FOX news guy slags off Chris Martin...

[carpediem]

I have to agree to disagree with everyone that may have praised Fox news on here. Because any News station that goes around blaming other news companies of being Liberal and then claims they are balanced, even though they are not truly balanced, then they loose their credibilty in my opinion.

 

I agree with the studies that prove there is a Liberal slant in media. But it is no different then what Fox has been doing, accept slanting it completely to the right. There is no such thing as balanced news. News companies know very well that there is two large groups of audiences. Liberal and Conservative. In other words (Liberal) not so religious or even spiritual people. Although Liberal does have its Catholic bunch who believe in seperation of state and church. Then you have Conservatives the ones that sware on traditional values and religious scriptures. And the bunch that think church and state should reunite and create policy. There isn't a large group of people in the middle of this equation. Which is why the biggest media companies will always gear the content to those two groups.

 

Liberal media gears to those people who want freedom to just be and not forced to be. Conservative media here in the west is starting to gear its content to the patriotic reilgious right. Their making the Libearl out to be an enemy. I guess in a sense it is an enemy, because Libearl doesn't represent capitalism and globalization. It also doesn't represent any religion. Liberal accepts changes in society. Sort of like the lyric in "Scientist" science and progress. Liberal will accept science and physics as a human choice to study. That's what Libearl is all about. Conservative/Religious will never accept changes in society. They would much rather keep things hush hush. Know the problems are there, but try to forget its there, that's the religious approach. The religious approach also say's physics should be taken out of our schools because its based on theory, and that the bible should be taught instead because its fact?.

 

Now for those who will say I shouldn't be connecting conservative with religion. Remember the conservative government you all elected in the U.S uses God and preaches in his speeches for a reason. To attract the Christian right to the party. Because they will work well together. Capitalists get what they want, and (the loss of LIBERTY) the religious right get what they want.

 

I got side tracked.

 

Fox news is no better then any brain washing Liberal media source. They are both out to attract an audience that is already there, and all the while trying to brain wash the middle people one way or the other. Myself I choose to stay in the middle where I agree with a little bit of both ideologies from Conservative and Liberal.

 

Now let me rant a litle bit about Fox news. This same station allows this right wing nut Anne Coulter to say that Canada is lucky that the U.S allows them to exist. She also say's Canada is lucky the U.S doesn't just roll over one night and destroy Canada. She also went on to say that the U.S should attack all those countries in the middle east and convert them to Christianity. What arrogance.

 

Fox news in my opinion is a right wing nut news source. Just as many other outlets are left wing nuts. I recall a show where Bill O'Rielly claimed that if Canada didn't go along with the U.S invasion of Iraq, that the U.S could stop trade with Canada and make Canada bankrupt. Now this is coming from someone who is educated. Or at least we think so. Because if he only know that there is like 32 states that their highest trade is dependant on Canada. He also forgets that the U.S has allot of interest in our water. Since we have a richer source of it then they do.

 

Bill O'Rielly also claimed that France lost billions of dollars and almost went backrupt when the U.S put a stop on trade. He was quoting an article from a magazine that didn't even exist. And even if it did, the source was not very credible. Yet he choose to use it. Cause that is just what they do, use any source to make their point no matter how much crap it is. Its the same tactics Liberal media used for centuries, and now their using it.

 

The best source for news today is anything that is independent (internet) and doesn't rely soely on Reuters. They supply to many many networks, which causes one to question their part in the brain washing arena.

 

As for Gibson. Well he can have all the economic knowledge in the world and have economist backing up his economic plan. But for every 10 economist that prove the capitalist system, there is 10 economist that will prove it to be wrong. These economic plans are all based on a theory. The capititalist system for those religious believers in a anti-christ, should think about how this group is pushing towards a globalization system, which will lead to a one leader (maybe not in our time). The capitalist will create a one world government.

 

Kevin

[colduser]

^^Great post

[Bijeli_Miš]

"Libearl doesn't represent capitalism and globalization"

Huh well, I disagree.Didn't George Soros donated milions to campaign against Bush?

I'd choose to be liberal to conservative anytime, but I support capitalism.

[carpediem]

Just my personal understanding of it all. Not going to do the narrow minded thing and say I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm open minded and will accept anyones disagreement with what I just said in that post.

 

I mentioned that right wing nut who made those comments about Canada. Well I edited the post again and included her name. Anne Coulter I would like to rant about as well.

 

Anne Coulter shows a real dislike for Canada. Claiming that we are too Libearal. And you know what. I agree with her to an extent. If she means too Liberal that we should be more like the U.S. Then I disagree with her. We may need to slant a little to the centre, but not far right like the U.S.

 

I guess hopping on the capitalist train is a natural outcome of a country that grows in population. Because the conservative right start telling us we can't afford all the luxury this tax system gives to EVERYONE. They tell us we Can't afford to help everyone anymore. Now I agree with this to an extent. Because some of those people our tax system supports are a bunch of lazy free loading humans. The solutions is not to lower tax. The solution is to learn from other countries.

 

Take for example Norway who has one of the highest standard of living with crime, health, poverty and education. Why is that? well for one there is only 8 million people who live there. But the other reason is their system that will not leave people behind the success of the countries wealth.

 

Now who knows maybe the conservative right will take over that country sooner or later as well. Its a disease that hits everywhere :wink3: Claiming to save us from Liberal. In exchange they want to take our Liberty through a connection between church and state.

 

I'm not pretending here to have the answers. Because to be honest I think the liberal system is flawed as well. Flawed because it doesn't seem to have a plan for order in society. Which is something conservative and religious system has solved (Bible = Laws). The problem I have with that system is the hypcrosiy of their causes. Below is just two example of their hypcrosiy.

 

A religious right in the U.S will come out screaming of the idea of Canada legalizing marijuana. But that same preacher is going home to have a bottle of man made alcohol drink, or a man made tampered tobacco.

 

They basically tell us every time they speak out against marijuana, that anything legal by man, made by man, that still kills millions of people every year in every country, is good for you. But anythhing made by God at time of creation is bad for you.

 

The marijuana issue is comical. Because although the U.S is trying to bully Canada to put stricker laws on marijuana. Saying that if we legalize marijuana it will make the border harder to cross for Canadian products and people. But on the other hand the current level at the border is o.k for all those illegal hand gun's crossing over to Canada. That's o.k apparently. I guess though this is our government lack of leadership on this issue.

 

Another example of the hypocrisy. Is the Terry Schiavo case. This girl who probably never once asked for a religious group to speak for her, or never once told them what her wishes were. Had them screaming their lungs out on the news. They were claiming to pull the blug was evil. The plug of a system that was never created by their God in the first place. I'm a little confused by this. They accept all man mad technologies, even if it means deciding whether one lives or dies. But they preach that only God decides who lives or dies. Back in the times when there was religious rule, I don't think someone had to decide whether someone died or lived just from unplugging a machine.

 

My heart goes out to Terry and her family. That really touched me that story. I had no agenda. The religious groups surrounding her did have an agenda. Their agenda is that they are looking for any means to get noticed in society. Because slowly with Liberal ideologies they are loosing power on society. So they want to start influencing policy to reflect religious scriptures.

 

In my opinion those religious people should have been on the streets and on the news when their government was spending millions of dollars to change a lens on a aging scope in space, while there was millions of Americans starving in poverty. Oh and I DON'T mean those who choose the streets, I mean those who are legitimately poor because of the capitalist globalization system (re:downsizing). The people they pushed down that they don't talk about when they preach the capitalist system.

 

Now I understand this is not for all religious people in the U.S. I understand there is millions of religious people out there doing allot of leg work without government help to deal with poverty in the U.S. through private organizations. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of religions trying to make policy and how they would not be consistent in making policies that make sense.

 

Imagine this. Tampered tobacco and all alcohol illegal in society. Marijuana legal in society to cook with, take as a pill or smoked through a vaporizer. All of the above has no evidence of health risk. Smoking it has some health risk, but still not as much as acohol or tampered tobacoo. Get this. It takes only a ratio of 1:4 to die of alcohol poisoning. And it takes a ratio of 1:40,000 to die of overdose to marijuana. That means it takes 4 times the amount it took to get drunk to get alcohol poisoning and 40,000 times the amount it took to get high from marijuana.

 

A book could be written about the difference between alcohol and tobacco risk and marijuana risk. Marijuana would probably get a chapter if that. The other two would fill up another 20 chapters or more. May as well even throw in caffein in there. Since it has just as much chemicals as marijuana, and has chemicals that caused cancer in rats.

 

I got side tracked again. Sorry about that. I often do that. My brain just goes on and on and I sometimes have to bang it against the wall to make it stop :idea2: Anyways all I'm saying here is consistency in policy. Either legalize marijuana or make illegal caffein, tobacco and alochol.

 

Kevin

 

P.S...There is actually a book written on this topic of marijuana. Its called "Perscription Pot". Written by two guy's who are fighting the American government on this issue. Because the Republicans had put a stop on any new claims to use marijuana for medical reasons. So only those who were signed up during Clinton can still use it, while any new applicants have to suffer when all conventional drugs fail. Refuse a human a God made drug. Yah that makes allot of sense.

[carpediem]

Bijeli_Miš,

 

Argue it that's fine. I'm talking about those religious people who want to push laws and rules on society. I'm going to assume that George Soros has no interest in Church and State connecting to make our policies. If he did he wouldn't have donated to a Liberal party. Because truthfully a Liberal party would want to keep seperated the two.

 

I figure there is a difference between Liberal having support by someone who has no agenda to push the bible on society. And the Conservatives who have someone who supports them with their agenda to push the bible on society.

 

Kevin

[carpediem]

Back on topic.

 

(Re: stockholders are evil).

 

I would disagree with that statement when its put in that short context too. However, if you dig deep into that statement, you do find some truth to it.

 

If a person is driving his car 150 and drunk, drives around a corner and hits a mini-van with 4 kids kills them all. Is this person evil? How about the guy who one day decides taking his own life and his wife and kids is better then dealing with his house that is being taken away from creditors. Is he evil? How about the guys who run into a bank and steals all the money. Are they evil?

 

One could probably say yes to all those questions. But the guy who drove that car drunk and high speeds. Didn't he have at his disposal the option to not drink, not drink and drive, or even not drive at high speeds. The part of him that could have chose the moral choice. Is he still evil if he chose the moral route? How about the guy who kills his wife and kids. Couldn't he have chose not too, and deal with the problems head on. If he chose not too. Is he still evil? And the guys who rob the bank who all decide their going to get a job and make a living, rather then steal the money from the bank. If they did, are they still evil?

 

Now the answer would probably be No if the actions were different. So now on the idea that stockholders are evil. Do they not make moral choices when purchasing stocks? If they choose a to purchase stocks from a company who is doing harm to the earth, or harm to humans using or consuming their products. Is that a evil thing to do? Let me see. If someone is buying a stock into a tobacco company. Knowing that their products kill millions every year to cancer. (My brother died of cancer so this is a touchy subject for me). Are they evil for choosing that company?

 

Well a stockholder isn't interested in the company whole behaviour in the market. They just know profits. But if they support (example if we say donate) to a company that is killing people. Does that make them evil? Not exactly.

 

Evil is a thought or an action. A person could be either good or evil with their thoughts or action. Its like there is a tipping point. The tipping point of a stockholder I guess is whether he will support good companies that are doing good for the earth and human life. Caring about what they are doing, rather then just bottomline. Problem is what stockholder will prosper doing that kind of investing? Probably not many.

 

But you know what. We can go even deeper and put the blame on consumers. Because consumers have the power to create change. We have seen in recent years a change to organic foods being popular, or fuel efficient cars and no GMO food interest. But still not enough.

 

So if consumers are buying that pack of smokes, and the stockholder buys stock in that company, there is two moral wrongs. So I guess this goes out to those bashing stockholders here, while even they themselves are probably supporting the same companies by using their product or service. So think about what you say :wink3:

 

Kevin

[colduser]

Kevin, thanks for your very insightful views. I agree with you on everything you posted. My brain would hurt too much to type out responses as lengthy as yours :lol:

Thanks for posting ;)

[Bijeli_Miš]

Back on topic.

 

(Re: stockholders are evil).

 

I would disagree with that statement when its put in that short context too. However, if you dig deep into that statement, you do find some truth to it.

 

If a person is driving his car 150 and drunk, drives around a corner and hits a mini-van with 4 kids kills them all. Is this person evil? How about the guy who one day decides taking his own life and his wife and kids is better then dealing with his house that is being taken away from creditors. Is he evil? How about the guys who run into a bank and steals all the money. Are they evil?

 

One could probably say yes to all those questions. But the guy who drove that car drunk and high speeds. Didn't he have at his disposal the option to not drink, not drink and drive, or even not drive at high speeds. The part of him that could have chose the moral choice. Is he still evil if he chose the moral route? How about the guy who kills his wife and kids. Couldn't he have chose not too, and deal with the problems head on. If he chose not too. Is he still evil? And the guys who rob the bank who all decide their going to get a job and make a living, rather then steal the money from the bank. If they did, are they still evil?

 

Now the answer would probably be No if the actions were different. So now on the idea that stockholders are evil. Do they not make moral choices when purchasing stocks? If they choose a to purchase stocks from a company who is doing harm to the earth, or harm to humans using or consuming their products. Is that a evil thing to do? Let me see. If someone is buying a stock into a tobacco company. Knowing that their products kill millions every year to cancer. (My brother died of cancer so this is a touchy subject for me). Are they evil for choosing that company?

 

Well a stockholder isn't interested in the company whole behaviour in the market. They just know profits. But if they support (example if we say donate) to a company that is killing people. Does that make them evil? Not exactly.

 

Evil is a thought or an action. A person could be either good or evil with their thoughts or action. Its like there is a tipping point. The tipping point of a stockholder I guess is whether he will support good companies that are doing good for the earth and human life. Caring about what they are doing, rather then just bottomline. Problem is what stockholder will prosper doing that kind of investing? Probably not many.

 

But you know what. We can go even deeper and put the blame on consumers. Because consumers have the power to create change. We have seen in recent years a change to organic foods being popular, or fuel efficient cars and no GMO food interest. But still not enough.

 

So if consumers are buying that pack of smokes, and the stockholder buys stock in that company, there is two moral wrongs. So I guess this goes out to those bashing stockholders here, while even they themselves are probably supporting the same companies by using their product or service. So think about what you say :wink3:

 

Kevin

First of, stock owners don't have to buy shares of tobacco companies.

2nd companies go public(that is get listed on exchanges) mainly because they are ready for a project that requires a lot of money.

However companies with lots of money got from IPO or price increase of their equities can't force anyone to buy their products.

So as you can see people CHOOSE to smoke regardless of how bad it is, so it's really lame to accuse stockowners as "the great evil".

Oh and tobacco advertising is illegal in most countries, so you can't say they use the money they get from the stock market to advertise their unhealthy products!

[carpediem]

If anything I thought my posts were light on stockowners. And I never said stockowners "as great evil". I apologize for not being clear enough. I guess by saying there is some truth to the statement, automatically makes it seem like I mean I agree. But like I said I disagree with the context as it was put. And I thought I explained that pretty well.

 

I was talking about their choices and action being evil. That could be said for anyone or any organization, not just stockowners. Maybe my example was a bad one. It was maybe too general for some. I hope others understood it as an example.

 

Kevin

 

P.S....Isn't war making money? :P According to those companies that profit from it. It sure is money.

[berrywoman]

If anything I thought my posts were light on stockowners. And I never said stockowners "as great evil". I apologize for not being clear enough. I guess by saying there is some truth to the statement, automatically makes it seem like I mean I agree. But like I said I disagree with the context as it was put. And I thought I explained that pretty well.

 

I was talking about their choices and action being evil. That could be said for anyone or any organization, not just stockowners. Maybe my example was a bad one. It was maybe too general for some. I hope others understood it as an example.

 

Kevin

 

P.S....Isn't war making money? :P According to those companies that profit from it. It sure is money.

 

 

 

where have you been all my life...

[carpediem]

where have you been all my life...

 

Um to be honest. If you are 29 years old like your profile say's, then the first 3 years I didn't exist. As for the other years. Well I was a young boy in a small town of 300 people in Nothern, Ontario. Grew up on a farm with all kinds of animals. And now I'm living in the city with all kinds of animals still :D I hope to be able to move back to the small town. Can't get it out of my blood.

 

I think I took your question literally :wink3:

 

Kevin

[lilchick629]

Kevin---u are one smart boy----great said back there :P

[Bijeli_Miš]

Nah war doesn't make money, but it does produce poverty.

[colduser]

War does make money Oliver. Certain industries benefit from it.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Nah war doesn't make money' date=' but it does produce poverty.[/quote']

 

in some cases it can help a nations economy, like it did to america in ww2.

[Bijeli_Miš]

War does make money Oliver. Certain industries benefit from it.

CERTAIN industries sure do, but it is generally expense for the country.

Just look where wars are today, they sure aren't in Sweden, Norway or any other rich ass country.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

War does make money Oliver. Certain industries benefit from it.

CERTAIN industries sure do, but it is generally expense for the country.

Just look where wars are today, they sure aren't in Sweden, Norway or any other rich ass country.

 

war can bankrupt country's while in some cases can cause more wealth in some, IE america after ww2, and some other ocasions. it all depends on the war and the country.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

We should stay in Iraq -- for decades

 

 

The usual Demo-gogue suspects -- Kennedy, Kerry and company -- are increasing the tenor of their demands that the Bush administration commit to a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. A few misguided Republicans have even signed on to this legislative folly. Insisting that we cap our military support for the new Iraqi government is a dangerous political ploy intended to help Demos rally their peacenik constituency in the run-up to next year's midterm elections. Dangerous, because challenging the administration to agree to a timetable only emboldens Jihadis, who would very much like to move the frontlines of the Long War from their turf to ours.

 

The Demos know President George Bush will not agree to such a timetable. As the president has said repeatedly, "Our exit strategy is to exit when our mission is complete." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld protests that any such deadline for withdrawal would "throw a lifeline to terrorists." Indeed, but it is always easier to sell anti-war rhetoric like "give peace a chance" than it is to advocate peace through superior firepower, and to use force in defense of critical U.S. national interests.

 

For eight long years, the Clinton administration pursued a policy of appeasement, particularly in regard to Middle Eastern policy and pursuit of Islamic terrorists. Terrorists were classified as mere "criminals" then, including those Jihadi fanatics who first bombed the WTC's north tower in 1993, who bombed the Khobar Towers in 1996, who bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and who bombed the USS Cole in 2000. Consequently, Clinton's negligent inaction emboldened this enemy, and the result was a devastating attack on our homeland just months after the Bush administration took office in 2001.

 

"Peace" had its chance under Clinton, but President Bush made the difficult decision to give war a chance. Remarkably, the outcome has, to date, pre-empted any further attacks on U.S. soil -- which was, after all, its primary objective. The transition from an ineffectual policy of containment to one of pre-emption was the most significant strategic military shift since WWII. To be sure, there have been setbacks, and President Bush bears a heavy and heartfelt burden for those uniformed Patriots who have given their lives to protect ours.

 

If we did check out of Iraq, as suggested by a growing chorus on the Left, al-Qa'ida and other Islamists will not only rule that nation -- they will eventually control the entire region, with the possible exception of Israel. The "exit timetable" crowd knows this, but that hasn't prevented them from using this issue as political fodder -- and from using it to undermine support for our military personnel and our operations in the Middle East. Of course, this places both those personnel and our national security in peril.

 

One need only ask the exit advocates, "Exit where, and for how long?" Because we didn't finish the job in Operation Desert Storm, we had to return with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Reality dictates that if we don't finish the job now, we'll have to return again, and likely at a far greater cost in terms of American lives.

 

Not only should we not set a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, but we should seek to establish an alliance with the Iraqi government in order to maintain a strong military presence in the region. How long? As long as there are Islamofascists bent on detonating a nuclear device in some U.S. urban center and sending our nation into economic ruin.

 

According to The Patriot's well-placed military and intelligence sources, one closely guarded objective in securing a free Iraq is to establish a forward-deployed presence in the Middle East -- a presence that would certainly include personnel but whose primary component would be massive military-equipment depots that could be tapped for future rapid-deployment military operations in the region.

 

This forward-base objective is critical, given that it will ensure our military presence in the heart of Jihadistan, and an ability to project force in the region quickly without having to ramp up via sea and airlift. This alone will pay rich dividends by way of maintaining peace through preparedness.

 

The new Iraqi government will likely extend an invitation to the U.S. to establish two bases in southern Iraq now that, as you may recall, our friends the Saudis have expelled our fighting forces from their country. The proposed base locations are nowhere near Iraqi urban centers -- which is to say, they are highly securable. We expect this new military presence to consist primarily of limited personnel, but with substantial assets transferred from bases in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

 

Of course, those who claim that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East is the problem will wail about the establishment of permanent base operations in the region. Fact is, however, until the last Israeli is dead and the West no longer dominates the world economy (and, thus, culture), Jihadis will not rest.

 

Previously, this column has outlined the nature of asymmetric threats like Islamist terrorist regimes -- some given safe harbor by Islamic states, some seeking to create new Islamofascist states. (See the three-part series on U.S. national security at FederalistPatriot.US/Alexander) On the importance of our holding the frontline against Jihadistan in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently wrote: "The war in Iraq is less about geopolitics than about the clash of ideologies, culture and religious beliefs. Because of the long reach of the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will have an even deeper significance than that in Vietnam. If a Taliban-type government or a fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in Baghdad or any part of Iraq, shock waves would ripple through the Islamic world. Radical forces in Islamic countries or Islamic minorities in non-Islamic countries would be emboldened in their attacks on existing governments. The safety and internal stability of all societies within reach of militant Islam would be imperiled."

 

Indeed, the safety and stability of the free world would be imperiled.

 

This is the Long War, Islamofascism is the enemy, and Iraq is the front line. If we are serious about pre-empting Jihadi terrorism (despite Demo political mischief), we must not abandon Iraq. Of course, if we follow the Kennedy and Kerry plan, Islamofascists, who will control the region, won't have to attack on U.S. soil, they will just cut off U.S. oil -- and bring the entire West to its knees -- until it submits to Islam.

 

Of course, no Western political leader is going allow that scenario -- not even Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder. These Jihadi cave dwellers, the Islamists who fly planes into buildings and bomb Iraqi children at open markets, don't share Western (predominantly Judeo-Christian) values. To be sure, they have no compunction about reducing your standard of living to something less than their subsistence -- and they will, given the opportunity.

[Bijeli_Miš]

But seriously Nick what does this have to do with stocks or coldplay?

Please open a politic thread and post all things related to Iraq or whatever you find appropriate!

[Matter-Eater Lad]

umm if you look back we've talked about all kinds of politics on this thread. we've basically used this as the politics thread if you look through the pages.

[lilchick629]

d

 

this is our secret politics thread---shhhhhh :sneaky:

 

@nick------its too long---i'll read it when im not sleepy

[Bijeli_Miš]

Yeah I know that's why I said, I doubt this article would be so intersting. :lol:

Btw it seems you just copy-paste articles(no offence), why don't you post somethong of your own.

[lilchick629]

he has posted lots of thing of his own---havent you nick

 

@ bijeli--shhhhh :dozey: dont get him started :wink3:

:P

[carpediem]

"Our exit strategy is to exit when our mission is complete."

 

Exit strategy; :huh: There is no strategy, and anyone who believes they know what to do next, are the same naive people who believe the same leaders who claim to protect them now, are the same people who were leading the country when thousands died in the World Trade Centre.

 

It goes something like this. "We will protect you, no one else could, but just forget that it was our mistake in the first place." "Trust me before, and I failed you, trust me again, maybe I won't fail you again".

 

I can't believe the Americans didn't stick it to those politicians after failing so miserably to keep them safe. Or not only keep them safe by security, but to keep them safe, from not creating enemies in other countries.

 

This war isn't going to solve the problems. It will "add wood to the fire". The fire the U.S started with the match called 'oil interest', or in other words 'economic interest'. Two different matches, used at the same time to ignite the attacks on American soil.

 

Maybe some positive outcomes will come of this. I hope there is. But for now I can't help but disagree with this war. Personally it's a concern when the country leading this war, has a leader who uses GOD to "legitamize" the war. Religious history is dark with so much evil with the name of God used. Wars, slavery, discrimination and racism. How could this man "Mr. Bush" be the one to claim "God Wants" this war to happen.

 

Kevin

[Bijeli_Miš]

They might one day invade Alberta, who knows?! :lol:

I don't get it yanks have been in so many wars, whilst only few of them in entire history have been fought defensevly on their own soil.