# Bush in Canada! WTF?



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

Ya this is gonna go well, this'll be like the time Trudeau thought it would be a cool idea to go west as he was making comments about grabbing the Alberta Heritage Fund.  

This should be pretty hilarious. Where are they gonna take him where people won't be throwing garbage at him? I can see them touring the underground parking lots in Ottawa.
















Save the fuel, stay home.


----------



## The Librarian (Apr 11, 2003)

Should Canada Indict Bush?


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

2 things that will never happen:

1. Bush will have an uneventful visit, without protesters etc. I kinda wish he would, though. Just something quiet. Reason is you just know the way the US media machine is going to spin it and we'll have half of the US thinking Canadians are pathetic nut-job American-haters and the other half understanding that it is Bush, not the US, that many of us have a problem with.

2. <a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1100517502971&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907626796&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes%20%20http://www.rabble.ca
">Bush gets arrested for war crimes</a>.  OK, so this journalist is off his rocker if he thinks it will happen, but I don't think he really believes it, just making a point: many outside the US do see what Bush is doing in Iraq and Cuba as criminal. Interesting bits about the article: 1. the journalist didn't mention the most damning stuff, like Bush lying to the nation about Iraq during public addresses, saying they had PROOF that Iraq had WMDs and that they were an immediate threat to the US to garner support for an illegitimate war, and fabrication of evidence to do the same, 2. "the law" doesn't even pretend to apply equally to all people, only to us schmoes. Bush is immune from any such legal action against him because he is a head of state, but could be arrested in Canada after his term is up. Putting this particular example aside for a moment, doesn't this seem a bit stupid? Because of who you are, the law may not apply? Reminds me of when those drunk Russian diplomats were running over Canadians in Ottawa a few years ago. Of course the more cynical among us (including me) would say that this has been obvious for a long time; justice is mainly for the rich, especially in the US (Hi O.J.! Oh, but then there's Martha  ).


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

Personally I think it would be cool if no one showed up where ever he went, like not a person.  

Send a big message...


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

> Personally I think it would be cool if no one showed up where ever he went, like not a person.
> 
> Send a big message...


That would be perfect! I would love to see that happen. That GW's visit is completely ignored.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Send Caroline Parrish to greet him at the Airport. Make him wait to see Martin for about 45 Minutes. Sitting in the waiting room. Lose his reservation at the Chateau but tell him a room is available at The British in Aylmer. Impound his Limo for a safety check and ask him to make arrangements for transportation and give him some Blueline Taxi Chits.
Have the GG's Gardener see him off. Seriously, the guy does amazing work.

I'm all for better trade relations with the US, but this is not sitting well. I do not want him on Canadian soil. Martin should go see him, DC is lovely this time of year.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)




----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

It would make me a very proud Canadian if we could make Bush pay for what he has done to Iraq and it's people.


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

iPetie, your oneupmanship is superb!









It's like at least fiveupmanship.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Careful, Vinnie... innocent comments like that could land you in the Guantánamo torture chambers...









M.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Make him wait in Customs go through his personal file ask him about previous use of illegal drugs, recent actions, then deport his fascist ass back to the good old USA


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Bush will probably get the missile defence system he wants in place.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have to admit I am perplexed by the content of this thread.

Does no one ever stop to think that when you insult and demean a head of ANY state, you indirectly do the same to the population of the nation that elected him or her?

There are certain protocols to follow and we should be gracious enough to follow them when a leader visits our country. After all, Canada's reputation has been built largely on tolerance, has it not?

Reverse the situation and think how would you feel if Martin was given the same treatment in the U.S. on a visit?

Hopefully all these suggestions were in jest?

Cheers


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I don't wish President Bush any specific harm. I would just like him to tell the truth, and I think that would hurt him very much.


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

SINC, I understand what you are saying. It does seem disrespectful. 

However, given that at least 49% of Americans are horrified by the Bush re-election and mounting evidence that W did not really win legitimately, reports in and out of the the mainstream media of a growing divide between pro-Bush Americans and the rest, etc., I think you'd be surprised at how many Americans would be happy to see Bush protesters in Canada. A great many Americans feel Bush in no way represents them. And they may be more right about that than they know.

That being said, yes I think a lot of what was said here is in jest, but I do believe completely ignoring W on his visit would make a great form of protest, it is respectful but pointed. Make no mistake about it: he is a horrible person doing horrible things. Are we not supposed to notice that because he has somehow managed to maintain office in the US?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> However, given that at least 49% of Americans are horrified by the Bush re-election


So . . .

Let me get this straight.

Then it is OK to insult 51% of Americans?

I don't give a rodent's ass what any of you think of Bush. 

The fact remains he IS their leader, duly elected, albeit under a system that may be flawed, but it is none of our business, nor can we fix THEIR system.

And therefore we should act like responsible international citizens and not disgruntled Americans. Leave that to U.S. citizens in their own country.

Hell even the federal Liberals of all people, are asking for restraint during the visit. First thing I ever heard a federal Liberal say that was right.

Cheers


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

_Then it is OK to insult 51% of Americans?_

Well, Sinc... you may be right... and I agree that yelling and sign-waving will be taken as an insult by millions of Americans... and probably, this will play right into Bush's strategy anyway - so what's the point?

So anyway... good luck shushing the outrage this man inspires.

_we should act like responsible international citizens_

... and many will justifiably interpret their international responsibility as something other than harbouring international war criminals.

Personally, I vouch for the diplomatic cold shoulder solution. 
Evacuate Ottawa! shoot... this way ALL Canadians not in Ottawa will be participating in the protest. How profound is that?


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

SINC, to say it is their business and we should butt out isn't true. It isn't true for a lot of reasons, including the fact that as the world's superpower, and our closest neighbour, what happens in the US has a huge impact on us. Should we not care to raise objections at some point? Like the point they begin more than coveting our natural resources? Who will be there to help us when that day comes? And what about our friends in the US and other countries that are being (or will be) wrongfully incarcerated or killed due to moves by Bush to rescind the rights given to them by the founding fathers (Patriot Act) or refusal to accept international law and conventions? Standing idly by because it isn't our country is the wrong thing to do.

Yes, vocally protesting Bush won't look good. It will play horribly in the media. It isn't very "Canadian." Maybe that is also a wrong thing to do. I can see that. But claiming we have no influence, and should have no influence, on the US is near-sighted.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> But claiming we have no influence, and should have no influence, on the US is near-sighted.


sinjin, I did not say that.

Canadians can and should try to influence the US, but NOT when their leader is in our country by protesting and heckling.

There are many civilized methods that can be employed to effect change, but not the ones I have read in this thread.

I find most of the suggestions to be ill advised is my point.

Canadians should be acting like diplomats, not dorks or radicals.

Cheers


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Sinc,
My comments were in jest. Clearly treating any foreign leader with respect and graciousness is the Canadian way. That in no way should be representative of any personal feelings towards the man.

Someone needs to speak, it should be Martin, and he should speak loudly about our dismay over the United States behaviour on the world stage. Not to mention, their behaviour towards it's closest friend and neighbour over the last four years on issues from softwood to Mad Cow to even the blackout. 

If our PM would speak loudly for the majority of Canadians, there would likely not be any significant protest. But he won't speak, out of fear of offending the US. Consequently, Canadians will protest in large numbers and Ms. Parrish may freak on him in Parliament.

That is a Canadian political issue. When did our elected leaders stop voicing our opinions and concerns? When did open dialogue between our two countries become taboo? Why?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> If our PM would speak loudly for the majority of Canadians, there would likely not be any significant protest.


iPetie, Martin's problem is that he cannot speak for the majority of Canadians and he knows it. 

The majority of Canadians did not want him as PM by not voting for his party, as we in Canada can't even vote for a leader. Therefore more voted against him, than for him in the last election. 

That is to say, the last time I checked he didn't get 51% of the popular vote as Bush did in the US, did he?

Cheers


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

So, what you're saying is that the majority of Canadians have no issue with American Foreign Policy?

I agree most Canadians did not vote for Martin. As a matter of Foriegn policy should the PM (whether it be Martin, Harper or even Duceppe) reflect those concerns?


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

SINC while I like your car I'm not in agreement on most of this with you.

Hey Canada didn't ask Bush to come here, Martin did and as you pont out Martin can't speak for all of Canada. Tell you what put it to a vote with all Canadians, who would like to see Bush come here for a visit? I think you know the answer there.  

As far as respecting Bush? Put plain and simply the guy is a lying, conniving, murdering, war mongering, oil drunk ignorant backward ******* little sh%t and I'd sooner welcome Martha Stewart here. At least she could offer decorating ideas, what the hell is Bush gonna offer? Ideas on how we can supply his busted up country with drinking water?









Mind you he could give us pointers on how to cut our emmisions down seeing as they actually do a better job than we do...  


Bush........







I'll say it again.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

I suspect Bush & Co are well aware of Canadian public and political opinion. It is also right that folks who want to protest can do so.

I feel as strongly as many others that Bush's foreign policy have been shortsighted and counter-productive to US and world interests.

Some of the actions of these guys scare me.

Having said all that, I am with SINC on this one. Like it or not, the US is the world's leading power, and our largest trading partner. Differences have arisen before, and will again: this administration will, in time, pass into history.

Our behavior should be measured. They need to know how Canadians feel, clearly and without compromise. At the same time, in our statements and protests, we have to differentiate ourselves from their chosen behavior. If we use their tactics ( loud, abrasive, dismissive, with-us-or-against-us stuff) then how are we different?

They are taking the adolescent road. We should consider setting an example, and loudly.


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

> sinjin, I did not say that.
> 
> Canadians can and should try to influence the US, but NOT when their leader is in our country by protesting and heckling.


Ah, my apologies then. When you said "The fact remains he IS their leader, duly elected, albeit under a system that may be flawed, but it is none of our business, nor can we fix THEIR system." I read that as a blanket statement for minding our own business.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> Ideas on how we can supply his busted up country with drinking water?


Gretchen might be on to something here... MacNutt? do you have any meetings scheduled with Mr Bush?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

I can see it now....

Dateline SSI, British Columbia.

It is reported today that a renegade Neocon extremist, Named $$%^#$#% MacNutt has through his actions of selling bulk spring water to the USA, compromised Canada's soveriegn right not to sell bulk water under the NAFTA Agreement.

When asked about his actions, Mr. Macnutt replied, " Hey GW's a great guy and he wanted a couple of truckloads of water. It's the least I can do for the good ole US of A." Also Adding, "It's just water, the US will need lots of in order to impose their will on the rest of the world. Trust Me on This!"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ahhhhh eminent domain edges closer to SSI.......cue Jaws music.










are the hewer of water days numbered???......stay tuned for the next episode.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dateline SSI, British Columbia

Master Macnutt, as he is now is to be called, has been given sovereignty over the waters of the Great Lakes. As North America's new Water Czar, Master Macnutt shall sell as much of the Great Lakes water as there is demand. "Free Enterprise is King. As Calvin Coolidge once said, 'The business of America is business.' My business is selling water. Therefore, let he or she who thirsts come to me, and, for a price, I shall let them buy my water. Water is no longer a human right, but rather, it is a free enterprise commodity. There is plenty for one and all............so long as you can afford my price. So, drink up, be happy, sing praises to my name, and let's get behind the good folks in the military-industrial complex and support the New Star Wars Initiative. It's the best way to assure my/our safety. Trust me on this."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dateline SSI, British Columbia

President George Bush today declared Canada as the 51st state of the United States, with Salt Spring Island as the new capitol. The Exalted All-knowing Macnutt (aka 'TEAM'), as he is now to be called, was named as provisional governor of the new state, which shall be called MacnuttLand. 

In his first act as provisional governor of MacnuttLand, The Exalted All-knowing Macnutt (aka 'TEAM'), declared that henceforth, the island portion of the former Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador shall be turned into a "re-education zone". All those holding anti-Bush sentiments, or non-Macnuttian thoughts, shall be sent to this new zone. 'It's for their own good', declared TEAM, from his newly constructed thrown. 'Trust me on this, it's for their own good.'

TEAM stated that he shall give his first news conference this evening on the MNN (aka the Macnutt Network News)."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think that we should welcome the democratically elected leader of our closest neighbor, and our biggest trading partner, in a Canadian way.

We should be polite, and buy him a beer.

What we might think of him in private should be KEPT in private.

And, before any of us start to get al hepped up on how much "Canadians don't agree with him"...let me remind all of us here that EIGHT out of TEN Canadians didn't vote for our current government!

It would seem that George W. has a FAR larger mandate from HIS country than OUR Liberals have from the Canadian voters. To say the least.

And it would be sooo Canadian to welcome him and make his stay pleasant, while he's here.

It would be very UN-Canadian to do otherwise.

Especially if the people who are so intent upon being so terribly impolite were ALSO loud supporters of our wildly unpopular Canadian Liberals at the same time. And chose NOT to make any kind of a similar STINK about them. Especially while they are under investigation for massive fraud and theft of Canadian tax dollars in the biggest political scandal in Canadian history!  

[ November 19, 2004, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: MacNutt ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A quick side note to macdoc:

You keep on making snide references to "eminent domain". You've been doing this for several weeks now. It seems like the only straw you have to grasp at to try and tear me down after the many defeats you've suffered in the past month. Or three.

Go for it, old buddy. Fly at it, if it somehow makes you feel better..







 

What you are referring to is the static groundwater regs that are upcoming in this area. Too bad that our spring is naturally flowing (artesian) and originates and ends on my large acreage. It does NOT fall under any definition of "emminent domain" We already have an ironclad government judgement stating this fact quite clearly.

So you'll have to try something else to get at me, and make me feel bad. Okay?

Oh yeah...and you remember that I once told you my acreage was worth about 1.8 million? Guess what...I just turned down three mill for it. Cash.

I'm holding out for twenty. Otherwise I aint movin! I LIKE it here! 

Sellout or stay....I win, either way.  

Earthquake or Tsunami? Or a sudden end to our magic spring? You wouldn't BELIEVE how much insurance I've got!

No matter WHAT happens, I'll be enjoying some quality time on my yacht. With a fat bank balance.  

Trust me on this.

(not too bad for a guy who was born with dick-all, eh?)


Now...back to our regularly scheduled programming...  

[ November 19, 2004, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: MacNutt ]


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Earthquake or tsunami? Are you on the water? Sounds like you are up the hillside there and you wounldn't have much to worry about either way. Unless something fell off a bookshelf onto your person. Interestingly, tsunami's in the Strait will be caused by part of the Fraser delta 'slumping' at the edge of the shelf and travelling across the Strait of Georgia. Very different (and smaller but still likely dangerous) than tsunami's generated in the Pacific.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

People should be able to openly protest any issues that affect our world, be it world trade, embargos, invasions, genocide by government armies, or whatever. Much of the world outside North America is very leery of George W.
That is not to say that we shouldn't hold dialogue or be gracious to GWB when he comes to visit (after all, we are a US major trading partner/supplier and neighbour), but if members of the democratic public, whether they be Americans, Canadians, Europeans, or whomever decide they have the need to peacefully hold a protest of a leader's policies and actions, they have the democratic right to do so. 
A large number of the world's population feels that GWB was elected for the wrong reasons. We're all part of the global commmunity....we have the right and responsibility to peacefully speak our minds if we sense a danger to the well being of any part of the global community. I think it's called FREE SPEECH. Am I wrong on this? Does it really matter if 51% of the _voting_ Americans (as opposed to the total population) elected him?....are they voice of the world?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Amen, Peter. I would call upon any and all to undertake peaceful protests to express their views. It is when protests turn violent that the ruling government takes overt and violent actions of its own........and then follows up with restrictive laws. Thus, the protest has caused more harm than good. This is what I always liked about the mass protests lead by Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well stated Peter. That has been my point all along. We should be gracious to a visiting head of state, but we should draw the line at noisy, mob like protests. It only jeopardizes an already precarious relationship.

Let's face it folks, if we really piss 'em off, then could take us over in say, what, 10 minutes, given the state of our military?  
(That is a joke, but nearer the truth than one cares to admit).

Cheers


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

To go down that path a bit further... If America took Canada by military force, yes it would be "mission accomplished" soon after the initiation of Operation Ice Storm. However, if Canadians were not happy about this turn of events it would be quite some time before the dust settled - based on the current scenario in Iraq and previous disasters.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Couldn't we be Operation Back Bacon or Operation Good Hockey Player or something. Ice Storm sounds so.... northern.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Operation Back Bacon:
_So... Mr. Martin.... something is troubling me. My man Celucci here sez you ain't so sure about buyin in to our little protection plan. missiles and whatnot. Now, see there's something I don't understand. It's a dangerous world out there, Paul. Very dangerous. You have no idea! And if you don't buy in... Pauly, you do realize dis means I can't guarantee your safety, right? You know dat right? I'd hate to see anything happen to your precious donut stores - know what I mean? I thought so. You're a smart man Mr. Martin. A very smart man. Too clever to disappoint me, i can only hope. We'll be in touch._


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

In this scenario, St. John's would be our Alamo. We would all congregate here and fight it out until the last man, woman and child was either subdued or pushed into the Atlantic Ocean.

"Death before dishonor" and "Give me liberty or give me death".


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

or... "Give me liberty or give me doughnut"?


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Here is an interesting (and learned) take on the subject. Please read the article before jumping all over the Ignatieff loves Bush stuff, because he's pretty well quoted as to his true feelings regarding the Bush family.

Mike



> Disrespect Bush at your peril: Ignatieff
> 
> Michael Ignatieff is not in the best of moods. A double espresso helps. A bit.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks for the post Guiness.

I now rest my case for treating Bush with respect when he is in our country.

That is the most down to earth overview on US politics I have ever had the pleasure to read. I only hope those rabid Bush bashers who frequently rage and support the likes of Parrish, take the time to not only read this item, but _absorb the item._ 

Thanks again.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Aren't there laws against admitted drug users entering Canada


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

> Aren't there laws against admitted drug users entering Canada


I Don't thing so. Ask Keith Richards.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc if you l think the likes of shrub jr is an exemplar of America you're welcome to your opinion but few in Canada would agree.

What next?.... kiss the godfather's ring.......that's effectively the advice proffered.
You wanna elect "suck up to the US" MPs go ahead - I'll take Parrish thank you.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Sinc if you l think the likes of shrub jr is an exemplar of America you're welcome to your opinion but few in Canada would agree.


I don't like Bush at all. How many times do I have to tell you that?



> What next?.... kiss the godfather's ring.......that's effectively the advice proffered.
> You wanna elect "suck up to the US" MPs go ahead - I'll take Parrish thank you


You read waaaaay too much into everything. Matter of fact you seem to read until it suits your purpose, or denounce it. 

I simply said use decorum, respect, diplomacy or whatever method to effect change no matter what leader is in our country as a guest. NOT radical demonstrations.

And for the record, you can keep that big mouth, small brain MP. (Independent MP that is.)

Cheers


----------



## concept_guy (Oct 18, 2004)

Hi All, thanks for the very interesting read on this. There are definitely 2 sides to this issue as far as I can tell. 

Yes Canada is known for its diplomacy. Yes I think we should treat GW (the Monger) well & diplomatically, but as well, having some forms of protest is also very prudent.

If we are simply diplomatic & quiet about our opinion, then why bother to have an opinion at all? We may as well be another US state. 

By what I recall the Canadian opinion on the US election was 80% in favor of Kerry. YES the US is our largest trading partner, but does that mean we should smile & nod like so many others?

Simply, the world as a whole is NOT in favor of the Bush policies. Although it appears that half the US decided that GW was the way to go, then fine. Respect their decision, treat him as their elected leader, but why should we curb our own thought & opinions? 

So he's the leader of the largest world power. The moment we keep quiet with this as the basis for our "servitude" we may as well give up our own sovereignity. 

Personally, I liken Bush to not far from a potential Hitler - who as you may remember was also elected. There seems to be little he cares for in the way of human rights, international law and global politics. He does what he wants often using false or skewed information to back him up.

Despite the fact that I hold him in such low regard I don't approve of insulting political tactics, but a simple voice of our disapproval. That can be done diplomatically. Diplomacy is NOT smiling & nodding - its the method in which to voice your approval or disapproval. 

The last thing I want is anyone to think that Canadians are simply puppets to the US. Unless of course we really are.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Come on, MacDoc, tell me how you would react if Martin were to be treated that way by American politicians. You'd be all over them like fly's on horse%&$#. Hate the man all you want, but you must show respect for the office of the president and the people of the United States that are so represented. Granted Bush jr. has four more years to go, but he will be replaced by another eventually and dolts such as Parrish can do nothing but harm to the long term relationship between the two countries.

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Concept_Guy, by no means should we curb our will, desire or ability to protest and argue our position. There are, however, ways to do that that do not seem to have been made apparent to Ms. Parrish. Personally, I like the idea presented here earlier ... make it a non-event. No protests, no crowds, no press, no MP's even. Give him the smallest diplomatically permissable honour guard, the most direct limousine route to the capital with the fewest possible escorts, take him to the parliament buildings listen politely to what he has to say, stifle a few yawns and walk away.

As for independent MP Parrish, well, Mississauga is welcome to her. If she were my MP I'd be busy looking into a recall vote.

Mike


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

GWB's security entourage is so big that he wouldn't notice if no Canadians showed up. He's a one man crowd. Heck, you didn't think those were people off the street at the stump speeches did'ya?  Besides, I'm sure the presidential security detail would much prefer to drive through an empty Ottawa.

Given that GWB probably thinks of Canada about as often as he thinks about Tasmania, this visit is at least an opportunity for Martin and our politicians to hear what he thinks of issues that are important to Canada:US relations. I don't think staying Mum or throwing abuse for 4 years is going to achieve much apart from indifference (not that the US is particularly choosy over whom it trades with or what they think).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Come on, MacDoc, tell me how you would react if Martin were to be treated that way by American politicians. You'd be all over them like fly's on horse%&$#.


Attaboy Guiness. Tell it like it really is!

Cheers


----------



## concept_guy (Oct 18, 2004)

Well the very least we can do is serve him dinner including a tasty Canadian steak.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> Well the very least we can do is serve him dinner including a tasty Canadian steak


LOL! 
And maybe some leg o lamb. 

I find this quite comical - I HOPE this was a BSE joke. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## jrtech (Sep 24, 2002)

And I hope we are intending to serve either on a chunk of softwood........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mike YOU posted the article that compared Bush to a mafia family head....seems Sinc didn't see that little pejorative.

If a Canadian head of state was doing to the world what Bush is I'd WELCOME world protest.

Just how many times have we been called Canuckistan and dissed for being socialist and communists and if I hunt I can for sure find some quotes about Trudeau.

How many times do you get screwed over by a country who signs on to WTO and other "international rules" then just decides to do otherwise.

Respect is earned, each time, every time.

When the Globe editorial says about the election in the US ...."the older democracy has much to learn from the younger"

When the German diplomat to the UN openly disses Bush to the press 

When 80% of Europe calls him the most dangerous man in the world...

you KNOW that it's past time to call it like it is.......

Have you cruised the world economic forums lately??????/...they're not being very polite either.....for good reason.

Time we set ourselves clearly apart. Long overdue.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Then don't let him into the country. The President of the United States has been invited to visit our capital, one does not treat visiting dignitaries that way. They (Amercian's) can say all that they want when Martin's up here, but if he were to enter Washington on official state business, I would expect him to be treated with the dignity of his office and I would expect to give nothing less to the President of the United States.

As for world opinion, I really couldn't give a tinkers damn about that. Germany is one hell of a lot further away from the elephant than we are.

Mike


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

oops, this was supposed to be an edit

Then don't let him into the country. The President of the United States has been invited to visit our capital, one does not treat visiting dignitaries that way. They (Amercian's) can say all that they want when Martin's up here, but if he were to enter Washington on official state business, I would expect him to be treated with the dignity of his office and I would expect to give nothing less to the President of the United States.

As for the rest of the world's opinion, I really couldn't give a tinkers damn about that. Germany is one hell of a lot further away from the elephant than we are.

Mike


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> As for the rest of the world's opinion, I really couldn't give a tinkers damn about that. Germany is one hell of a lot further away from the elephant than we are.


An excellent point Guiness.

What we have to learn to do, is to forge a future for ourselves in North America while living right next door to the elephant.

And we had better learn to find some common ground quickly. What the rest of the world thinks doesn't matter a damn, as you so astutely noted. The Bush bashers seem to forget one very important thing. 

To Uncle Sam we are hardly more than a gnat on an elephant's butt. We can protest and criticize until we are blue in the face and nothing will change unless the will of the American people change. That unfortunately does not now seem likely for at least four more years.

Until then, Bush bashers need to learn to accept what has happened and STFU. Then we can get on with planning to somehow tame the savage beast that is our neighbour and so far an ally.

If the Bush bashers continue to antagonize the US, we could wind up being their enemy and we all know where that leads.

Ever been dumped on by an elephant?

Cheers


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

> Ever been dumped on by an elephant?


Now there's a pretty picture for you!

Mike


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> _As for the rest of the world's opinion, I really couldn't give a tinkers damn about that._


Straight from Dubya's mouth. But, no, he's not that eloquent. Nice one.

When Bush visited 'LondonEngland' with his vast entourage, there was chaos. When these people go visiting, the lives of ordinary people are disrupted miserably. Traffic grinds to a halt, work patterns are turned upside down, the news is dominated with their wretched doings and the rooftops are bedecked with sharpshooters. He was most unwelcome as far as the hoi polloi were concerned. It was a junket, financed by the taxpayer, and organised to give the little pecker some cred. The funniest picture in the press showed him, in Buck House with the Queen, striding to some banquet or other, stuffed into formalwear like some cockerel and with a big grin on his fizzer.

I know I'm from the rest of the world, but the rest of the world is being pooped on by this little horror and his gang. The rest of the world doesn't like it.

[ November 21, 2004, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Snapple Quaffer ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You know the term "appeasement" comes to mind reading some posts here









Like Bush REALLY paid attention to the 9/11 help or made it a point to get to know the US biggest trading partner - no - Vincente Fox got the "ranch treatment" and Bush "just plain forgot" to mention Canada's help over 9/11.
He apparently doesn't like us and in general Canadians have little truck with him.
Catering to an economy that is in the beginning of a meltdown especially given the treatment over BSE ( I see another case in the US now ) and softwood and potatoes.....the list goes one.

What doesn't seem to takehere is that WE'VE ALL READY BEEN DUMPED ON".
We've been around this block....I respond in kind.
I'm happy with people like Parrish who do to the US as well.

She's NOT a diplomat. She's OUR representative.

Point being, why invite him in the first place? He had no time for Canada in his arrogant little "world according to Bush". 

I'd rather invite the Governors of the border states than disrupt traffic for the likes of the shrub.

BTW I have about the same respect for the executive branch in the US as I do for the PMOs office here.
Change needed in both - too much power and influence.......the concept of being a public servant seems forgotten in those ivory towers...  

More Truman and Pearson style please.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

While I certainly do not agree with Shrub's politics, we have to realize that he is the guy that sits in the Office of the President of the United States, and is not just the political leader, but also the Head of State.

Bush deserves the respect that the office holds. And like it or not, he has earned the right to sit there. I don't agree with how he got there, or why he is there, but the reality is that he is there.

Bush should be accorded all the respect that the office holds. He should not be heckled or degraded by members of parliament or the media. If you have a disagreement with him, raise it in a polite "adult" manner.

No throwing rotten tomatoes or farting in his general direction.

One attracts more flies with honey than vinegar, and Canada has to remember that our economic health depends upon keeping Bush and Co. content.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Brtitnell, I'm in total agreement with you. I don't have much love for Bush, but he is the "elected" representative of our good neighbours to the south. If we treated oun own next-door neighbours with disprespect and inslolence, even if they were turkeys, we wouldn't be helping our own cause. It's better to influence by example than "respond in kind". However, that doesn't mean we can't express our concerns and views or even protest in a civil manner. Protest we should!. Maybe onr day they'll realize "their way" is not the right way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nice to see Britnell and Peter both of the same mind as I am on this subject. Thanks guys, it was getting a little lonesome until you arrived!

Cheers


----------



## Codger (Aug 1, 2004)

Sinc: I agree with you for the most part as well.

I have already written to Mr Martin about the following.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6541101/

We can argue all day long about why this or that happened and impugn the motivations of Shrub forever. At the end of the day there are situations that we can do something about and i want to know if the Canadian Government is even talking about this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_our economic health depends upon keeping Bush and Co. content._

No non non nyet........that's exactly the problem.
Getting as far away from Bush and Co as possible is where our economic prosperity lies.

If the previous Chairman of the Federal Reserve who should know predicts a 75% chance of a monetary crisis within 5 years ( and officials like that are not known for their hyberbole ) then the harness better be unhitched long before.

I see Emperor Bush has thrown Martin a bone today with "I'll look into the beef ban".

Bush is a sorry specimen of American leader and the less we pander the better in my mind.
We have an opportunity to move Canadian trade away from a very unhealthy level of dependence.

First rule of biz - don't depend on one customer.
When fair dealing is OFF the table as it's clearly been with the US - look elsewhere - no time better than now with a strong balance sheet and growing markets elsewhere.

There's little love or respect for Canada in the Bush world........that's been obvious.
I'd prefer we not be seen in any way as an enabler for his kind of regime.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc,

Bush is not the USA. He is President for 4 more years. Much as I dislike his policies I really can't see the point of being confrontational. If you are going to embark on a course of action you should have a purpose - so what would be the purpose of confrontation? What would be the objective in adopting Bush's adolescent approach to relationships?

I think it is worth repeating what SINC noted a few days ago


> Does no one ever stop to think that when you insult and demean a head of ANY state, you indirectly do the same to the population of the nation that elected him or her?
> 
> There are certain protocols to follow and we should be gracious enough to follow them when a leader visits our country. After all, Canada's reputation has been built largely on tolerance, has it not?


Bush knows where we stand on his approach to the war on terror and the Iraq situation. He knows where we stand in terms of trade issues. I am as frustrated and angered as anyone. 

I just don't see that acting like angry fools is going to help.

As for the economic situation, I find it hard to understand your logic. You want us to broaden our trade relationships. Well, we have - we have a great range of trade deals. But you write as if the government can simply chart the course of trade and steer the economy in that direction. Well, this is largely a free economy and business / trade relations will develop according to the opportunities for profit. The US is a vast market and a vast source of goods, capital and intellect. We have a powerful economic relationship, so develop it.

You reckon we can avoid any economic problems the US will have? I doubt it. If there is a huge collapse (somewhat unlikely) then it won't much matter where you are - it will hit us. If it comes, there will be a recovery - and guess what, no economy has demonstrated the ability to speedily recover like the US has. I would rather have an economy close to theirs than any other when the tough times come - and when they go again.

It is worth repeating: Bush is not the USA. The country has not transformed into an evil force. Social and political development is just that -development. 

Be patient, be bold about our beliefs, but engage other people. Ranting and raging may sometimes be like a heavy boozing session. It can feel great at the time, but when you wake up you still have to deal with problems in a mature way.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Well spoken, Pelao

Mike


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks for the support Pelao. I appreciate it.

Cheers


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

I think we're all often a little (or much) misunderstood by each other in these threads and mostly less diplomatic in what we say and how we say it than we are in normal conversation. It seems we share more common ground than we give each other credit for (I know how defensive my own posts can be) and thrash each other over the semantics.

It seems to me Parish's behaviour is a symptom of pessimism and a reaction to being frustrated diplomatically by the people she so undiplomatically denounces. I would go so far as to say she mirrors their disdain for debate and process. I understand her reaction - I would react the same way. But I'm no politician - she should know better.

Regarding "Protest": it is often envisioned in an idealized over-pationate or more radicallized form; fist-waving and yelling or even rock throwing... and tear gas.

I have never waved a "Bush Blows" sign (or similar) or yelled in anger at a rally. Let me tell you something... the rallies I've participated in have been composed of 99% peaceful, ordinary people. What do they show in the news? The 1% who make more interesting television.

I marched with thousands to protest the impending war in Iraq and it was a fantastic experience i'll never forget. I met army veterans, grandmothers, parents, teenagers and children - the vast majority of whom (including myself) had never participated in an organised protest before. The senselessness of the push to war had motivated all these people to actively and publicly demonstrate their opinion, for once. Bush, it must be said, is a tremendous motivator.

Anyway - the protest obviously had no effect on BushCo. Just as Parish will have no effect on him - and the same goes for the inevitable throng that will greet him on his visit.

But - borrowing his line - his actions test our "resolve" and it is important to demonstrate intelligence and backbone when confronted by situations and people who may conspire to commit us (and others) to reckless initiatives - and/or their consequences.

You can bet that most of those who will inevitably show up to protest Bush and his policies - will be ordinary folk. The more of us the better. And I think the most effective form of protest will not be shouting slogans - but standing in silence: a vigil for the victims of 911 ; a vigil for all the Iraqi victims of "Operation Enduring Freedom"; a vigil for the Aid workers and others who have succumbed to violence; a vigil for the American forces dead and wounded; a vigil for the American Consititution; A vigil for the environment; A vigil for human rights and compassion... we could be there a long time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> And I think the most effective form of protest will not be shouting slogans - but standing in silence


Now THAT would be Canadian to the core!

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"And I think the most effective form of protest will not be shouting slogans - but standing in silence." This is what I did when I came to the section of the Oath of Canadian Citizenship that swore my allegience to the Queen and all her subsequent heirs.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Damn - I thought it was, "... and all her subjugate hairs", hmmm. 'Course I was only... let's see... 15.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As I've said all along diplomats may need to be diplomatic - I'll take a passionate and vocal representative - let the diplomatic corp do their thing. A bit of fire in the belly does no harm at all and perhaps serves to heighten awareness and shake up complacency.

As to broadening trade of course the gov has a large influence on direction by actively seeking out bilateral trade agreements and funding shows and trade initiatives.
American companies have siphoned profits out of Canada for decades without paying the level of taxes appropriate - slick easy stuff like charging for marketing materials as a method of moving profits. There's tons of ways.
Plugging some of the corporate welfare holes that exist here is something governments can do as well.

There is no way to avoid the fallout of an economic crunch for the US but it CAN be ameliorated.
The current debt reduction and surplus is a good base. Looking at the kind of devastation to small businesses in 82 and working out ways of soften a severe downturn.
Having public works projects laid out ala the New Deal in the US and most of all getting gov lean and honest.

There's much to be done in this country and in developing trade outside the US and the gov has a big role in those efforts.

Better use of time and money than tying up traffic for Bush.


----------



## Dessert Whip (Jun 19, 2004)

This issue drives me nuts. I have no qualms with the people of the United States. They are just as human as any others on the planet. What I can't understand is why would anyone defend this political monster Bush? and why would anyone have issues with those who are willing to stand up against it. 

"Now THAT would be Canadian to the core!"
Makes me wonder if your core is Canadian. Sure we're known for being quiet and polite.... but that's compared to the loudmouth, self-serving, political circus downstairs. 

"If the Bush bashers continue to antagonize the US, we could wind up being their enemy and we all know where that leads."
No... Where? Where does one end up after giving in to the school bully? Trash talked by politically motivated media? Bombed? Are you going to take us to war, Bush, because we called you on your ****ty track record. uh... not too sure the rest of the world would like that too much. Cold war warming up again and all. Like fellow Canadian William Shatner said to a Conan O'brien (US) audience when asked about Canadian-US relations, "I live here and I like you guys, but if it ever came down to it, I'd kill every single one of you." Now THAT is Canadian to the core?

"Does no one ever stop to think that when you insult and demean a head of ANY state, you indirectly do the same to the population of the nation that elected him or her?"
No, because its not true. If it looks like a jackass, smells like a jackass, is spelled J-A-C-K-A-S-S.... regardless of its job, its still a JACKASS. Even if the United Staters did vote for the JACKASS (which they most likely didn't) they didn't do it for the good of the planet, they did it for the "almighty" yankee buck and those of us not making those bucks (and even some who are) are actually calling them all JACKASS. Most know where it comes from. So if they are insulted I beleive they probably deserve it. 

As far as Parrish. Giv'em hell girl. You weren't elected to bite your tongue (although, probably not to stick it out either) but to speak your mind as a representative of CANADIANS. Whether you were elected because you were a Liberal Party Member or for your own stands and beliefs we will never know. This Canadian (Liberal by default) isn't in Missisauga, but has definately been represented PROUDLY. I have a sense of humour and pride too! The party system is a farce anyway, no less than the circus downstairs. Stir it up. 

Originally from Ottawa, I haven't wanted to go home this bad for years. Front and center with a big sign demeaning Bush and screaming bloody hell for the whole world to see (sans the United Staters because of their censorship of course)! So now Sinc and the other "don't stir the pot" people tell me again why should I bite my tongue? IMBY! You can live in fear of the JACKASS, I'll just keep saying JACKASS.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

> Like fellow Canadian William Shatner said to a Conan O'brien (US) audience when asked about Canadian-US relations, "I live here and I like you guys, but if it ever came down to it, I'd kill every single one of you."


Denny [email protected]#k you Bush!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> So now Sinc and the other "don't stir the pot" people tell me again why should I bite my tongue?


Perhaps because of your use of offensive language to make your point?

I can see it now, people standing on the streets of Ottawa uttering stupid threats using foul language.

Sure, that would work. American policy would change overnight. The U.S. would really change course as a result of your actions.

And considering the contents of the post and graphics above, you might want to take the poster with you.

Cheers










[ November 21, 2004, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: SINC ]


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Macdoc


> A bit of fire in the belly does no harm at all and perhaps serves to heighten awareness and shake up complacency.


All very true, my friend, and if all your representative did was to show a little fire and take a tough stand, I'd be quite willing to accept it. However even you must admit that her childish antics and vociferous statements were not what was needed. She crossed the line big time as a representative of the Canadian people.

As for Dessert Whip, you make a couple of good points. Reality, however, has tied us inextricably to the US ... economically, socially and, like it or not politically. Say what you want, do what you want, but a collapse to the south of us would mean a collapse in Canada. Canadians as a people pride ourselves on our ability to arbitrate international situations. We have created the foundation upon which many state vs state conflicts have been resloved. We have done that, however, by sitting down with the parties involved, listening, talking and building a consensus on a way to move forward. We have not done it by getting up on a pedistal and ranting and raving about the jackasses running the various countries.

Mike


----------



## Dessert Whip (Jun 19, 2004)

"Perhaps because of your use of offensive language to make your point?"
Have you lived your whole life in this state of fear? 
What part of language is offensive? The true part? The opinion? The parts where vowels say their own name? You're losing me. Is it foreign language you find offensive? Is it the word Jackass? Would you prefer donkey? Now will you sleep tonight? Anything else we should censor for you and your Uncle Bush? See, I said Jackass, because... well... I (yeah me) meant Jackass. Are you telling me my opinion doesn't count because you only listen in a certain "language"? Fat chance. That's how us morally confused people talk, and I strongly beleive anyone who can't appreciate that can kiss my dick-tionary. (I hope that's not offensive)









"I can see it now, people standing on the streets of Ottawa uttering stupid threats using foul language."
I can see it now, people running around with thorns in their pride, offended and bleeding from the ears.

"Sure, that would work. American policy would change overnight. The U.S. would really change course as a result of your actions."
I'm not trying to change the course of u.s. "OF" a. policy, just pointing out where they are being obvious JACKASSES. I'm curious though, not showing up at all.... is that how u.s.OFa. policy gets changed? Is it up to us Canadians to change u.s.OFa. policy or do we just let their people know how we feel about their policy makers? Is there another county you're hoping Bush is going to take out? How do you benefit? Do you get pleasure watching people die on the news every day? Why are you defending the monster?

My america is Canada and Mexico.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Childish antics??.....if you refer to This Hour.....it's a comedy show









The rest is simply getting mad about a situation that millions of people in the world and in the US are livid about. Bush has been roasted toasted and fricaseed in his own country and around the world.....so our representatives are supposed to be namby pambies???.  

Far too much Readers Digest, not near enough Slate.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109983/

If he doesn't like his nose rubbed in it, don't come here.
Canada is NOT without the ability to go it's own way - Japan with few resources does just fine. A stronger crafted relationship with Japan alone would help immensely.
It's a loser mentality thinking that we have to cater to the US.

It's Diefenbaker cancelling the Arrow all over.   

Tell the little girl shot in Iraq we're afraid to call a butcher a butcher or use the strongest possible language to bring atrocities into public awareness.   

WE'RE the peace maker nation, our representatives are just supposed to look the other way and mumble sweet nothings when war is undertaken in an illegal manner and conducted in a grotesque manner that breaches all sorts of international conventions.???

NO!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> That's how us morally confused people talk, and I strongly beleive anyone who can't appreciate that can kiss my dick-tionary. (I hope that's not offensive)


It is.

Cheers


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Some people like to think that we don't really "need" the USA administration to be friendly to us. It's just my opinion, but I think you're naive and wrong if you think antagonizing them will get you anywhere. Lumber, beef, wheat, etc. are all on the economic table. I don’t see anyone saying there’s anything wrong with protesting (peacefully) against US decisions, but as pointed out earlier, “you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar”. We need to put pressure on elected officials, the only ones the US government might really take seriously, to voice objections. We should also be free to engage in organized and peaceful demonstrations that will get some media (and hopefully political) attention. Stomping on Bush figurines and yelling crude slogans or insults at him won’t get you anywhere, other than to be an embarrassment to the part of the population that you don’t represent. Try going over to someone who just took a parking space you were waiting for and call him an “a**hole and see if he gives you the parking spot or not. The best you might hope for is not to get into a fight (unless that’s what you call a resolution). 
Bush is very strong on his stand in “liberating” Iraq and in case you haven’t noticed by the recent political events, he doesn’t take kindly to dissenters. That doesn’t mean that Canada should be a wimp and keep quiet…it just needs to be somewhat diplomatic if it hopes to achieve any real impact. I’m not sure if _anything_ will change George’s course, unless enough countries can band together in solidarity to object to and put pressure on the US. They’re very strong and have an agenda that probably is too late to change in regards to Iraq, but maybe a strong diplomatic voice could make them think differently for the future courses of action. Who knows?!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Stomping on Bush figurines and yelling crude slogans or insults at him won’t get you anywhere, other than to be an embarrassment to the part of the population that you don’t represent.


Exactly, Peter.

Cheers


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> .so our representatives are supposed to be namby pambies???.


I haven't seen anyone here suggesting any such thing. Rather, it's a view that when the shouting and stomping is done we'll still have to negotiate. When a combative approach is taken to disagreements then both parties concentrate on the combat. The real issues are still there to resolve.

As a nation, politically, publicly and in the media, Canada has largely shown a united front in opposition to the war in Iraq. The US administration has that message loud and clear.

And we didn't have to resort to some of Bush's behavior to do it.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Macdoc


> Canada is NOT without the ability to go it's own way - Japan with few resources does just fine. A stronger crafted relationship with Japan alone would help immensely.


Granted, we should be working hard to expand our trading partnerships. We should be working hard to lessen the potential impact of a US dollar crisis. I believe that Martin is doing both of these things and putting as much emphasis on it as he possibly can. That being said, however, the Canadian economy is so tightly intertwined with that of the US, that it will take years for us to reach a safe balance point. In those years, GWB jr will have come and gone and, hopefully, the US economy will get back on it's feet and we will want to participate in that recovery. Ticking off the entire nation is, in my estimation, a really dumb long term move.

Mike


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Most of the entire world is ticked at Bush and the border governors are quite happy to get things moving themselves.

Cold shoulder no pandering. We played "nice" with WTO etc to absolutely ZERO effect.

Parrish has a point to make and she made it loudly and was NOT just about the US. The"stomping" was a skit by 22 minutes not known for holding their tongues - they ALSO have a point to make.

It's long overdue to take the emphasis off the trade with the US and if they land softly and turn around they will still need to be isolationist for a while and in my mind that's okay.

They have a horrendous task to dig out of Iraq and I'm pleased that Martin is sticking to that program of n Canadian involvement there. I'm pleased with the efforts in Afghanistan.

As to continental missile defence...JUST SAY NO.

The people, press and representatives speak their minds, the cabinet and diplomats negotiate. Two different roles.
The liberals have a lot if internal mending to do and I think personally the whip/caucus system is under question.
It's the first time the opportunity has been there to do so.

There has been a lot of agitation about it previously but never under Chretien would it get the time of day.
Martin has no choice.
Parrish put it to him.
I'm thrilled she's upsetting the applecart over exactly what I heard a number of people here complain about previously the monolithic party system under the Liberals.

There are 4 pretty equally powerful voices in the house right now. Compromise and progress MUST go together.
We'll see it when the missile defence issue arises seriously how the dynamics will work.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Watching Pierre Trudeau pitch last night and recalled "fuddle duddle" amongst other rather obstreperous comments from the era then this came up in the Globe today.



> *Protesters gear up to greet U.S. leader *
> 
> By GLORIA GALLOWAY
> With a report from Jeff Sallot
> ...


couldn't have said it better.


----------



## concept_guy (Oct 18, 2004)

*"We shouldn't be intimidated by American stick-wagging. We live in a culture of fear and this is largely a manufactured culture of fear. And if we keep succumbing to this, then we're never going to change anything," he said.* 

I do SO agree with that statement.

Remember voicing our own opinion shows not only the US - but the world - that we are able to have our own opinion, and are confident enough to voice it; even to our 'Big Brother' who DOES have serious economic impact on our country.


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

I know there will be protestors and demonstrators. But they will be the most well-mannered.. polite bunch of screaming people you have ever seen.

And when the police ask them to backup.... they'll say "ok.. thank you.."

That's the extent to which I would "respect" George Bush.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Holy Crap!











> WASHINGTON (CP) - President George W. Bush will avoid a potentially hostile reception in Parliament and travel to Halifax next week to give a speech after his first official trip to Ottawa, White House sources say..... Sources say U.S. officials involved in planning the trip were worried about a cranky audience on Parliament Hill. "We didn't see the need and, frankly, we didn't want to be booed. There are other, better venues," said one U.S. official.


<div align="right">Source</div>

...I wonder how many of us are going to be rounded up by CSIS in the days prior...

M.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Parrish 1 Bush 0


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

Denny Crane............









Crybaby right t' the core.....


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> We didn't see the need and, frankly, we didn't want to be booed.


Parrish the thought..

Sorry.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

What a bunch of morons, do they think that's the only place that'll happen?  

News flash meatheads!! You're despised pretty much from coast to coast.
















Bush's USA.....









Jam it Bush!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now now grace in victory


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Go tell the little swaggering bugger what for, CubaMark!


----------



## kermit (Oct 9, 2004)

> quote:
> WASHINGTON (CP) - President George W. Bush will avoid a potentially hostile reception ......





> At 4:20 p.m. on both Nov. 30 and Dec. 1, hundreds of people are planning to light up marijuana cigarettes on the grounds of Parliament Hill .....


Surely, things would have mellowed out by around 4.30 p.m.?


----------

