Prev: Tiger is Cabalasian... Obama is a Mulatto
Next: Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
From: Alan Baker on 27 Sep 2008 12:50
In article <q4gsd49ddasma7clq5gklq8u9kc0lg4gpp(a)4ax.com>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:47:47 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
> >> If he wanted to know her opinion on preemptive strikes against
> >> terrorists and the nations that sponsor them, he should have asker her
> >> that.
> >Why would he have had reason to suspect that she wouldn't know what the
> >Bush doctrine was?
> Because there has never been any specific definition of the Bush
> It was a stupid question.
And there was never a specific definition of the Monroe Doctrine either.
There was not document which codified it specifically, yet you agree
that it existed, right?
Vancouver, British Columbia
From: Jack Hollis on 27 Sep 2008 15:44
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:50:24 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:26:20 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
>> >Can you imagine the absurdity if anyone on the board cared about Canadian
>> >politics, much less picked fights about it.
>> One could write an extensive history of the world and never mention
>> The only interesting thing that I know of in Canadian politics is the
>> Quebec separatists. My sympathy is with them all the way.
>> Vive le Qu�bec libre !
>I visited Sydney and was very impressed by what I saw there. Good people,
>great society....staunch American ally. Baker doesn't represent his nation.
>He's an anamoly....one who should be ignored.
I don't know about Sydney, but Canada has always been a staunch ally
of the US. The only nation that I could say has been a better ally is
From: Jack Hollis on 27 Sep 2008 15:46
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:28:08 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
>You think there aren't lots of people in Canada who recognize the ugly
Ah, but the problem is that they can't tell the difference between an
American and a non-French Canadian.
From: Jack Hollis on 27 Sep 2008 15:54
On 27 Sep 2008 15:12:14 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:40:56 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>> Vive le Québec libre !
>You are aware that was 40 years ago, right?
French Canadian independence is still very much of an issue. Of
course, it isn't like it was back in the late 60s and 70s when they
blew things up, but the issue has never died.
From: Carbon on 27 Sep 2008 16:15
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:54:32 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2008 15:12:14 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>>On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:40:56 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> Vive le QuÃ©bec libre !
>>You are aware that was 40 years ago, right?
> French Canadian independence is still very much of an issue. Of course,
> it isn't like it was back in the late 60s and 70s when they blew things
> up, but the issue has never died.
You have no idea what you're talking about.