Article

2005-01-20 Great White North

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-20 1:37:08 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 You might know the "couple" is Moe and Larry. Get outta town you clowns.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-20 1:51:32 AM|| 2005-01-20 1:51:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 "...Ian Robinson, a columnist with The Calgary Sun, who wrote: "I hope I'm not alone in gently suggesting to those considering coming to Canada: stay home, you pathetic whining maggots."

No kidding a bunch more moobats is all they need up north. If my friends are any indication up there they can all stay home instead of traveling north to steal jobs. Most ofd them will never be accepted to imigrate. Fat chance for the IT fags, the job market is over saturated.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-20 1:55:33 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-20 1:55:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I wish all of the LLL whackos had the integrity of Mike and Bob -- and would follow-through with their pledge to leave the US.

Sadly, 99% of them are all talk and we Americans will be forced to listen to their whining for another 4+ years.

Posted by Rearden 2005-01-20 2:00:30 AM|| 2005-01-20 2:00:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Europe is so much nicer this time of the year. hint hint.

Posted by Rafael 2005-01-20 2:09:11 AM|| 2005-01-20 2:09:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Oh, well, consider me a replacement for Moe and Larry (Mike & Bob). I'll be moving to US in a few months.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-01-20 2:13:06 AM|| 2005-01-20 2:13:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 maybe they're moving for the hockey--wtf--no hockey--get the sweeping broom mate

Posted by SON OF TOLUI 2005-01-20 2:14:13 AM|| 2005-01-20 2:14:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Gratz, and welcome, Sobiesky.

Posted by Dishman 2005-01-20 2:16:45 AM|| 2005-01-20 2:16:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Dishman, I wish you were working for INS! LOL!

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-01-20 2:19:55 AM|| 2005-01-20 2:19:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Sobiesky, no worries, I am sure you will get it in the end.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-20 2:31:57 AM|| 2005-01-20 2:31:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Just what we would expect from the Home of Fisk, the veritable belly of The Beast, Al-Independent:

"The vociferous, increasingly intolerant right-wing commentator Ann Coulter said recently on Fox News: 'It's always the worst Americans who end up going [to Canada] - the Tories after the Revolutionary War, the Vietnam draft-dodgers after Vietnam. And now, after this election, you have the blue-state people moving up there. They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.'"

Intolerant? They're the ones leaving the country because they lost a freakin' election, fer pity's sake.

"To many people planning their move, such comments are merely another reason to get packing. As soon as they can."

Good, that's the whole idea.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-20 2:33:43 AM|| 2005-01-20 2:33:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Personally, I think Coulter is demented (though less so than the Moonbat self-exiles) but if her words will get them out of the country, more power to her.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-20 2:46:09 AM|| 2005-01-20 2:46:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Southern France is gorgeous...much prettier than Quebec even.

Posted by Rafael 2005-01-20 3:06:52 AM|| 2005-01-20 3:06:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 My favorite part of Quebec is the north-central region south of the tundra line, a gigantic and practically uninhabited wilderness. It is fascinating to historical geologists, the least disturbed area of the oldest stable land-mass on Earth, the Canadian Shield. It is covered with evergreen forests and little glacial lakes, the rocks under your feet are not millions, but billions, of years old. The oldest dated specimen in my collection (-3.2 billion years) is a gneiss from a site on the eastern shore of Nichican Lake, almost in the center of the province.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-20 3:39:59 AM|| 2005-01-20 3:39:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 It's a process of natural selection.
Canadians who want to live in capitalist society move south.
Americans who want to live in a socialist society move north.

Posted by gromgorru 2005-01-20 4:35:00 AM|| 2005-01-20 4:35:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 I agree with you on Coulter, AC.

Posted by rkb 2005-01-20 5:37:56 AM|| 2005-01-20 5:37:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 And on other news , Canada was once a nice place to live . :)

Posted by MacNails 2005-01-20 7:29:02 AM|| 2005-01-20 7:29:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 But I like Ann,my kind of no-nonsense,take no prisoners gal.

Posted by raptor 2005-01-20 7:32:47 AM|| 2005-01-20 7:32:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 I don't know why they're describing Ann Coulter as "increasingly intolerant." Within hours of the 9/11 attacks, she'd already written a column demanding that we invade every Muslim country, kill their leaders, and forcibly convert their people to Christianity. That was over three years ago - love her or hate her, can anyone really believe she's growing more extreme?

And just to be clear - I'm a fan.

Posted by Captain Pedantic 2005-01-20 8:51:20 AM|| 2005-01-20 8:51:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Well, if she's gone from threatening the invasion of every Muslim country to threatening the invasion of Canada, I'd say she did find the only way possible to increase her intolerance.

For all the supposed patriotism, red-state conservatives seem to enjoy watching the dissolution of their nation into red and blue.

Is this truly patriotism or do you simply desire
Southern culture triumphant over Northern in a rematch of the civil war, no matter what it may cost to the United States as a whole?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 9:15:19 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 9:15:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Lol! You don't have a clue about what makes America, or Americans, tick.

Patriotism has *zero* to do with the accident of birth that one is born into a given country. Being born (or naturalized) an American does not make one a patriotic American. Look it up in a dictionary: n : one who loves and defends his or her country.

The Blue Staters are Europeans who, unfortunately for both sides, happen to be here. Ann has merely suggested, in her personal inimitable style, that they repatriate themselves.

Posted by .com 2005-01-20 9:33:31 AM|| 2005-01-20 9:33:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Aris, sigh. It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people suspect that you are an idjit, rather than open it and provide confirmation.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-01-20 9:34:03 AM|| 2005-01-20 9:34:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Aris, precisely where did you learn your US History, anyway? Howard Zinn?
I live out in the West. Red out here as it can be. It was never part of the Confederacy. Matter of fact, the reddest state, Utah (Bush won with 71% and never even visited the place), was traditionally Democrat for the longest time. You trying to seriously claim that UTAH was part of the Confederacy?
Red-staters haven't been the ones talking about secession. That's blue-state talk.
Aris, every now and then, you have a point. But stick to things that you know something about (the American Civil War obviously isn't one of them).

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-01-20 9:37:26 AM|| 2005-01-20 9:37:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 ...seem to enjoy watching the dissolution of their nation into red and blue.

No, we don't. We enjoy finally being able to fight back against the red staters who have been pretending for the last twenty years that they're more tolerant.

Just a small aside... over the past fifteen years, a lot of people in my state (Louisiana) who were mainstream Democrat have become conservative Republicans, without changing their positions. With corrupt machine Democrats like Edwards and his useful idiots in the Republican Party like Duke BOTH in jail, ideology became more important than patronage, at the same time that the national-level Democratic party was taking a sharp turn to the left on a large number of domestic issues.

Now this is going to look disconnected, but I suggest reading the following article before I continue:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_urbanities-dresden.html.

OK... assuming you read the whole thing, including the bits about David Irving...

Do you realize that a lot of conservatives (which in the South, encompasses the center, and moderate democrats to a large extent) look on Kerry as a sort of David Irving of the Vietnam War, except he did his propagandizing while the war was still on, and was successful in helping North Vietnam achieve victory?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-01-20 9:46:27 AM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-01-20 9:46:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 --Within hours of the 9/11 attacks, she'd already written a column demanding that we invade every Muslim country - working on it

, kill their leaders,

- working on it

and forcibly convert their people to Christianity - decisions, decisions

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-20 9:48:48 AM|| 2005-01-20 9:48:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Sobiesky - Welcome! From your posts, you will find several tens of millions of friends, lol! And we aren't the fair-weather types, either.

Posted by .com 2005-01-20 9:53:07 AM|| 2005-01-20 9:53:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 red-state conservatives seem to enjoy watching the dissolution of their nation into red and blue.

I'll wager that your experience of the US is limited to what you've read, Aris. Anyone who's spent a significant amount of time between the coasts (college-towns-with-a-foreign-policy don't count) knows that "red" and "blue" are intermingled in nearly every county, every block and even in many households. The really important vote in the last election-- JFK-Truman Dems who split their tickets and voted for Bush-- was almost totally ignored by the media. These "purple" voters are the reason that Bush gained 50,000 votes, and Kerry lost 100,000 votes, in New York City alone vs the Bush-Gore results in 2000. It's safe to say that at least 1 million, as many as 2 million, hawkish Democrats switched from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004.

Is this truly patriotism or do you simply desire Southern culture triumphant over Northern in a rematch of the civil war, no matter what it may cost to the United States as a whole?

Another media canard. There is no more "southern culture" in the sense of a distinct and coherent value set and outlook. As is obvious to anyone who has actually lived in the southern states during the last twenty years, any decent-sized southern city today has a large concentration of high technology, banking and other professionals, many of them relocated northerners and Californians. Most of the nation's top pharma and many biotech companies are located in North Carolina. The best-managed, fastest-growing major tech company is located in Texas, which is also the biggest technology hub outside silicon valley. Most of our telecommunications giants are located in the south, and much of their cutting-edge research takes place in Texas (which is also the Americas headquarters for many European technology giants such as Nokia and chipmaker ST Microelectronics). Two of the five largest banks in the US are located in North Carolina.

The notion of the south as a backwater was outdated twenty years ago. Along with the Rocky Mountain states, it's cutting edge. It's Massachusetts and Michigan whose population is shrinking; were it not for Asian and latin immigrants into NYC, New York state would likely be shrinking as well. Please update your stereotypes.

Posted by lex 2005-01-20 9:57:03 AM|| 2005-01-20 9:57:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Hi Aris,

While I almost never agree with you on issues I'm glad you comment as I enjoy a reasonable exchange of different views. I hope you read Desert Blondie's and Phil's and even .com's response and think about it.

"Red State" Americans ( I'm about as Red as you can get even though I live in the Bluest state, Massachusetts ) have been patronized, condescended to and insulted by our "betters" in the academic and media elites for decades. Basically, now that the worm has turned, we are returning some of the favors and the elites are whining and crying like we never did proving that those blowhards don't have the guts to standup for whatever it is they believe in. If they lose, they run and cry to papa. This time though there is no institutionalized Papa in this country for them to run to. So, rather than grow up themselves, they run to Canada or Europe for protection.

By and large the Red don't hate the Blue, but, I think that we do find them mostly to be despicable.

NOTE: Blue here repreresents the LLLs and especially their elites in MSM and academia, NOT everyone that voted Democrat.

Posted by AlanC 2005-01-20 9:57:15 AM|| 2005-01-20 9:57:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

Has she not seen South Park: the movie?

Posted by Winged Avenger 2005-01-20 10:03:02 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:03:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Aris, american politics has very little to do with North vs. South. It has everything to do with socialist liberalism vs. the rest of us. Even most "Conservatives" are somewhat liberal on certain issues. I have lived and worked in 9 states on both coasts and north and south and found there really isn't much difference in people. I lived in Boston, San Francisco, Portland, Oregon, Escanaba Michigan, central Maine, Oklahoma, New York City, and various places in the deep south and although there are minor cultural differences we are all Americans. If you have never lived here for any length of time you have as much chance of understanding Americans as we do understanding what it is to be Greek. Your view is extremely simplistic and just plain wrong.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-01-20 10:03:26 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:03:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 They must have gotten Phil Hartman to pose for that cover photo before his wife killed him.

Posted by Tibor 2005-01-20 10:05:35 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:05:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 "even .com"

ROFL!!! Byte me, AlanC!

Posted by .com 2005-01-20 10:05:39 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:05:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 .com> The Blue Staters are Europeans who, unfortunately for both sides, happen to be here.

The Blue Staters' home seems to be (by definition) in the blue states. If you don't want the Blue Staters in America, it's difficult to see how you justify wanting the Blue States in America.

That'd be similar to me saying that I want the British outside of the European Union but also the United Kingdom itself to remain a part of it. IT'S NOT AN OPTION.

You trying to seriously claim that UTAH was part of the Confederacy?

Well Utah was a territory back then and not a state at all. So, difficult to know. Besides Utah, like Hawaii, is one of the few places that has a third subculture of its own, due to the Mormonism. So more than one factors at work.

Red-staters haven't been the ones talking about secession. That's blue-state talk.

Well sure, that's because it's always the side that loses the national contest that decides it can't accept the result and wants to make a break for it. South couldn't accept the defeat for them that Lincoln represented last century, blue states now can't seem to accept the defeat for them that the victory of Bush represents. Then it was the South that wanted out, now it's the North.

But you people seem to think that you can speak "go away, we don't want you here" to a large percentage of the *people* of those states, without actually speaking it to those states as a whole.

You can't have both ways. You either want the blue-states (and the people in them) to be a part of your nation or you don't.

Matter of fact, the reddest state, Utah (Bush won with 71% and never even visited the place), was traditionally Democrat for the longest time.

I'm sure that was when Democrats itself were the party (pre-Kennedy) that represented the conservatism of "Southern Culture".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 10:06:03 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 10:06:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 AC-For me, the stretch between La Malbaie and Ile D'Orleans is pure magic. The color of the sky and the weird green of the water around La Malbaie in fall is incredible. That is my vacation paradise.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-20 10:08:40 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:08:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 *sigh*

Aris, please stop making an ass of yourself. It's just getting old.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-01-20 10:10:31 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-01-20 10:10:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 Good argument, Robert.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 10:11:05 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 10:11:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 And as for the purplishness of most of the USA, I agree with it, which is why *I* think United States should still try to stick together.

But when you argue that USA is actually purple, and then use terms like blue-staters and red-staters, and want the blue-staters to leave, then it's *you* who undermine your own argument.

As for me not knowing what I'm talking about because I've never lived in America, that'd be a point worth making, except that there's no point I've made that I haven't seen atleast a half dozen places elsewhere by actual American citizens.

By "Southern culture" I didn't mean technological backwardness, .com -- that was *your* assumption. All cultures evolve, and Southern culture isn't where it was a hundred or even twenty years ago.

But as long as the terms red-states and blue-states keep on being used as a term that represents a solid permanent or semi-permanent cultural division, rather than a temporary political outcome, you can't claim that no such thing as "Southern Culture" exists, even if the PC term now becomes "Red-state culture".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 10:17:51 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 10:17:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 It's not an argument -- it's advice.

For that matter, I was unaware YOU were making an argument. From what I can see, you're just making an ass of yourself, lecturing people to stop doing something they're not doing in the first place.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-01-20 10:20:30 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-01-20 10:20:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 Lol! Aris. Your typical endless thread of infinite hair-splitting, strawmen, canards, and to complete the spectrum (hitting for the cycle) - sweeping generalities which are, as many are earnestly trying to tell you, stereotypes only a moron buys into. I guess they're either eternal optimists or just don't realize how insecure you truly are. Sad.

You don't know dick about it and you should impress the shit out of everyone in RB by, for once, admitting it and asking questions instead of pretending you're well-informed.

Sadly, this thread is dead. All further posts will be convulsive death rattle and pointless - for Aris The Grate wants a parade.

Posted by .com 2005-01-20 10:24:10 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:24:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 Hey .com you keep rolling on the floor you're gonna get dirty. What you don't understand irony? ;^)

Posted by AlanC 2005-01-20 10:25:43 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:25:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 I love this article and it really brings up some concerns:
In a Seattle suburb, âMike Teller and his partner Bob Vesely will not be cheering today.â
Does this mean that Seattle will have lack of Homo IT professionals?
Americans began focusing in earnest on a better, brighter life north of the border.
In the article every American talks about leaving the U.S. not in a âbetter or brighterâ light, they sound more like the dread heading North.
Ian Robinson, a columnist with The Calgary Sun, who wrote: "I hope I'm not alone in gently suggesting to those considering coming to Canada: stay home, you pathetic whining maggots."
And I thought we had nothing in common with our cousins up north, I often refer to these people as âpathetic whining maggots.â

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2005-01-20 10:28:56 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:28:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 Keep on believing that you want the blue staters out, but the blue states in. Keep on thinking that you can both call blue staters "European", but you really seek the USA's unity.

The doublethink required for that is fascinating to watch, in a morbid and depressing sort of way.

As for the typical flamage of Robert, .com, Sobiesky, and the usual gang, still boring.

It's not an argument -- it's advice.

Keep your advice for your friends, Robert, which is defined in my hair-splitting sort of way, as people who've not been called "cunt" by you.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 10:30:16 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 10:30:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#42 Here is a link to a small .pdf showing the 2004 election results by county rather than by state.

As you can see, it is not a North/South division at all, no matter how often it gets presented that way.

Posted by SteveS 2005-01-20 10:32:38 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:32:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#43 AlanC - Okay, I'll just LOL, then! You caught me before I abandoned this Thread of Doom for good. BTW, your comment was spot-on - as are so many others. Pearls before a swine, however. Live long and prosper - on other threads, heh. See you there... ;-)

Posted by .com 2005-01-20 10:32:52 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:32:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#44 "Then it was the South that wanted out, now it's the North."

Sorry, Aris, but you're just wrong on this one. The "red staters" are more comparable to the Northerners who supported the Civil War, and the "blue staters" are like the Northern copperheads who undermined the effort, and nearly defeated Lincoln's reelection.

There's no doubt that you're a smart guy, but please don't presume to lecture Americans on our own history -- I'm pretty sure you'd be equally miffed if the situation was reversed.

Posted by docob 2005-01-20 10:40:23 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:40:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#45 Keep on believing that you want the blue staters out, but the blue states in. Keep on thinking that you can both call blue staters "European", but you really seek the USA's unity.

The doublethink required for that is fascinating to watch, in a morbid and depressing sort of way.

This is what pisses me off about you, Aris. YOU HAVE THIS EXACTLY BACKWARDS.

The "Blue Staters" are the ones who want out. They're the ones who giggled over the "Jesusland" crap, they're the ones whining about leaving. They're the ones dreaming about disenfranchising Christians, writing editorials about mass-murdering Republicans.

You're getting on your high horse over people saying, in response, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" Go lecture the whiners -- the DUers, the types quoted in the original article -- about being divisive.

That's why you're making an ass of yourself. You act as if you know what's going on, when you clearly don't.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-01-20 10:45:49 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-01-20 10:45:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#46 --The Blue Staters' home seems to be (by definition) in the blue states.--

I live in a blue state, Aris, getting more socialistic blue by the day, but I have a red heart.

You guys elected for you a "right-winger" how's your press been?

The "progressives" have been in control for 70 years, not their time anymore and their manners are lacking.

I don't recall any of this bile growing up. Presidents took presidents to task privately, didn't interfere by going to the UN.

It just wasn't done, but they had to push it, so now they live w/the lowest common denominator standards they set.

Petulant 3 y.o. who can't take "no" for an answer, but they're in their 50/60s - 60s boomers attitude all of them.

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-20 10:47:01 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:47:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#47 docob" There's no doubt that you're a smart guy...

Ahm, [raising a hand] ... I have some doubts. :-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-01-20 10:47:16 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:47:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#48 The "red staters" are more comparable to the Northerners who supported the Civil War, and the "blue staters" are like the Northern copperheads who undermined the effort, and nearly defeated Lincoln's reelection

Yours is not a good analogy, because it compares a regional/cultural division (blue states vs red states) with a mere political choice of individuals in a single instance of time. The North-South division preexisted Lincoln's election, even as the blue state-red state division preexisted Bush. Those are both regional/cultural divisions that simply become evident through political choices.

It's the rhetoric that has simply gone more virulent lately.

It's been stated, and NOT by me, that "blue staters" are truly Europeans. It's hardly hair-splitting to see that as an argument that undermines the very core of the unity of your nation.

You may also want to read this: http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/11238.html , which has been one of the main articles that helped me develop these opinions.

The other main source ofcourse, has been the rhetoric of Rantburg itself.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 10:53:35 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 10:53:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#49 I didn't say it was a perfect analogy, just a better one. Which is what it is. =)

Posted by docob 2005-01-20 10:57:11 AM|| 2005-01-20 10:57:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#50 Robert> The "Blue Staters" are the ones who want out.

Well, duh! That's what I've been saying from the start, if you were literate enough to read it. See #32 where I said: "Then it was the South that wanted out, now it's the North".

It's always the defeated that want out, it's never the victors.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 10:57:18 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 10:57:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#51 ignore

Posted by Tom 2005-01-20 11:02:59 AM|| 2005-01-20 11:02:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#52 But you people seem to think that you can speak "go away, we don't want you here" to a large percentage of the *people* of those states, without actually speaking it to those states as a whole. You can't have both ways. You either want the blue-states (and the people in them) to be a part of your nation or you don't.

Um, Aris....it's more like this......they're ranting and raving like two year olds having a temper tantrum that they didn't get their way. They start screaming that they're moving to Canada/Australia/some other country that speaks English --so that heaven forbid they don't have to learn a new language-- and has all the modern conveniences (so that means India's out, even though it has this groovy religious vibe). Well, even little Purple me has had it with them and their whining and bitching, so when I hear them start up with that crap, yeah, I've said, "Why don't you move then? I'll help you pack, and here's $50 for the airfare out." Hmm...no takers so far. Wonder why? Maybe because it's just another tantrum. We all know that 99.9% of them don't mean it, and so do they. We're just hoping they get over it sometime before, say, 2007.

I'm sure that was when Democrats itself were the party (pre-Kennedy) that represented the conservatism of "Southern Culture".

Even post-Kennedy, Aris. Up until about Reagan. And that was dating back to statehood. On occasion they voted Republican, but it hasn't been a given till then.
Plus, the very idea that a bunch of polygamists and the descendents thereof would be enthralled with "Southern Culture" is, to put it nicely, a hoot. None of their (Mormon) church leaders has been anything but a Utah-born male or one of them Damn Yankees (like NY-born Joseph Smith, the founder).

Allow me to help you a bit with the definitions:
Red Stater: Generally found in the suburbs or the country, maybe has a couple of kids, watches NASCAR while eating Doritos and drinking beer
Blue Stater: Generally found in the larger cities, no kids, didn't know what NASCAR was until this election and is frankly horrified by it. Still drinks French wine.
Purple Stater: Found all over, either has kids or is working on it, likes to drink a fine California wine while secretly watching NASCAR. But only until some other foofy program comes on....ok, maybe they switch back during the commercials.....

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-01-20 11:06:45 AM|| 2005-01-20 11:06:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#53 "I hope I'm not alone in gently suggesting to those considering coming to Canada: stay home, you pathetic whining maggots."

Bwaaahahahahahaaahahahaahahaaaa!!!!

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-20 11:11:04 AM|| 2005-01-20 11:11:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#54 Aris, stop and think for a sec. I think I have a way of explaining why the red-state/blue state divide doesn't match Yankees vs. Confederates.

Look at William T. Sherman, for example. Today, would he be a red-stater or a blue-stater? (OK, maybe that's a funny example to pick, since Gen. Sherman was living in Louisiana at the time that secession occured, and then moved to Missouri, which is today counted as a "Red" state)... Anyway, he did burn Atlanta to the ground without bothering to get permission first from Kofi Annan.

It's also bothering me that the "Red Staters" (as defined politically, not geographically) seem to want to repeat in the current war a lot of the mistakes that led to the failure of Reconstruction in the South, starting with the assumption that the masked bands of extorsionists and terrorists roaming the countryside really are representative freedom fighters of some sort, and the idea that we could just withdraw, give the masked horsemen what they want, and let the situation fester another sixty years.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-01-20 11:18:16 AM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-01-20 11:18:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#55 Well, duh! That's what I've been saying from the start, if you were literate enough to read it. See #32 where I said: "Then it was the South that wanted out, now it's the North".

It's always the defeated that want out, it's never the victors.

No -- that's simply not true. While some idiots said they were leaving after Clinton's victories, they tended to be the types that consider Bush a Marxist. They certainly didn't get nearly as much press attention, let alone favorable press attention. Most of the US can deal with the idea of not winning every election, and for MOST of the country, we've been OK with the idea of not winning MOST elections.

As for why the "blue staters" get described as European -- dig around a bit more. You'll find that's how they describe themselves.

Desert Blondie has it exactly right -- the "I'm leaving" crowd is throwing a tantrum. They're like two-year-olds kicking and screaming because they didn't get a lollipop.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-01-20 11:19:05 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-01-20 11:19:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#56 Don't get me wrong, NASCARs is a fine spectacle, but the technology was designed in the 1950s with the advent of the V-8 small block. That's why I sometimes prefer sports car racing, although you could make the point that Morgans and MG (SCCA) use 1930s technology.

Fnord

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-20 12:15:12 PM|| 2005-01-20 12:15:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 You'll love them Canada. Just wait until they start telling you how to live. They do know best you know, eh?

Posted by tu3031 2005-01-20 12:19:13 PM|| 2005-01-20 12:19:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Aris, our republic, our form of democracy is raucus. I believe Europeans have always mentioned that and it's not something they're used to.

At this point in time, it's louder than usual.

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-20 12:21:15 PM|| 2005-01-20 12:21:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Please stop trying to describe/justify/define America to Aris, in thread after thread, week after week, it always ends with him wagging his superior Euro finger at us neanderthals and promising never to post again. RBer's are describing colors to a blind man.

Posted by JerseyMike 2005-01-20 1:02:56 PM|| 2005-01-20 1:02:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 Let em leave
check the link

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/taxes2.htm

Posted by Puff The Magic Dragon 2005-01-20 1:11:31 PM|| 2005-01-20 1:11:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Are you a pot-smoker, Focker?

Posted by nada 2005-01-20 1:15:27 PM|| 2005-01-20 1:15:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 Anon2u has it pegged; we are a noisy bunch.

Aris, its the elitist Liberals who have run the Democratic party, and thus the government, as their own private fiefdom for a generation who are the real "Blue Staters." The staunch supporters of the Democrat Party -- the trade union members, the African Americans, the Jews, the Hispanic Americans, they are actually "Red State" in outlook... well, except for many of the Jews I suppose. That's why a fine-grained map of vote results shows a lot of red even in the blue states, and some blue even in the deepest red. Or both red and blue as in my own house.

The ones who are talking about secession or moving abroad (to a civilized, English speaking country that is presumed to appreciate their finer qualities), those are the Liberal elites cannot accept that their "inferiors" made a choice opposite to the one they dictated, wresting their natural possession, the Government, from them. In 2000 they were able to fool themselves that Bush stole the election via the courts, but that doesn't work this time, and so they are stuck with a painful cognitive dissonance: they are the intelligent ones, the educated ones, the wise ones -- so how could it be that their man was rejected? And so they shriek and moan, go to therapy for comfort, and make idle threats of secession or emigration that they will in the main never carry out.

Not that it matters: while they may have carried the Electoral College votes, they do not have enough of the population even in the Red States to make secession a realistic threat. Joe Plumber and Jane Bookkeeper would never stand for such nonsense. Not to mention the Soccer Moms ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-20 1:16:13 PM|| 2005-01-20 1:16:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 #61 Are you a pot-smoker, Focker?
Posted by: nada 2005-01-20 1:15:27 PM Comment

Haha Gaylord Focker , is that your name ?!

Great movie - every groom-to-be 's worst nightmare ..

Posted by MacNails 2005-01-20 1:21:43 PM|| 2005-01-20 1:21:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 Mac -- I saw a post by "Puff the Magic Dragon" and couldn't resist.

Posted by nada 2005-01-20 1:29:16 PM|| 2005-01-20 1:29:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 No -- that's simply not true. While some idiots said they were leaving after Clinton's victories, they tended to be the types that consider Bush a Marxist.

A Southern Democrat, whose terms I believe were mostly concurrent with Republican control of the Houses. I gather Republicans didn't feel that Clinton's election began a permanent trend against them either.

Bush is a Texan Republican with Republican control of the houses. Also see talk on "permanent conservative majority", talks again NOT made by me, but rather by conservatives and gleefully so.

The reason that *I* don't support division, is because I believe that this conservative trend is reversible. Democrats who don't feel likewise, want to leave either individually or as states, or atleast limit the control of conservative national control over the states (see revived blue-state talk on "federalism", again paralleling Southern Civil-war era talk on "states' rights).

Or parallel it with parts of Eastern Ukraine talking about secession but only *after* their candidate lost.

Phil Fraering> "Look at William T. Sherman, for example. Today, would he be a red-stater or a blue-stater? ... Anyway, he did burn Atlanta to the ground without bothering to get permission first from Kofi Annan"

I think I get what you are saying, which I guess is similar to the analogy that docob made before. Red-state/Blue-state seen not as (civil war era) South/North but rather as the interventionist militant and the isolationist pacifist factions within the (civil war era) North alone.

It's a good point.

But my argument against that is that difference in peacetime culture seems to me much more indicative of *permanent* cultural divisions rather than difference in how one deals with occasional wars. Even people that have the exact same morals and societal attitudes can differ on how they feel a threat should be dealt with.

Democrats have often also been quite interventionist, with Republican being isolationists in turn. On different matters, on different wars, the situation changes. Nothing permanent here, with either the Republican/Democrat or the Northern/Southern division.

I'd be supporter of a war against Syria, but not against Iraq. Does that qualify me as a red-stater or a blue-stater? It's only when you see my societal attitudes, in favour of same-sex marriage, against gun-obsession, in favour of limited socialdemocracy instead of capitalism-uber-alles that I'd be seen as much more "blue" (Northern states or European-like) than "red" (Texas-like).

The fact that interventionism-vs-isolationism is incidental rather than permanent in culture can again be seen in a parallel to the Civil War: Europe in the Civil War was prepared to support the *South*'s right to separate. Since it had abolished slavery on its own right that actually would bring her politically closer to Lincoln's Northern opponents -- the pacifist non-interventionist faction.

But when Lincoln passed his emancipation proclamation, Europe supported the North instead because it felt that this proclamation changed "the moral character of the war". In short it became a supporter of the interventionist pro-war pro-Lincoln Northern faction.

And in the Iraq War itself, Europe, which is generally more "blue" than the blue states themselves, has likewise divided between supporting and opposing it. Such issues are *temporary*. The attitudes towards socialdemocracy and liberalism seem more permanent and indicative of cultural divisions.

Actually the fact that the war on terror and the war on Iraq has been so prominent, is the exact *reason* that I believe Bush's victory has little to do with a permanent conservative turn for America, and the exact reason that I believe USA can turn towards liberal societal values yet again. (Or indeed why I feel its move towards these has never truly stopped).

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 1:30:19 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 1:30:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 too long

Posted by Tom 2005-01-20 1:30:57 PM|| 2005-01-20 1:30:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 dude, *ignore*. Remember?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 1:35:12 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 1:35:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 Tom, you pleb! This is an official Katwalk. Posturing is in progress.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-20 1:44:32 PM|| 2005-01-20 1:44:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 I'd be seen as much more "blue" (Northern states or European-like) than "red" (Texas-like).

You probably like your women with hair under their arms dont you Aris ... your a long winded SOB also ...

Posted by tex 2005-01-20 1:56:25 PM|| 2005-01-20 1:56:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Another good point, tex!

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 2:04:44 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 2:04:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 Hey guys let's drop the civil war analogies.

Aris, the key points to remember is that this is the first time since the '20s that the Republicans have controlled both the Presidency AND both houses of Congress. For much of that 80 years the Democrats had it all or at least most.
They long ago forgot what it means to be a loyal opposition party.

The worst of them are the LLLs and the elites who would MUCH prefer an oligarchy, as long as they were in charge. The almost perfect analog is the pigs in Animal Farm. The Democrat elites truly behave as though "some animals are MORE equal" and they are them. Reality has given them a swift kick in the ass and they are crying like little children.

Posted by AlanC 2005-01-20 2:13:01 PM|| 2005-01-20 2:13:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 Ok, forgive me, RB'ers....

Aris, do not take this as an insult, but you really need to visit America one of these days before you go spouting off about us.

I've been to Europe five times, myself. I enjoyed myself immensely almost every time (Finland being the sole exception....if I never go back, I won't regret it at all.)

America may have gotten her basic cultural heritage primarily from Europe, but we are not Europeans, nor do we want to be. Not even the blue-staters. The ones who do want to live like Europeans are over there already.

You write English very well, and I'm sure you would speak it very well too (after the first few hours of culture shock....hey, at least that's what's happened to me every time I had to switch to another language while traveling).

Visit a red-state area and see if you really have as much in common with the blue-staters as you think you do. You might be surprised. I know the media over there paints us all as dumb, illiterate cowboys (ok, the French media do, since they think no one over here has the internet or could read anything other than English). Come over and find out for yourself.

BTW, Europe (ok, France and England) supported the South for access to cotton and other raw materials, plus for England it was a bit of payback for the Revolution. They saw the North as more of a threat militarily and wanted to weaken it if they could. They did not come over to the Northern side because of the Emancipation Proclamation. Actually, Lincoln was holding off on that until the North started to rack up some significant victories, and it looked inevitable that they would win (didn't want to start a slave rebellion in the border states....slave states on the Northern side....that's why it didn't apply to them). France and Britain saw the inevitable, and then more or less supported the North.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-01-20 2:24:52 PM|| 2005-01-20 2:24:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 Red-"Live and let live, but be decent human beings. If you're not, you'll pay a price." Hypocrisy-"we don't believe in abortion or premarital/recreational sex and regularly speak out/march against it. But what we do behind the curtains may be another story entirely-we may have recreational sex sometimes and don't always use protection (while we are against abortion) and don't always intend to marry the girl who gets pregnant. The kid is not my son."

Blue-"Live but make sure other people believe what you do. Feel guilt-you deserve it because you are an American. Don't worry about being decent human beings-there is no good or evil, except for Republicans-which are all evil." Hypocrisy-"We fight for justice in the world, but make sure you're politically correct-or else you do not deserve justice. If your beliefs do not match ours, we'll splatter your furcoat with paint, damage the vehicles in your car dealership, or drag you from your car and hit you with a brick in the head during the riots."

Between the two, I'll take the red staters-they are more likely to extend the length of my life than blue staters. RS'ers aren't so dull-witted as to think there is no such thing as good and evil. I'll agree to disagree where that is the case and live my life according to my beliefs around the red staters. Have done so for much of my life and as long as they don't start getting interventionist in my individual life, I will continue to do so.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-20 2:36:37 PM|| 2005-01-20 2:36:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 Napoleon III supported the South, the French supported the North. He was the starter of "organized Anti-americanism" in France as he needed to turn French public opinion against the North in order to be able to help the South. The state-controlled press started a campaign depicting Yanks in the blackest colors (greedy, uncultured, egoistic) and that the fight was not about slavery but about toll rates.

Posted by JFM 2005-01-20 2:38:16 PM|| 2005-01-20 2:38:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 My experience with Finland was much the same, which was a great disappointment to me. It is a very beautiful country, but I found the people (in the mid 1990s) highly aloof and concurrently anti-American.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-20 2:38:25 PM|| 2005-01-20 2:38:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 Welcome, Sobiesky.

Hope it's forever. :-D

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2005-01-20 2:59:37 PM|| 2005-01-20 2:59:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 Jules 187 - I was there in the late 80's. Four times (just before and just after visiting the then-Soviet Union). Couldn't wait to get outta there. Sweden is a completely (or at least was) a completely different story. Beautiful country, gorgeous people who would actually look you in the eye and not give you crap if you couldn't speak their language (I look sort-of Scandinavian, but I'm not....in Finland, they would rattle off to me in Finnish, then when I had to say "sorry, I don't speak Finnish. Do you speak English?" I constantly got treated like crap. The Swedes would just laugh it off and then switch to English. Besides...arriving in Stockholm on the ferry, past all those beautiful little islands.....damn, it was gorgeous. Plus they weren't drunk all the damn time like it seemed the Finns were.)

JFM - ok, maybe the French people were pro-North. I stand corrected on that. However, the organized anti-American crap dates back to that time period....and has never really abated.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-01-20 3:03:59 PM|| 2005-01-20 3:03:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 For those of you who are wondering about this Ian Robinson fellow, here's his "maggot" column. Pretty hot stuff, for a Canadian.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2005-01-20 3:06:40 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2005-01-20 3:06:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 Me, too, DB! Stockholm made for one of the best vacations I have ever had.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-20 3:09:21 PM|| 2005-01-20 3:09:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 Aris: I'm on deadline, and I'm sick, so I'll make this short:

Re: the social issues you mentioned: they don't even map to red and blue, or republican vs. democrat, as cleanly as many people think. The one example I have time for is Oregon, which Kerry won by about 10%, if memory serves me, and which passed a gay marriage ban by a larger margin. (I'd also mention the social conservatives who wind up voting Democrat because of reasons of family loyalty/patronage/etc reasons, but I don't have time).

Regarding Syria, I haven't had time for a while, but I have been meaning to ask you for about the past year whether it's possible that Syria looks easier or better to you because neither you nor anyone else has actually had to come up with a plan to invade Syria.

I suspect that invading Syria would have been a great deal like invading Iraq, except it would have had to be an amphibious invasion on top of everything else. We wouldn't have been able to stage through Turkey, same as with the Iraq invasion, nor could we have gone through Israel, and Lebannon is more-or-less part of Syria, so it's just another part of Syria that would have to be invaded amphibiously.

We wouldn't have been able to get UN approval, and Syria is in bed with all the same terrorist groups we're currently facing in Iraq. And they'd have had cross-border support from Iraq. And we wouldn't have been able to count on having large parts of the country being mostly-friendly like the Kurds and Shi'ites in Iraq.

We'd still have terrorists pretending to be freedom fighters, we'd have the risks of WMD being used, and also the risks that they'd all have been shipped to Iraq, with the CIA standing around afterwards with their hands in their pockets saying "Gee, I guess we were wrong and they never existed!"

(I'm not saying it would have been a horrible idea, just that it wouldn't have been any easier than what we're going through now.)

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-01-20 3:21:28 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-01-20 3:21:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 Angie - Well, he is a western Canadian....not to be confused with the Quebec/Ontario crowd....

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-01-20 3:28:36 PM|| 2005-01-20 3:28:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 LOL Angie Schultz , thanks for the link , reminds me of a colomnist (gary bushell) over here , hell they even look the same ..

Posted by MacNails 2005-01-20 3:32:40 PM|| 2005-01-20 3:32:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 Usually a lurker here, but am driven to post ...

I agree with a few others, Aris, it seems time you start visiting America and speaking with Americans rather than speaking ABOUT America TO Americans ...

Perhaps a few questions are in order, so I better understand your basis of expertise regarding America:

- How many times have you been to America
- Where have you visited in America
- How many Americans have you met
- Where did you meet these Americans

Seriously curious about this ...

Posted by bombay 2005-01-20 5:04:59 PM|| 2005-01-20 5:04:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 Phil,

"I suspect that invading Syria would have been a great deal like invading Iraq, except it would have had to be an amphibious invasion on top of everything else."

Aris has had that explained to him, by myself and others, for months now. If we had invaded Syria, he'd be whining about Iraq.

"We piped for you and you did not dance...
We wept for you and you did not mourn..."

Posted by Ernest Brown 2005-01-20 5:09:59 PM|| 2005-01-20 5:09:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#85 Oh, yeah, Syria would have been *exactly* the same as Iraq.

Except that it's one third the size.

Except that the population is much more homogeneous, making democracy much more easy to apply without threat of civil war.

Except that it offers much more direct and constant support to terrorism, both Palestinian and international. Syria is, you know, an *actual* part of a axis of tyrannical dictatorships, rather than a Milosevic-style (Saddam-style) isolated lone tyranny, despised by all its neighbours.

Except that you'd have only one border to watch out for, and that'd be with Iraq, which'd probably be minding its step as it was already isolated internationally (as noted above). You'd not be surrounded by enemies on all sides, you'd be taking them one at a time.

Except that the positive results like the liberation of Lebanon, and the ease of pressure on Israel, would have been immediate rather than needed two decades to occur.

Yes, there might have been the need for an amphibious invasion. But since it's not been the invasion phase that has been the cause of all our problems, why don't you take a glance at the OCCUPATION PHASE instead? Even if the invasion phase was four more times more difficult than was the case with Iraq, what would be the counterbalance at the occupation?

And that's only assuming that you couldn't have used Israel as a launching pad (which everyone's been saying, but I'm not convinced) or Turkey either (which everyone wants to believe, but it's not certain either -- I see Turkey having more reasons to object to Iraq invasion than Syria invasion)

If we had invaded Syria, he'd be whining about Iraq

When you claim to know what I would have done, why should I not treat you with the utter contempt you deserve? I objected to the Iraq War before it was launched, and as now I was objecting to it on practical rather than moral reasons. It wasn't an immoral war, it was a *bloody stupid* war.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 5:34:02 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 5:34:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#86 *bloody stupid*

Aris is right in some respects - if Bush simply hadn't given a damn about international-, Muslim-, or domestic public opinion he could probably have got more done, more quickly, against a smaller enemy. I mean, who would have cared if the US had gone to war, with no allies besides Israel, against a relatively popular, 'networked' Muslim leader? It would have been a walk in the park, and Saddam (although he'd still be around) would almost certainly be 'minding his step' and not making a nuisance of himself. The US would have a stepping stone on the Med. LOL! I think Aris will be a General before his national service is up.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-20 6:33:32 PM|| 2005-01-20 6:33:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 Make that "...no allies besides possibly Israel..."

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-20 6:34:31 PM|| 2005-01-20 6:34:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 Think how much more support Bush might have had among the Democrats if he'd invaded Syria instead of Iraq. And from the U.N., too!

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-20 6:48:13 PM|| 2005-01-20 6:48:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 Your correct Bulldog.
" if Bush simply hadn't given a damn about international-, Muslim-, or domestic public opinion he could probably have got more done, more quickly, against a smaller enemy "

Could you imagine the Backlash he would have gotten domestically. You think it is bad now.

Posted by tex 2005-01-20 6:54:54 PM|| 2005-01-20 6:54:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#90 If you cared more about winning the global popularity contest, you wouldn't have invaded either nation. And your response after 9/11 would have probably been to withdraw all support from Israel.

Can we agree such a thing is not an option?

If on the other hand you cared more about defeating Islamic terrorism and the Syria-Iran-Sudan axis of Islamofascist terror, then you should have made the smart moves and let *success* bring popularity back. Rather than let your defeats destroy it.

And the public relations campaign before, would have been "Syria supports terrorists-terrorists-terrorists" instead of "Saddam has WMD-WMD-WMD", which is an accusation regarding Syria which is actually a bit more connected to a supposed war-on-Terror.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 7:09:20 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 7:09:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#91 ignore....for the love of God, please ignore

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-20 7:23:55 PM|| 2005-01-20 7:23:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#92 Aris, I bet you would just love it if all those who disagree with your liberal mindset left Greece, right? Would you be too terribly sad if they decided to move to Mexico? Thought not. American isn't on the verge of civil war. Calm down. The point is, leftists in this country are developing an elitist, totalitarian, European-socialist type mindset that we here abhor.

I was thinking the same thing, .com--Welcome Sobiesky.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-01-20 7:33:29 PM|| 2005-01-20 7:33:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#93 Unfortunaly Bush had to care about Global Popularity Aris. He thought he had the UN on his side when he first entered office. The UN passed all the resolutions warning Iraq to allow inspections or face the consequences. When it came time to bite ( not bark ) The UN, France, Germany, Russia,you can name many others, bailed. Bush, Blair and various other smaller Coalition partners were the only ones with enough BALLS to do what needed to be done.He never waivered, changed his mind, coward down.
There were no resolutions or UN mandates forcing Syria to do anything. Attacking Syria would have been a tough sale to the Senate and the House (who I might add, passed overwhelmingly to use force against Iraq) To invade Syria at that time would not have been the right move.

Posted by tex 2005-01-20 7:35:11 PM|| 2005-01-20 7:35:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#94 Aris, ex-lib is correct
" The point is, leftists in this country are developing an elitist, totalitarian, European-socialist type mindset that we here abhor"
That is what the whole " run to the border" ideal represents.

Posted by tex 2005-01-20 8:01:22 PM|| 2005-01-20 8:01:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#95 Frankly, I would like to see the Moe and Larry or Harry and Curly bolt to Canada. Take your bath house loyalties with you'll.

You will find better queerness up North, eh?

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-20 8:02:50 PM|| 2005-01-20 8:02:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#96 He thought he had the UN on his side when he first entered office.

Well, that was stupid. The UN has always been about preservation of the status quo, not about upsetting it.

Attacking Syria might have been a tough sale to the Congress, but it would have been the right sale.

No, you'd never have gotten UN authorization for such an attack. You shouldn't have even tried to seek it. As the most forceful single act of Islamic terrorism was committed against USA, and the most repeated acts of Islamic terrorism are commited against Israel, your two nations would have claimed the *right* to stop Syria's dealings with terrorists once and for all, regardless of UN resolutions or lack thereof.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 8:14:08 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 8:14:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#97 The UN has always been about preservation of the status quo, not about upsetting it.

Wrong in part! The UNSC in particular is more about individual country self interest than preserving the status quo. The Pollyannish assumption that it is for the common good is pure fantasy. We are talking motives here, Aris, motives.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-20 8:21:41 PM|| 2005-01-20 8:21:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#98 Now it's you who's splitting hairs. The big powers have as their self-interest to remain big powers, the tinpot dictators want to prevent other nations from overthrowing them, human rights abusers want to preserve their right to abuse human rights.

Yeah, self-interest -- but in the actual functioning of the United Nations that is translated as preservation of the status quo.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 8:32:05 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 8:32:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#99 Back on topic... although I might visit the chicken-walk later on...

One thing many people wanting to emigrate to Canada don't realize, is that unless you can claim asylum (good luck, unless you're a homocidal muslim!), you MUST maintain a residence in America. (a.k.a. "The States") Even if you don't want to become a Canadian citizen, even if you don't want to work in Canada---you still have to pay rent in America. Unless of course you can afford to go on permanent vacation, which isn't exactly the same thing.

Posted by Asedwich 2005-01-20 9:09:35 PM|| 2005-01-20 9:09:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#100 Phil-23-Thank you so much for posting that City Journal article (excerpts are posted below in quotation marks). A fascinating, insightful article, wonderfully written.

I am going to say something now that may feel like a lancing to some, so those who feel assaulted, I am sorry to be causing you pain, but the anguish and inertia in the story point out so well that movement has to come, if for no other reason than to make sure Germany doesnât remain in this desolate psychic place forever by making the same mistake again.

I think the meaning of âEuropeâ must somehow be âThe continent that forgets then repeatsâ when I follow the history and the human story of Germany in WWII by Germany's role in the current Israel-Palestine conflict. That Europe spawned The Absurd is fitting, given that Germany is currently shouting out the plight of the Palestinians while striking a familiar hostile pose towards Jews (Zionists, Israelis).

***
"...The historiography that sees in German history nothing but a prelude to Hitler and Nazism may be intellectually unjustified...but it has emotional and psychological force nonetheless, precisely because the willingness to take pride in the past implies a preparedness to accept the shame of it. Thus Bach and Beethoven can be celebrated, but not as Germans; otherwise they would be tainted..."

Tainted by being German? When can Germany be celebrated again? Is there some kind of date to get out of ethnic jail? The WWII guilt yoke is starting to fall apart-it hung correctly on Germanyâs shoulders for decades, but it is getting too old to hang from so many young shoulders.

Unless it is not merely a WWII yoke. If anti-Semitism lingers still and lies at the root of many Germans' taking up the cause of the Palestinians, how will Germans ever be free of the WWII yoke of shame and guilt? Itâs a question of whether anti-Semitism has been faced fully, the lessons learned, amends made. Do the German youth get a chance renew the definition of Germany?

"Vonnegut, an American soldier who was a prisoner of war in Dresden at the time of the bombing, having been captured during the land offensive in the west, writes of the war and the bombing itself as if it took place in no context [sound like the Leftâs misguided pontificating on Iraq, folks?], as if it were just an arbitrary and absurd quarrel between rivals, between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, with no internal content or moral meaning [like the assassination of Hamas leaders?]â a quarrel that nevertheless resulted in one of the rivals cruelly and thoughtlessly destroying a beautiful city of the other. [like Jenin, Ramallah, or dozens of other places laid siege to in the pursuits of terrorists?]..."

Posted by jules 2 2005-01-20 9:15:16 PM|| 2005-01-20 9:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#101 Yeahhhhh!!! I made it 100!!!!! How about we all move on?

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2005-01-20 9:15:36 PM|| 2005-01-20 9:15:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#102 Damn. I missed by just 20 seconds.

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2005-01-20 9:16:25 PM|| 2005-01-20 9:16:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#103 Aris, sounds like it is you who is splitting hairs, nasal hairs at that.

Get real, the notion of "preserving the status quo" on its own is laughable. Each country acts in its own self interest, and is why the UNSC stays in an inactive state, no matter how compelling the issue at hand. To wit, the UNSC would not have voted to engage in the Korean War had Russia not missed the vote.

You should take the time to learn some substantive historical facts before proving yourself void.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-20 9:37:03 PM|| 2005-01-20 9:37:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#104 "Self-interest" is nothing but the working of *all* politics, so that you attribute it to the United Nations specifically, as if you're telling us something unique about it, is laughable.

Yeah, self-interest -- that's what leads every nation in the whole damned world. Now that we've spoken the obvious why don't we see how that self-interest is translated in *different* organizations? How is it translated in the Council of Europe, how is it translated in NATO, how is it translated in the United Nations? Because of their structural differences?

Instead of just saying "self-interest", as if you told us something new.

Five vetoes to preserve exactly the status quo of the great powers -- and in the Security Council needing nine votes out of 15 before deciding anything, *besides* ensuring also the agreement of the Big Five.

That's the institution of the United Nations, and this translated into "preservation of the status quo". The United Nations is *designed* to be immobile.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-20 9:53:53 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-20 9:53:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#105 Haaahahahahahaaa...

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-20 11:38:09 PM|| 2005-01-20 11:38:09 PM|| Front Page Top

10:03 Javiling Hupereper9596
10:03 Javiling Hupereper9596
09:59 Elmoting Granter5118
09:59 Elmoting Granter5118
23:55 Silentbrick
23:47 Phil Fraering
23:43 Desert Blondie
23:41 Desert Blondie
23:38 Bomb-a-rama
23:07 GK
22:55 John Q. Citizen
22:54 John Q. Citizen
22:52 John Q. Citizen
22:50 John Q. Citizen
22:48 Frank G
22:46 John Q. Citizen
22:45 Edward Yee
22:43 Alaska Paul
22:42 John Q. Citizen
22:39 John Q. Citizen
22:38 John Q. Citizen
22:35 Alaska Paul
22:33 Frank G
22:33 John Q. Citizen