Dumb Dems
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Tiger is Cabalasian... Obama is a Mulatto
Next: Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
From: Jack Hollis on 27 Sep 2008 20:08 On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:50:26 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >> Because there has never been any specific definition of the Bush >> Doctrine. >> >> 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? President Monroe delivered a speech to both houses of Congress specifically defining what later became known as the Monroe Doctrine. There is no real corollary with the Bush administration. The, so called, Bush Doctrine was a media creation and it has a number of different meanings. As I said, it was a stupid question.
From: Jack Hollis on 27 Sep 2008 21:15 On 27 Sep 2008 20:15:35 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >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> >> wrote: >>>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. >> >> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051229/ >ELXN_quebec_campaign/20060102?s_name=election2006&no_ads= > >You have no idea what you're talking about. Are you telling me that the French Canadian separatist movement is dead? Don't tell me that all my efforts in 1971 were in vain.
From: Carbon on 27 Sep 2008 22:52 On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:15:11 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > On 27 Sep 2008 20:15:35 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: >>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> >>> wrote: >>>>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. >>> >>> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051229/ >>ELXN_quebec_campaign/20060102?s_name=election2006&no_ads= >> >>You have no idea what you're talking about. > > Are you telling me that the French Canadian separatist movement is dead? > > Don't tell me that all my efforts in 1971 were in vain. Yeah Jack, it's pretty much dead. Quebecois of your generation are pretty set in their ways but people my age and younger don't have the same kind of bitterness. The window has passed. Hate to break it to you. Having said that, Montreal is one of my favorite places on the planet.
From: Alan Baker on 28 Sep 2008 04:21 In article <193td4dti7cs4i82f446locje6ghk2gg7i(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:28:08 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >You think there aren't lots of people in Canada who recognize the ugly > >American? Please. > > Ah, but the problem is that they can't tell the difference between an > American and a non-French Canadian. Actually, it's easy. The American will almost always be the boor who is ignorant of everything in the world except America. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 28 Sep 2008 04:22
In article <2ditd4t27spskv6kr72kapg32pne5ja4up(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:50:26 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >> Because there has never been any specific definition of the Bush > >> Doctrine. > >> > >> 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? > > President Monroe delivered a speech to both houses of Congress > specifically defining what later became known as the Monroe Doctrine. So it wasn't actually in a document called a "doctrine", right? > There is no real corollary with the Bush administration. The, so > called, Bush Doctrine was a media creation and it has a number of > different meanings. Other than the National Security Strategy previously referenced, right? And I'll bet I can find speeches where Bush articulated his doctrine. The one at West Point springs to mind. > > As I said, it was a stupid question. LOL -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |