Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh

[pritchke]

JONATHON GATEHOUSE

His penchant for fantastically expensive military photo-ops. Or the swaggering, belt-hitching walk that cries out for a pair of swinging saloon doors. And though, God knows, we have too many of our own syntactically challenged politicians to be casting stones, shouldn't the leader of the free world know that "misunderestimate" isn't a word? Yes, we're cavilling, but clearly there is something about George W. Bush that gets under the skin of Canadians. After all, vehemently disagreeing with the policies of American presidents is almost a national pastime. There has to be another explanation for our extreme reaction, the desire afoot in the land to see him turfed from office. That and the unprintable sentiment about him and the horse he rode in on. Even before we know whom he will be running against this fall, Canadians have made their decision. Only 15 per cent, according to an exclusive new Maclean's poll, would definitely cast a ballot for Bush if they had the opportunity.

Full article:

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/po...09_74911_74911

I didn't post this up as an anti-bush article but did think it was an interesting read. I think my view lies somewere along that of the students. After 9/11 I supported him quite a bit, yes I still disagreed with some of his trade policies and such but not enough to care about him being turfed in the next election, then with the Iraq fiasco I started to distrust him, his staff, and their motives, as well as some of the things he had been pulling both outside and inside his country.

[ 02-03-2004, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I really don't like having the international community pissed off at America.
Hate the government and hate the leaders if you must. Don't hate the country.

But this goes two ways! Don't hate France! Hate Chirac, if you must.
Personally, I think it took guts to stand up to (President) Bush like that.
(Happy, Timber?)

[Timber Loftis]

Hey, don't modify your posting on my account.

And sure, I'm happy to hate France. (joking!!!) [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img]

Standing up to (President) Oil Monkee Bush was easier considering the number of ONGOING business dealings France had with Iraq. Simple fact is that France lost a lot of money the minute the war began. France (as a government) was not unbiased, so we should treat its stance on the issue with the same suspicion as any other interested party, such as the USA.

I get the feeling President Bush doesn't mind people standing up to him on his ideas. He may disagree, but I don't think he minds the voice of opposition.

I think had France really been opposed in a meaningful way, it would have pointed out the Numerous workers and equipment and businesses it had in Iraq and threatened to send troops in to guard those French assets if war began escalating. Now *that* sort of move would've stalled the US attack by MONTHS or longer.

[ 02-03-2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I get the feeling President Bush doesn't mind people standing up to him on his ideas. He may disagree, but I don't think he minds the voice of opposition.

aye, President Bush does not mind the voice of opposition. Aslong as it is confined to a 'free-speech' zone a mile from the event

[Timber Loftis]

LOL, I remember that one. Of course allowing free speech doesn't mean the naysayers are allowed to disturb every public appearance by the President. Were that the case, a very vocal but very small minority could hijack a lot of events. That would be unwise, unfair, and inefficient, no?

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: LOL, I remember that one. Of course allowing free speech doesn't mean the naysayers are allowed to disturb every public appearance by the President. Were that the case, a very vocal but very small minority could hijack a lot of events. That would be unwise, unfair, and inefficient, no?

Every President before him tolorated that sort of thing, what makes the oil monkey so special that at EVERY event that his people can exert control over the opposition is forced to be hundereds of yards away and out of sight? As a matter of fact the only time I can recall Bush being confronted by protesters was when he visited Britain last year and the Mayor of London refused his request for segragated protest zones.

[khazadman]

I don't give a damn if Canadians don't like Bush. They are a joke. They're just another failing socialist nanny state.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by khazadman: I don't give a damn if Canadians don't like Bush. They are a joke. They're just another failing socialist nanny state.

Feel the love!

[pritchke]

What are the other failing socialist nanny states?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Every President before him tolorated that sort of thing, what makes the oil monkey so special that at EVERY event that his people can exert control over the opposition is forced to be hundereds of yards away and out of sight? As a matter of fact the only time I can recall Bush being confronted by protesters was when he visited Britain last year and the Mayor of London refused his request for segragated protest zones.

You gotta be kidding me. You don't have to go back too far in history to find several presidents having clashes with protestors over their policies. I heard there was this thing before my time called the Vietnam War and that protestors were sometimes heavily discouraged by law enforcement and even the military. I also have heard about this thing called the civil rights movement. Again, I wasn't there, so I can't confirm anything, but I've seen the waterhoses on old news footage, and if it wasn't real I must say they had some darned good special effects. Besides, you're not thinking or just being argumentative. Obviously, if you let the very vocal minority show up at every public event and interrupt things nothing will get done. Duh.

Khazadman, I understand the frustration a conservative must have coming to visit our hippy lovefest over here [img]graemlins/hippysmile.gif[/img] but your posts have become increasingly short, inaccurate or incorrect, inflammatory, and polemic. You're giving conservatives a bad name, especially when you BLATANTLY VIOLATE TOS.

Besides, this "failing socialist nanny state" has quite a bit more personal freedom than we do and they have bested us economically for several quarters (on improvement percentages, not on total economic volume of course). In fact, the only thing "socialistic" I can think of about them is socialized health care, which is obviously serving them better than our piece of crap system is working here (erm... unless you're rich, then it's allll gooood here). In fact, several thousand Americans buy meds from Canada and several state governors are considering making bulk government purchases from there (directly challenging our asshole agencies and rules here). Viva la capitalism.

Canada's not that far away -- I suggest you visit it before making obviously uninformed posts about it. If you have visited it, I'm sure you're aware of your lie and just wanted to drop a grenade into the post. On that note, quit trolling and try adding something of value.