every country in the world rides the back of the US military. You know why? It's because the U.S. is too busy being the bully of the school yard and sticks it's nose in everything. Someone has to go in and clean up your mess.

    Do you really want to know why Canada didn't join your war against Iraq? We all agree that Sadam is bad and should have been removed. There is no argument about that. We didn't join in because we do not want to be a TARGET. That's right, a TARGET. Just think about this in a logical fashion. Look at the possible chain of events.

    - We join War on Iraq (tm)
    - Terrorists attack Canada (ie Toronto)
    - Canada turns to U.S. for support.
    - Canada changes privacy policies to help fight "terrorism"
    - Canada becomes part of the U.S.

    See, you are correct. We ride on the backs of the U.S. military enough as it is and we don't want to. The more we rely on you, the more indebted we are. That's not good.
  • Canada-o-Philes (Score:3, Informative)

    by sandbagger (654585) on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:35AM (#5881622)
    The CBC radio program The Current did a piece this morning did a piece about Canada-o-philes in America. The audio will be up on the web site tomorrow.

    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/
  • Re:Hmph (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig DOT hogger AT gmail DOT com> on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:37AM (#5881636) Journal
    1) Your total average tax rates are higher than ours, although it appears that by 2005, that might change.
    And we get SERVICES in return. Not just catering to the richest croporations. 2) It's about being FORCED into your medical program. That's not freedom. The ability to choose one's doctor is the cornerstone of the canadian public health-care system.

    The people in the US without medical coverage, as well as those who are under HMOs CANNOT CHOOSE which doctor to go. That's not freedom. 3) We like guns. You guys used to. We ceased to like them when we realized that they are used to kill people. Oh, you're allowed to have guns to kill animals, but not guns that kills people (who'd use an UZI for hunting???)...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2003 @10:59AM (#5881859)
    No, the French hate Americans, no wonder there was a standing ovation at a movie that blatantly ripped on us.

    Truth about Bowling [hardylaw.net]

    Want a real link? There you have it. Real facts, real commentary on why Michael Moore's movie is hack job. Might not be 'blatantly obvious', but it was definitely meant to be misleading. Check out the comparison of the first speech Heston gives. It's not about statistics, it's about unethical and sometimes fraudulent misrepresentation of another groups's words and actions. You complain when Microsoft uses the same mislead tactics against Linux. But when it's against America, that's in vogue, must be okay.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:18AM (#5882046)
    That's right.

    Canadian scientists worked on the Manhattan Project. The uranium for the Manhattan Project came from Canada. Most of the uranium enrichment was done at Chalk River, Ontario, using a process invented by someone from my home town of Winnipeg. We had the ability to create nuclear weapons right from the beginning.

    Our nuclear stockpile was aimed at russian bombers crossing the pole. Our fighter/intercepters were equipped with "Genie" nuclear air-to-air missiles, or as the pilots called them, "Little Buckets of Sunshine". We also had the "Bomarc" ground-to-air missile.
  • by TummyX (84871) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:55AM (#5882387)
    Moore is a guy who lives in a millionaire apartment in Manhatten. Whether he is nice is to be debated. He certainly tries to play on that "illusion" that people have that he's fighting the tough fight.

    He doesn't ask tough questions noone else hasn't asked. When the asks the "tough" questions he ruins it all by resorting to misinformation and fear. If his points were valid (and many are) he wouldn't need to lie about the facts. Just tell it like it is.

    Moore is no better than the fear mongering media he talks about. I find it rich that a guy who gets his agenda across by using the very tactics he despises. To me, the only name for Michael Moore is "hypocrite". He makes us left-ists look like idiots.
  • by jbr439 (214107) on Monday May 05, 2003 @12:07PM (#5882515)
    Western Canadian oil is sold (to everyone, even the US) at the world price. AFAIK the cost of transporting said oil to US is, again, market driven. Oil imported from the Middle East (and everywhere else) is bought at the world price. AFAIK, Middle East oil transportation costs are not artificially high; once again, a market driven cost.

    So, please explain how it is the Western Canadian oil "is exported to the US very cheaply", whereas we "import oil from the Middle East at much higher prices".

    I do hope that there is a rationale explanation and that we are not witnessing yet another example of Eastern Canada thinking it is entitled to Western Canada's resources at whatever pittance it is willing to pay. Shades of Trudeau and the NEP.

    Jim Robinson
    Vancouver, BC
    Canada
  • Re:Crime in Canada (Score:3, Informative)

    by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Monday May 05, 2003 @12:25PM (#5882678)
    Why is it "Interesting" that Canadians have a higher quality of life than Americans. This should be modded as "Well, Duh!"

    --
    BTW, thanks for taking care of the dirty work so that we may enjoy this quality of life.
  • Re:blame canada! (Score:5, Informative)

    by MagikSlinger (259969) on Monday May 05, 2003 @12:38PM (#5882804) Homepage Journal

    Please, before moving to Canada, can I ask you all to please register to vote and actually *vote*!?

    Register for the primaries too and vote against the encumbants who support the PATRIOT act (I & II), the Iraqi misadventure and other pieces of legislation you love to hate. Remember, a lot of Democrats also voted for the above.

    Considering America's low participation in its own democracy, you shouldn't be surprised the American government is acting against its citizens' own best interests.

  • by RatBastard (949) on Monday May 05, 2003 @12:52PM (#5882927) Homepage
    That was the British Army, not the Canadian Army. Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.

    At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.
  • by hesiod (111176) <nookschreier&gmail,com> on Monday May 05, 2003 @02:56PM (#5884173)
    > Tell me, do you really think they'd give an Academy Award to such a 'blatantly obvious hack job'? Or a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes?

    Umm, you've got to be joking? It wasn't a blatantly obvious hack job. I applaud Mr. Moore for his very good directing skills, I couldn't come close. The problem is that they gave it to him for being a documentary, which it is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being.

    That's the important bit. If you reply, reply to the previous, 'cuz the following will be construed as a troll or flamebait (what the hell's the difference anyway):

    Liberals, who are always up in arms about conspiracies, don't surprise me as much as they should when they don't say anything about this crap -- a "documentary" full of lies and deceit should be discredited immediately. But a strange thing: when the lies & trash follow their line of beliefs, they are noticeably quiet. Don't think I'm picking on Liberals, I'm sure Conservatives would do the same if they ran Hollywood.
    You have to admit (unless you lie) that both the Oscars and especially the Cannes "Film Festival" are mostly run by extremely left-wing people. Amazing that this one slipped through the cracks, eh? And before you start attacking my as one of those bible-kissing, GWB-loving Republicans, I am not. By a long shot.
  • by Daniel Phillips (238627) on Monday May 05, 2003 @03:27PM (#5884508)
    That was the British Army, not the Canadian Army.

    You'd probably like to claim those were British indians fighting on our side.

    Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.

    The war of 1812 was one of the defining moments of the Canadian nation, every bit as much as the British North America Act Act of 1867, "An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick". As you can see, Canada already existed by that time.

    Upper Canada was created by the Constitution Act of 1791. If you want to get picky, Canada remained a colony of Britain until the Constitution Act of 1982. So when exactly was the nation of Canada born, according to you?

    At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.

    Would you like us to aspire to your grammatical ability, as well? :)
  • by CyberWolf (309553) on Monday May 05, 2003 @06:01PM (#5885825)
    I know a lot of soldiers from both sides of the border, and they mostly agree on the following:

    1) Canadian Army reserves have the same level of training as the American Army regulars

    2) Canadian Army regulars have similar level of training as the American Green Berets.

    We do not have the numbers, but we do have quality (at least in personnel, equipment-wise...well, let's not go there).

    Oh, and yeah, we do have a Special Forces Unit (similar to the Navy Seals).

    My 2 cents.
  • by Blkdeath (530393) on Monday May 05, 2003 @11:22PM (#5888002) Homepage
    As opposed to yours which is just an unexploitative failure?

    "I have a fever and need to see a doctor.."

    "Alright sir, we'll schedule you in for next December."

    Funny, every time I find myself with an ailment worthy of medical attention, I can barely get through my third magazine article before I'm speaking with a doctor.

  • by mr100percent (57156) * on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @08:16PM (#5897017) Homepage Journal
    I have dozens of links. Here's only a few for brevity.


    ACLU on Immigrant detentions [aclu.org]

    Mass detentions in LA [bbc.co.uk]

    'Handful' detained in Houston [chron.com]

    CIvil liberties groups file suit on behalf of INS detainees [cair-net.org]

    US detains nearly 1200 during registry [washingtonpost.com]

    Forgotten detainees [washingtonpost.com]


    After Oaklahoma City, the US passed laws allowing the use of "Secret Evidence [aclu.org]" to detain or deport. It's been used almost exclusively on Arabs and Muslims.

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...