Jump to content

More Musings by Morford


trilingual
This topic is 6555 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Canada Goes To Hell

 

Legal pot? Legal gay marriage? Universal health care? What's next, free porn and candy?

 

- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

 

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

 

 

Did you hear the screams? Did you feel the menacing chill? Did you see the black and ominous clouds, moving north?

 

Did you sense, in other words, the very presence of Satan himself as he laughed maniacally and tossed around bucketfuls of ultrathin condoms and little travel-size packets of Astroglide like confetti while riding his Harley Softail up to Toronto or maybe Edmonton to join the ghastly and sodomitic celebrations?

 

Because it's happened. Canada's high court just ruled that the government can, if it so desires, redefine marriage to include gay couples, which it has declared it will do almost immediately, thus solidifying Canada's place as the chilly yet mellow and gay friendly and hockey-riffic epicenter of all known hell.

 

It's true. It's rather amazing. Gay marriage will be completely legal in Canada very soon. It's been oddly ignored in much of the U.S. media and hasn't really been much discussed among those in the terrified red states except when, deep in the night, from their respective lumpy twin beds, they whisper to each other across the room as they pop their Ambien and stroke their portfolios and curse their very genitals: oh my God what's wrong with those freakin' Canadians?

 

I mean (they continue), I thought they loved red meat and brutish sports and manly hunting. Are they all just freaks and perverts now? Have they been sniffing too many elk pelts? Is it something in the clean and plentiful water up there? Something to do with those weird French-esque people in Quebec, maybe?

 

I knew we should've been paying more attention to that border! Didn't I say so, honey? Didn't I say we should keep an eye on those northern weirdos after they dissed the Iraq war and legalized medical pot and sort of went about their happy and calm Canadian business whilst we here in panicky red-blooded America chewed our own karmic legs off in a paranoid and jingoistic rage? Hippies and perverts, I said! Save a few bombs for Ontario, George, I say!

 

Let us now do the naughty math: Canada has roughly 32 million inhabitants, of whom about 75 percent are over 18, of whom it can be loosely estimated that anywhere from 2 to 8 percent are gay (depends, of course, on who you ask).

 

All of which translates into a ballpark figure of anywhere from 1 million to 2 million gay Canadians of legal marrying age who will now eagerly laugh and kiss in the streets and confound poor reactionary born-again George W. Bush, and they will flash their wedding rings at parties and annoy all the single people, all while proving for the umpteenth time that love knows no gender limitations or legal restrictions and will trump your whiny sanctimonious religious puling any given Sunday. Heathens!

 

It's getting more confusing by the minute, isn't it? I mean, Canada now has legal medical pot and legal gay marriage and universal health care and no known terrorist enemies and a relatively successful multiparty political system. They also have, according to U.N.'s Human Development Index, one of the highest qualities of life in the world. All coupled with a dramatically reduced rate of gun violence and far better gun-control legislation than the U.S., despite having the exact same per capita rate of gun ownership and gun-sport enthusiasm.

 

What the hell? How is this possible? Why aren't they scared to death like whiny red-state Americans? Why don't they want to kill each other along with anything that might threaten their access to televised hockey and cheap beer and yummy poutine?

 

Aren't they aware of what's happening in the world? Don't they know they are openly hated for their freedoms and their cafés and their vinegared french fries? Aren't they human, fer Chrissakes? Oh, red states. How confused and irritated you must be.

 

After all, unlike the U.S., Canada backed the Kyoto Treaty (along with 165 other heathen nations). They also spend more per capita on education and less on health-care overhead than the U.S. They have a $10 billion federal surplus, a new record. They are not, as of yet, abusing the hell out of their vast natural resources (freshwater, huge forests, oil and natural gas, mineral deposits, etc.) and embarrassing themselves on a global scale every single day and making a mockery of their constitution or their citizens' civil liberties. What the hell is wrong with them?

 

Yes yes, I know, Canada's universal health care is flawed and not always of the best quality, and a great many Canadians think their prime minister is a bit of a schmuck and they hate paying taxes and of course they can be all profitable and progressive when they don't have a massive bogus unwinnable war to pay for, one run by a ravenous and fiscally idiotic federal government, and they only have one-tenth of our population and one-fiftieth of our desperate consumeristic gluttony. They have it easy, right?

 

Remember, Canada is boring. Canada is rarely in the news. Canada has no massive belching socioeconomic engine like America does, what with our NASCAR and Hollywood and Fox News and bad porn and the absolute best medical care on the planet despite how only a tiny fraction of us have access to it while the rest languish in bloated abusive HMOs and poverty and disease and 40 percent of us have no access to health care whatsoever. Take that, Canada! Oh wait.

 

We hate gays and love guns and think pot is evil but hand out Prozac and Zoloft like Chiclets. Meanwhile (as "Bowling for Columbine" so beautifully illuminated), Canadians leave their doors unlocked and don't feature violence and death on every newscast and still value community and diversity and discussion over solipsism and protectionism and a general hatred of foreigners and the French. See? We rule! Oh wait.

 

All of which makes you wonder: how many more countries will it take? How many more nations will have to, for example, prove that gun licensing works, or that gay-marriage legislation is a moral imperative, or that health care for all is mandatory for a nation's well being, before America finally looks at itself and says, whoa, damn, we are so silly and small and wrong? Is there any number large enough? After the announcement that gay Chinese and gay Russians may legally marry and grow lovely gardens of marijuana as they all get free dental care, will America remain terrified of nipples and queers?

 

Canadians. So mellow. So laid back. So gay. So not producing any truly superlative modern-rock music or ultraviolent buddy-cop movies and not actively siccing Wal-Mart or Starbucks or Paris Hilton on the rest of the world like a goddamn cancer. They're just so ... nice. And boring. And calm. And solid. And friendly.

 

And they simply beat us senseless on the whole open-minded, progressive thing. Kicked our flag-wavin' butts. Trounced our egomaniacal self-righteous selves and made the red states look even more foolish and backward than the whole world already knows them to be.

 

They did it. Canada made the whole gay marriage issue look effortless and obvious and healthy, and a massive black rain of hellfire did not pour down upon them and the very idea of hetero marriage did not immediately explode and their economy did not unravel like all the sneering cardinals and right-wing nutballs screamed it would. We must ask, one last time: what the hell is wrong with them?

 

Oh wait. Maybe we should rephrase. What the hell, we should be asking, is wrong with us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it's worth mentioning that hellfire also hasn't rained down on the Netherlands or Belgium, both countries that have legalized gay marriage in the past few years (and let's remember that Belgium is a Catholic country and the Netherlands is half-Catholic). Another Catholic country, Spain, has announced the legalization of gay marriage (my recollection is that it's already been approved and is awaiting implementation early in the new year), yet it, too, seems to have dodged divine retribution, no matter how much the Vatican and the Spanish church hierarchy fulminates. Gay marriage is now legal (or about to be legal) in South Africa, yet the gold veins haven't gone bust, nor have the diamond mines, and there haven't been any killer hurricanes, devastating volcanic eruptions or mega-magnitude earthquakes there or in any of the other countries that have legalized gay marriage! Or in the U.S.'s very own Massachusetts, for that matter! What do you suppose THAT says about the Almighty's views on gay marriage?

 

It's also worth mentioning that the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain rank high as desirable countries in which to live, and are meccas for immigrants from other places looking for more enlightened, civilized places to live! (No, NONE of those countries is perfect, but they certainly are far ahead of the U.S. in taking care of their citizens and in their concern for human rights!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It's also worth mentioning that the Netherlands, Belgium,

>Canada and Spain rank high as desirable countries in which to

>live, and are meccas for immigrants from other places looking

>for more enlightened, civilized places to live! (No, NONE of

>those countries is perfect, but they certainly are far ahead

>of the U.S. in taking care of their citizens and in their

>concern for human rights!)

 

Really? So that must mean that way more people emigrate from their home countries to the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain than they do to the United States, since those socialist meccas "are far ahead of the U.S. in taking care of their citizens and in their concern for human rights," right?

 

Please go to Mexico and Central America and the Carribean and the Middle East and let them know how horrible it is here in the United States and how awesome it is for them in the Netherlands, Belgium,

Canada and Spain because they seem not to have heard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Thanks Tri, I was going to post it myself. Morford is

>wonderful.

 

What's it like to preach to a tiny, ever-shrinking, sick little choir? Doesn't it get tiresome to keep telling each other how right you are?

 

>Also did you know that Fox News Channel isn't shown in

>Canada??

 

That's great! Nothing like living in a country where only one viewpoint is heard. What a fucking Garden of Eden! The best part is that they criminalize certain views that the Government really hates, so that you can be fined or imprisoned for expressing them. Who wouldn't want to live in a place like that? Shouldn't you be online shopping for your one-way ticket to Vancouver?

 

>FNC is now home to none other than "Give'm Hell" Zell

>Miller!

 

It was perfectly fine for the Democratic Party to benefit from his candidacies for the last two decades, but it's horrible for Fox News to give him a forum to express his views.

 

THE NAZIS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Also did you know that Fox News Channel isn't shown in Canada??<<

 

Not for much longer. Also, Fox News is welcoming Japan to their viewership today.

 

CRTC approves Fox News for Canada

 

Last Updated Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:56:37 EST

 

OTTAWA - The conservative-leaning Fox News Channel will soon be coming to Canadian digital television channels.

 

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved an application Thursday to bring the Fox News Channel, one of the highest-rated news channels in the United States, onto Canadian digital airwaves.

 

The Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA) applied to the broadcast regulator in April.

 

Canadians already have access to the main Fox network, but not the right-leaning, 24-hour news channel, with its trademarked slogan of "fair and balanced."

 

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) opposed the application, saying it would discourage foreign broadcasters from partnering with Canadian broadcasters.

 

However, in its decision, the CRTC said Fox News offers little Canadian coverage and is not "partially or totally competitive with any Canadian pay or specialty service." It added that the channel would "significantly boost digital penetration in Canada" and increase the availability of digital services in the country.

 

The CRTC also approved the NFL Network, a 24-hour "lifestyle and entertainment" channel for football fans. It doesn't carry live games, with the exception of a few exhibition games.

 

Past application rejected

 

The CRTC rejected a CCTA application to bring Fox to Canada last November because Fox News U.S. and Winnipeg-based Global Television were planning to create Fox News Canada, a combination of U.S. and Canadian news.

 

However, in March, a Fox U.S. executive said there were no plans to create the combined channel.

 

The CRTC was thrust into the spotlight in July after giving conditional approval to the digital broadcast of Arab television station al-Jazeera.

 

 

FROM JULY 15, 2004: Al-Jazeera cleared for Canadian viewers

 

The commission said Canadian carriers had to keep an "audio-visual recording" of the controversial network's broadcasts. It told Canadian distributors to monitor the broadcast 24 hours a day, giving them permission to "alter or curtail" programming to keep out abusive commentary, especially of an anti-Semitic nature.

 

No Canadian distributors carry al-Jazeera.

 

Fox was launched in 1996 by a former Republican advisor, Roger Ailes. It's a subsidiary of News Corp. Ltd., which is controlled by right-wing Australian media tycoon Rupert Murdoch.

 

Written by CBC News Online staff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Please go to Mexico and Central America and the Carribean and

>the Middle East and let them know how horrible it is here in

>the United States and how awesome it is for them in the

>Netherlands, Belgium,

>Canada and Spain because they seem not to have heard!

 

And in case you haven't heard, maybe you ought to give a little thought to the steady erosion of civil liberties here...where your 4thReich Republican government brings spurious charges against people but won't provide the specifics to them....classic star chamber stuff. For all of their claims that they're not anti-Islamic, the facts say otherwise. I've appended a news item for your consideration, Doogie. Of course, I have no hope whatsoever that you'll see how ridiculous your crapola is. I'm sure you'll parrot the standard "fear" line of the Republican goon squad.

 

Lacking Visa, Islamic Scholar Resigns Post at Notre Dame

 

By Peter Slevin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A06

 

CHICAGO, Dec. 14 -- Unable to obtain a visa from the Bush administration or a promise about when a decision would be made, Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan resigned his faculty appointment at the University of Notre Dame this week, saying he needed to end the uncertainty.

 

In limbo since the State Department invoked an anti-terrorism law to keep him out of the country, Ramadan told Notre Dame that he could no longer accept the tenured appointment in classics and peace studies, the university announced Tuesday.

 

 

"As you may imagine, my family has experienced enormous stress and uncertainty during this period, and I keenly feel the need to resolve our situation," wrote Ramadan, a high-profile Swiss theologian who publicly opposes violence in the name of Islam.

 

Notre Dame administrators, who vetted Ramadan and found nothing that undermined his assertions of innocence, were disappointed in the Bush administration's refusal to admit him.

 

"This is an opportunity lost," said Matthew V. Storin, associate vice president for news and information. "It's unfortunate that we were not able to have him share his views with our students because the idea was to have a dialogue in the interest of peace. You want to have as many divergent voices as you can."

 

No one in authority has told the university why the State Department revoked Ramadan's visa last summer, shortly before he was to begin teaching a seminar on Islamic ethics at the South Bend, Ind., campus. "We were never given any specific information," Storin said. "We were never told, 'We have this,' and that was frustrating."

 

State Department spokeswoman Angela Aggeler said the details behind what is known as a "prudential revocation" remain confidential. She said Ramadan reapplied after his visa was revoked and that his case is under review, with the Department of Homeland Security assigned to make a decision. That review will now stop.

 

Aggeler said Ramadan, 42, was denied a visa under a section of U.S. code that bars terrorists and their associates, as well as people who have incited others to violence.

 

Ramadan is well-regarded in intellectual circles as a scholar who seeks to bridge the Western and Muslim worlds, arguing that a Muslim can be a full participant in both. A scholar of Friedrich Nietzsche and the Koran, he is the author of more than 20 books, including most recently, "Western Muslims and the Future of Islam."

 

He has drawn criticism from some Muslims that he is not Muslim enough and from some Westerners that he is insufficiently Western. When the French government banned Islamic head scarves from schools, Ramadan argued that it was a human rights issue, not simply a matter of Muslim faith. To those who said he was insisting that women cover their heads -- or that he should insist that they do so -- he countered that it was a woman's right to decide.

 

In his defense, Ramadan has said he called on Muslims after Sept. 11, 2001, to condemn the terrorist attack and declare it a betrayal of the Islamic message. He has often denounced anti-Semitism and has called for a "spiritual reformation that will lead to an Islamic feminism."

 

Ramadan has accused the Saudi government of human rights violations. He has also criticized Bush administration policies in the Middle East, calling them "misguided and counterproductive" in a New York Times op-ed in September. He said that "sponsoring a few Arabic TV and radio channels will not lead to real changes in Muslims' perceptions."

 

His critics contend that Ramadan delivers a more extremist message in Arabic than in French or English and may have ties to al Qaeda members, although the U.S. government has not made public allegations against him. Ramadan, whose grandfather, Hassan Banna, was a founder of the militant Muslim Brotherhood, said the "State Department's reasoning remains a mystery."

 

Ramadan's visa was revoked after he had shipped his household goods to his new home in South Bend and enrolled his daughter in school. The university said Tuesday that it will ship his belongings back to Switzerland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>And in case you haven't heard, maybe you ought to give a

>little thought to the steady erosion of civil liberties

>here...where your 4thReich Republican government brings

>spurious charges against people but won't provide the

>specifics to them....classic star chamber stuff.

 

"Spurious"? How can you possibly say that? Here's what the article you posted said about this individual:

 

<<His critics contend that Ramadan delivers a more extremist message in Arabic than in French or English and may have ties to al Qaeda members, . . . .>>

 

Do you know that this is untrue? How can you say that this allegation is "spurious"?

 

Can you answer this: If he DID have ties to al Qaeda, and DID deliver extremist messages in Arabic, would that be, in your view, sufficient reason to deny him a visa?

 

Unlike you, I don't think that one side of the political divide is all-evil and the other side all-good. I have frequently criticized what I consider to be the inexcusable excesses of the Bush Administration when it comes to tilting too far towards security at the expense of civil liberties - most egregious was the indefinite detention without charges or even access to counsel of U.S. citizens. The conservative Supreme Court fixed that, however.

 

But I don't think this case is particularly troublesome. No foreign national has a RIGHT to enter any other country. Every country retains - and often exercises - its right to deny entrance to foreign nationals which it deems to pose a threat to its security.

 

I have no idea if this individual is a threat or has al Qaeda ties, and neither do you. Unlike you, I don't think the government runs around singling people out for fun. I assume there's some reason to have suspicions about this person's background and activities. I WANT the Government to deny foreign nationals entrance to the country which it reasonably believes poses a threat.

 

What this comes down to - yet again - is that most liberals (though not all) simply don't acknowledge or accept that there really is a war going on between the West (and the U.S. in particular) and Islamic militancy. Such liberals believe that the much greater threat to their interests is the Republican party, not al Qaeda.

 

Once you start operating on that decrepit premise, reasonable security measures will seem fascist and the enemy will always be the U.S. Government, rather than those people and groups who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of our civilization.

 

It is that morally repugnant error - viewing the U.S. as the real enemy rather than the true enemies of America- which has, more than any other factor, relegated liberalism to a clear minority, and viewed as deviating from basic American values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Really? So that must mean that way more people emigrate from

>their home countries to the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and

>Spain than they do to the United States, since those socialist

>meccas "are far ahead of the U.S. in taking care of

>their citizens and in their concern for human rights," right?

 

It's always SO rewarding and entertaining when Dougie displays the true depth and breadth of his yawning ignorance for all the world to admire. While I don't know the exact numbers of immigrants to the countries named compared to immigrants to the U.S., all of them have been countries of immigration in the past decades. The Netherlands and Belgium have large immigrant communities, many from their ex-colonies, but also from many other third-world countries. Not to mention a lot of American expatraties in cities like Amsterdam, who move there seeking an infintely more pragmatic and sane society than the U.S.

 

Spain has huge and growing numbers of immigrants from North Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Like all of the European countries, which have dangerously low birth rates, these three countries are part of a great shift in thinking about immigration in Europe. Having once been countries of emigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, most European countries are coming to the realization that welcoming immigrants is the only way they will be able to maintain their populations (and productive younger work forces who can pay into the social security systems to support the pensions of aging native-born Europeans). The debate now is really about how to do a better job of it than in the past, when immigrants were marginalized. Without immigration, European countries know they will wither and die in the next few decades. Spain and Portugal have big advantages in this respect, because immigrants from Latin America and their more recent former colonies largely share the same culture, language, religion and customs of their fatherlands, making integration into modern Spanish and Portuguese society comparatively painless.

 

Canada has been transformed by immigration in the past 20 - 30 years from a deadly dull Anglo-Saxon reservation (except for Quebec, which also has received many immigrants) to an incredibly vibrant multi-cultural nation with new Canadians from every corner of the globe. This huge immigration has increased Canada's population, revitalized aging cities, and helped fuel the nation's impressive economic growth in the recent past.

 

Of course, living as he does under a slimy, green rock, in a dank burrow with a flickering black-and-white TV set that gets only one channel (Faux News) and where, once in a while, someone throws away stale copies of the "Washington Times" and "New York Daily News" for Dougie to riffle through, it's understandable that he's blissfully unaware of the changes in the great world beyond the borders of his dismal little swamp. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Of course, living as he does under a slimy, green rock, in a

>dank burrow with a flickering black-and-white TV set that gets

>only one channel (Faux News) and where, once in a while,

>someone throws away stale copies of the "Washington Times" and

>"New York Daily News" for Dougie to riffle through, it's

>understandable that he's blissfully unaware of the changes in

>the great world beyond the borders of his dismal little swamp.

>. .

 

It's always nice to see the disgusting bigotry of mediocre liberals ("anyone who disagrees with me is a poor, uneducated hick in a trailor park" - this from a lower-middle-class life-time government clerical worker).

 

Hey bitch, anytime you want to back up your words - you know, the whole bit about how I'm a poor, uneducated, provincial hillbilly and you're so smart and worldly - we can bet, with a neutral, mutually selected third-party adjudicator, who among the two of us:

 

(a) has more advanced education

(b) earns more income

© lives in a larger city

(d) has traveled to more countries

(e) speaks more languages.

 

If you win in any of these categories, you will win the bet. I only win if you win in none of them. Let me know when you're ready, you poor, bitter, petty, failed government clerical worker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It's always nice to see the disgusting bigotry of mediocre

>liberals ("anyone who disagrees with me is a poor, uneducated

>hick in a trailor park" - this from a lower-middle-class

>life-time government clerical worker).

>

>Hey bitch, anytime you want to back up your words - you know,

>the whole bit about how I'm a poor, uneducated, provincial

>hillbilly and you're so smart and worldly - we can bet, with a

>neutral, mutually selected third-party adjudicator, who among

>the two of us:

>

>(a) has more advanced education

>(b) earns more income

>© lives in a larger city

>(d) has traveled to more countries

>(e) speaks more languages.

 

And (f) is so stupid he can't even spell "trailer". Of course, he just makes shit up as he goes along. No surprises from Doug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Hey bitch, anytime you want to back up your words - you know,

>the whole bit about how I'm a poor, uneducated, provincial

>hillbilly and you're so smart and worldly - we can bet, with a

>neutral, mutually selected third-party adjudicator, who among

>the two of us:

>

>(a) has more advanced education

>(b) earns more income

>© lives in a larger city

>(d) has traveled to more countries

>(e) speaks more languages.

 

As usual, cupcake, you've shown off the awesome breadth of your cluelessness. You can "win" in all of the categories of your meaningless bet and still be a narrow, selfish, egotistical and hate-filled individual. You can spend your entire life as a a poor person who's never traveled beyond their own small town, yet be broad-minded, generous, selfless and loving. I'm neither poor, uneducated, unilingual nor untraveled, but if I had to choose between which kind of person I'd rather be, I'd pick the second example over being a "winner" like you any day of the week.

 

By the way, go check your fridge. You've curdled your milk again! x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>As usual, cupcake, you've shown off the awesome breadth of

>your cluelessness. You can "win" in all of the categories of

>your meaningless bet and still be a narrow, selfish,

>egotistical and hate-filled individual. You can spend your

>entire life as a a poor person who's never traveled beyond

>their own small town, yet be broad-minded, generous, selfless

>and loving.

 

LOL!!! Truly hilarious!!

 

I only raised those issues because YOU are the one who is constantly depicting anyone who disagrees with you politically as being poor, stupid, uneducated, provincial white trash who sits in their trailer park too poor to ever leave and too stupid to understand other cultures or languages. You have used those childish insults on innumerable occasions in response to my posts.

 

Then, when it turns out that the one lacking in all of those things is YOU, not me, now suddenly those things -- all the things you've been screetching about in self-praise for the last 2 years -- don't matter, and it's just important to be a happy and nice person.

 

At the very least, I think you've learned a good lesson. It's really embarrassing to watch liberals run around constantly praising themselves as being so smart and successful and worldly. That preening would be disgusting enough even if it were true. But the fact that, so often - and as is certainly true for people like you and glutes and Bucky - the self-praise is really a mask for your own mediocrity and failures, it makes the spectacle of liberals constantly praising their own intellect and greatness to be truly pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the fact that, so often - and as is certainly

>true for people like you and glutes and Bucky - the

>self-praise is really a mask for your own mediocrity and

>failures, it makes the spectacle of liberals constantly

>praising their own intellect and greatness to be truly

>pathetic.

 

 

I'll treat this as a Badge of Honor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> But the fact that, so often - and as is certainly

>>true for people like you and glutes and Bucky - the

>>self-praise is really a mask for your own mediocrity and

>>failures, it makes the spectacle of liberals constantly

>>praising their own intellect and greatness to be truly

>>pathetic.

 

 

These are heavy charges, indeed. But on the whole, the circumstances encompassed in having a comfortable retirement in the most beautiful city on earth; a handsome, loving and exceedingly well-endowed partner; and caring friends and family on four continents can provide me no cause to repine.

 

Has anybody else noticed that Dougie is the reincarnation of Lady Catherine de Bourgh?

 

http://ppprs1.phy.tu-dresden.de/krone/timeline/Bilder/kad_t001_16.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nineth Circle

 

>>Also did you know that Fox News Channel isn't shown in

>>Canada??

>

>That's great! Nothing like living in a country where only one

>viewpoint is heard. What a fucking Garden of Eden! The best

>part is that they criminalize certain views that the

>Government really hates, so that you can be fined or

>imprisoned for expressing them. Who wouldn't want to live in

>a place like that? Shouldn't you be online shopping for your

>one-way ticket to Vancouver?

>

>>FNC is now home to none other than "Give'm Hell" Zell

>>Miller!

>

>It was perfectly fine for the Democratic Party to benefit from

>his candidacies for the last two decades, but it's horrible

>for Fox News to give him a forum to express his views.

>

>THE NAZIS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!

 

 

Zell Miller was a democrat in name only, as he himself stated on Larry King live and a number of other places when he decided to retire, as he put it, because he no longer believed in a party that was merely the one he registered with due to the simple fact that, since reconstruction, certain people in the south would never register republican. He was a one term senator, after an unsuccessfull governership in Georgia, simply because the democrats could find no other statewide candidate who might be able to hold onto Sam Nunn's (another "democrat" in name only) senate seat.

 

 

 

http://www.gaydar.co.uk/francodisantis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin Williams Sings And Dances At The Oscars!!!

 

It never ceases to amuse me that a thread about Canada can so quickly devolve into a garden variety pissing contest at the kindergarden reading level with the usual suspects.

 

Frankly, the only reason some of those individuals Dougie considers so clearly undersireable fail to move to Canada is that the beaches are better here. Plus, they need to improve their swimming skills to make it clear across the Atlantic to end up with the Dutch....

 

 

http://www.gaydar.co.uk/francodisantis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

RE: Robin Williams Sings And Dances At The Oscars!!!

 

>Frankly, the only reason some of those individuals Dougie

>considers so clearly undersireable fail to move to Canada is

>that the beaches are better here. Plus, they need to improve

>their swimming skills to make it clear across the Atlantic to

>end up with the Dutch....

>

>

>http://www.gaydar.co.uk/francodisantis

 

I just want to set the record straight - as much as we would love to welcome you cute little American critters with open arms....

our immigration policy does not grant you automatic residence status just because you are American and disenchanted with you government.

 

You would have to go through the same type of process that we would encounter should we wish to locate to the USA - although until Bush is gone the lineups at the border will probably be remarkably short!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...