posted on August 10, 2007 11:55:12 AM newThat's why I've never seen YOU as being representative of the typical canadian - when you THINK what you say about canada should be the ONLY 'word'. They're very different from you.
Let's hope Linda doesn't think of herself as a typical American. I shudder at the thought of that.
The canadian language and it's many variables AREN'T ABOUT YOU KIARA
How many times to do need to be told there is no "canadian language". You are so obtuse with your logic. Didn't you learn anything from etexbill about this subject.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 10, 2007 12:43:06 PM newAs usual ld...you can't grasp what was explained to you over and over.
This coming from the one who still believes in a language called CANADIAN. How pathetic!! tsk tsk
But it's obvious you have NOTHING to offer except repeating previously off topic, long ago discussions
Like you have anything positive to offer. All you do is complain and whine against anyone that who has different opinions than you.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 10, 2007 12:45:55 PM newThere are many ways most Nations do differently...for good reasons. That's why I CHOOSE to live in America and not Canada.
Then worry about what is being done in the country and stop worrying about how other countries do things. You don't live there so stop worrying and trying to compare the US to every other country in the world.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 10, 2007 01:19:51 PM newAmerican English can be so confusing to those used to speaking canadian-english. lol
Fun examples:
Lets not forget the word nuclear.
There is every day American speak and Bush speak. I guess some in America speak "Bush" English. LOL LOL LOL
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 11, 2007 02:37:46 PM new
As today's NYT points out so well....
In her public appearances, Mrs. Clinton often says, “If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.”
But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
The United States’ security, she said then, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state” that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”
Appears old hillary is taking BOTH sides of every hot issue.
Kinda reminds me of how kerry did the same thing in '04. And it was a LOSING position to take then too.
And it appears that others are noticing they're not in a 'hurry' to end this war, even though they TALK like they will.
Again, from the NYT:
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
By JEFF ZELENY And MARC SANTORA
DES MOINES, Aug. 11 —
Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north.
And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 11, 2007 02:47 PM ]
posted on August 12, 2007 03:58:22 PM new
From this AP article and a couple of others.....dems are starting to sound like they're getting VERY worried old hillary might just win the dem party nomination.....but then lose the race against a/any Republican.
They have different reasons...but most think she's too 'disliked' to win. lol
Which was verified by a poll, taken quite a while ago, whose results showed 51% of American voters stated they would NEVER vote to put hillary in the WH.
Now, those in her OWN party are starting to worry.
A few of the liberal websites are also asking....'will the REAL hillary clinton please stand up'.
==========================
DECEIVING DATA
The Obama and Edwards camps are dismissing the polling numbers, pointing out that opinion surveys over the years have offered a skewed picture.
Democrats Weigh Effect of Hillary Clinton Down the Ballot
Sunday, August 12, 2007
WASHINGTON — Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.
"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.
Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination — despite privately held fears.
A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.
A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.
"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."
"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 12, 2007 04:22 PM ]
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
