On May 14, 6:24 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
ve3... wrote:
There will be no unanswered insults. If you stop telling lies
about Canada, I will stop telling the truth about the US.

Funny. That's exactly what's happening from down here. Someone
got tired of the gratuitous insults from Canada, and took a 'no insult
unanswered' stance.

So, again, you're bitching because someone hit you back first.

Canadian insults stop, US insults will stop.

Your call.

I suppose you come by it honestly. When your PM levies personal
insults at our President, it kind of becomes national policy.

Get your facts right. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, has his
head so far up Bush's ass he needs assistants to hold his shoelaces.
Harper, a well-known neocon, can't call an election because his
ratings are too low. Please cite the occasion where Harper insulted
Bush.

And here we have it. History starts at a random point of
convenience. Go back one PM. The aide to Chretien that called Bush a
moron in an official memo. He resigned. Interestingly, however, he was
not fired by Chretien, nor was the remark retracted by the PM.

So, you get YOUR facts, straight, buckwheat. History doesn't
start with your entry into the fray. And you don't get to start a 'no
insult unanswered' retaliation when it was your countrymen who started
the insult fest first.

"Mii," and "MichaelMoore" have been taking gratuitous shots at
the US since long before you showed your handle here. Had you done your
own homework, gotten your own facts straight, you would have known that.
But then, you're Canadian, and beyond the reach of criticism, aren't you?

No insult unanswered, indeed.

I suppose you don't know that the Anti-US insults came across
the border for weeks unanswered before some members here started let no
insult go unanswered. But then, why would you. Everyone knows there are
no enemies on the Left...or to the North. That you are, by geography, if
not politics, beyond the reach of criticism. And that you must let no
insult go unanswered. If for no other reason than to assert your
righteousness.

No insult unaswered, indeed.

Arrogance in DNA. You let your countrymen lob shots across the
border, and then you object to the response with indignation.

"MOM, he hit me back first."

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""
First of all, I consider your calling me "buckwheat" a gratuitous
insult so you had better get ready for some "incoming."

(1) You make a big fuss about "getting your facts right." Why don't
you follow your own advice? "Go back one PM." That would be John
Turner. If you are talking about Chretien, that's back TWO PM's. When
you say "your PM" I think it quite reasonable to think you are
referring to the present PM. And the aide was a "she" not a "he."
Great example of "getting your facts straight."

(2) You say history starts at a random point of convenience.
Convenient to who? You? How far back do you want to go? Chretien
didn't like Bush. Diefenbaker didn't like Kennedy. King didn't like
Roosevelt.........
Cartier thought the Jamestown settlers were trailer trash. So what?
You have to set the terms of reference at the beginning of the
discussion, not when you want to shift your argument. That's why I
ignored your previous rant about terrorists and Al-quieda about which
you objected. It had nothing to do with the topic we were discussing.
Please stay on topic and stop dragging red herrings across the thread.

(3) I admit that I didn't know about the early feud, but I speak for
myself so it is not relevant. I don't think Cato got a fair shake just
because he was Canadian and he knew nothing about the earlier feud but
some of the inhabitants of this site are close to psychotic and were
drooling at the prospect of a new victim.

To sum up: I will not initiate an insult but if you think I will
ignore one you have another think coming.