Dali on Cezanne
Mani Deli
who would have fared admirably as a manufacturer of enamel headed
canes.
Cezanne is the finest expression of this decadence. He was truly
unable to imitate the masterpieces and all of his admired technique is
merely proof of his inability. His apples are made of cement. The
paradox is that what is least admirable is most admired: nullity! What
a symbol for a period! On the pretext of the academic being
detestable, the worst in the class was made a hero! He opens the door
to the ethics of shit! Newness at whatever cost?and art becomes just a
latrine! The logic of this search for newness leads to the
glorification of total shit of which Cezanne is the high priest."
Dali "unspeakable Confessions"
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Thur
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9vgpvv043dhaob667...@4ax.com...
I hate Dali's kind of work, but after reading this quote, I am warming to
him as a person.
Thur
keith o'connor
Mani you have not yet learned to scrape out the garbage that some of these
people say and get at the good stuff. Dali did some interesting work - but
he put his brain in neutral and his mouth in drive much of the time - too
bad his followers can't realise that.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:ngeLb.226$IY6...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Leo Papandreou
Newsflash: the language and concept of what is art changed forever several
times after Dali and Cezanne's death. I'd tell you to get over it but who
would I be I kidding?
In ten years you'll still be hating and there still won't be a movement to
reject "modernism" or reevaluate working artists according to some
traditionalist mystique that has remained concealed under a veil of
forgotten "skill," as if truth in art has already been spelled out once and for
all and we can only keep interpreting its message. Think! That would mean art
could no longer advance. When has that happened in the past? Never. Art
advances by artists asking questions and creating meaning, praising
disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. It does not retreat into the past
or make a cult out of tradition.
For Mani disagreement is treason: "modernists" violate a code of beliefs
accepted as authoritative, which in his breathtaking ignorance of both art and
science he has referred to as "the basic scientific foundations of drawing and
painting technique." Thus, in the kook's marvelous dialectic, "modern academic"
artists are charlatans -- a fact sanctioned by the authority of scientific
inquiry (!) -- while the rancorous kook stands for excellence, ascendancy and
influence. Only on USENET is such a total and complete inversion of reality
possible: science becomes dogma becomes art, which you can see it in its apogee
in Norman Rockwell and Bouguereau.
Sadly for Mani, contemporary art is diverse. Elements of even the most
degraded, inflexible, and dogmatic concept of art, Mani's narrow set "skills"
required to create stock illustration, is readily identified in the work of
numerous working artists praised in the "modern academic art establishment."
The reason Mani never mentions this is he does not conceive of "modern
academic" artists as individuals. He conceives of them as a quality or
monolithic entity arrayed against what art "should" be, which he pretends to
interpret as the Voice of the People.
You are an amusing crank, Mani. Your vision of Rockwell-loving brown shirts
goose-stepping relentlessly across the landscape making demands of living
artists and seeking a disinterested public's consensus by exploiting and
aggravating a natural fear of diversity is a ludicrous, delusional fantasy.
The appeal to a browbeaten proletariat suffering from feelings of social and
individual frustration related to the authority of "modern academic art" to
humiliate conventional taste is a lot of sound and fury, conspiracies written
by heritage buffs and Internet kooks attempting to make words mean something
different than what the facts warrant. At the root of this psychology is an
obsession with plot. The huge, corpulent shape entitled "modern academic art"
does not exist. It is a plot, like The Jews, or The New World Order.
I can just see them now, your "Ritchy-Bitchies." They are in full evening
regalia, seated at a loaded banquet table, gorging themselves amid the crystal
and silver, flirting with Miss Museum, a thin, gaunt prostitute given to
fainting spells, while outside in the howling wind a pathetic figure in a gray
shawl goes wearily to market to sell his illustrations for pennies on the
dollar.
> Academic art is a sideline when art education ignores it. However it
> is popular when seen. More museums are now taking their long hidden
> academic art out of the basement and exhibiting it. There are new
> books on artists who were formaly unknown and scholars are at last
> looking into the details of this supressed period.
> This will lead to an acceptence of the finest 20th C. artists who are
> still not generally represented in museums and will puncture the myth
> that 20th C. art is only represented by the Modern Academic variety.
The followers of Mani must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemy.
Thus, by continuous, internally incoherent shifts of rhetorical emphasis, the
enemy is alternately too strong and too weak. Modern academic art may be
wealthy and powerful, you see, but it is condemned to lose the war because it
is by nature incapable of evaluating art objectively: "the basic scientific
foundations of drawing and painting technique."
Mani, you are the furthest thing possible from an artist. By the way, why do
you hate science?
Mani Deli
Dali on Picasso:
" He had a feel for adjectives, but few ideas. He listened to me and
gratified me with answers full of modifiers. His whole brilliance lay
in his skill as plagiarist and stager?as jewel?setter. When all was
said and done, Picasso was a duettist. He always needed a partner:
Ingres, Delacroix, Velizquez, and others I forget. But he was a
eunuch, a caricaturing imitator who tore down and made fun of what he
could not outdo."
keith o'connor
I don't think mani is as young as you may think. In ten years he may be
trying to remember his own name.
But that is the great tragedy - for as the ancients say - some of us use our
youth and manhood make our own hell then we enter the autumn of life
struggling in the mud of our bitterness.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Leo Papandreou" <koan...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:1146a1e0.0401...@posting.google.com...
keith o'connor
quotations of others?
You quote peoples old emails - even mine. I believe today's reality is not
tomorrow's reality. You try to hold me to yesterday's reality.
You are incredibly insecure but you will never know that. I don't have the
opportunity to deal in abnormal psychology every day and I have learned a
great deal from your postings.
It is unfortunate that you need to constantly reassure your self that a
chair is a chair (I am speaking metaphorically which requires an act
comprehension on your part)
Where is the real Mani? Did you kill him some decades ago (again it's a
metaphorical thought)?
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gcmrvvco577emaha4...@4ax.com...
Marc Sabatella
through
> quotations of others?
It's especially interesting that he relies on quotes by lesser artists.
Why should I care what a markedly inferior artist like Dali thinks of
Cezanne or Picasso? And I'm quite sure I could dregde up some quote
from someone or other confirming my opinion of Dali...
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Mani Deli
>
>I don't think mani is as young as you may think. In ten years he may be
>trying to remember his own name.
>
>But that is the great tragedy - for as the ancients say - some of us use our
>youth and manhood make our own hell then we enter the autumn of life
>struggling in the mud of our bitterness.
I know as much about your life as you know about mine. Your tragedy is
your artwork (www.tinmangallery.com) which I recommend students look
at and then ask themselves whether they want to spend their live
repeating anything like that.
Mani Deli
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>Mani: Have you ever had an idea of your own? Do you have to live through
>quotations of others?
My messages have far fewer quotations then yours. I doubt that you
ever had an idea in your life.
Mani Deli
"In his whole painting life, Picasso never did anything but projects.
He had to do the same subject a hundred times, for he never knew which
was the right one. Others had to make the choice for him.
The only thing he never pulled off was a real painting. Not one
masterpiece! But a prodigious quantity of satires.
He was a barbarian. Whence his success in a period interested only in
immediate effect. His work was a great cymbal clap."
Mani Deli
>Why should I care what a markedly inferior artist like Dali thinks of
>Cezanne or Picasso?
The fifth rate quality of your incompetent artwork at
(http://www.outsideshore.com/) clearly reveals why.
keith o'connor
an imitative act. Oh well some of us can't see the forest for the trees.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:o5itvvsii0qems513...@4ax.com...
keith o'connor
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:vvsa12j...@corp.supernews.com...
keith o'connor
a lot of that.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:mkitvv8c68rvg41b7...@4ax.com...
keith o'connor
recognised among the .... Don't forget to add some goodies about his sex
life - that's worth extra Include something about him having an affair with
a dreary house wife - that's really worth extra.
Picasso the Barbarian
a Romantic fantasy
in the surrealist style
by: Mani
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jkjtvvgra0eric9bp...@4ax.com...
Mani Deli
that lugubrious kitchen chef for the bourgeois heirs to 1789. A
painter of hairs on the soup!
Mani Deli
Erik A. Mattila
Yeah, but Dali was proud that he was anal retentive. He boasted about
it. If he had ever learned to drive an automobile, he would have sported
a bumper sticker: "I'm psychopathological and pround of it!" I admire
his honesty.
CB
"Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote in message
news:GNOdndm6PbknYyLZ...@adelphia.com...
Of course he was proud of it; given his penchant for copraphagy, it meant he
always had a snack handy. Be prepared, and all that :)
Mani Deli
wrote:
I judge artists by their work, not by your fantasies.
no skill no art!
Mani Deli
Bouguereau Nudes and the Double Standards of Modernist Art Critics
by Bruce Attah
Regarding Bouguereau and pornography, I find it intriguing that when
it comes to Victorian painters, the slightest suggestion of possible
eroticism is taken by modern critics to indicate prurience, male
chauvinism, neuroticism, or even sexual perversity, and all these are
taken to be proof that the Victorian painter is bad. (A quite
outrageous example I came across once was when critic Waldemar
Januszczak decided Lord Leighton must have been a pederast because in
a particular painting - Cimabue's Madonna - a man and a boy are seen
holding hands!) Yet, if an artist belongs to the modernist tradition,
any amount of eroticism or sexual content, overt or indirect, is not
just tolerated but celebrated, and art that expresses quite suspect
attitudes to sex or women is treated as evidence of the artist's
excellence. (Examples are many, but Balthus, Hans Bellmer, Allen
Jones, Tom Wesselman and Picasso stand out.) Victorians just can't
win, as they're held to an extreme standard of prudery that didn't
even apply in Victorian or Napoleonic times, while their successors
have absolute sexual licence. As for neuroticism, if you're a
modernist, then the madder you appear to be, the better. I suppose it
would be too much to ask a modernist critic to be consistent!
Bill
> latrine! The logic of this search for newness leads to the
> glorification of total shit of which Cezanne is the high priest."
Aren't you beating hell out of a dead horse ? I never hear of anyone who
suggested that Cezanne's work had any artistic merit whatever.
Bill
> You are absolutely right, Bill. There is no one to defend Cezanne. That is
> why he is hanging in the great museums, and why many so books and
> monographs*have been written about him.
A great many monographs have been written too about Jack the
Ripper, Adolph Hitler and the history of art fraud. The things that
are hung in museums are there to bring in the booboisee. And if there
were enough interest they would gladly display turds and offal. Oh.
excuse me, they already DO ! On the bright side, If the truth were
known, half the stuff they display would be found to be fakes. YOU may
be impressed with the displays of "great" museums. I'm not.
Have a nice day.
Bill
of Cezanne as a fake and a fraud and a no talent hack foisted on an
unknowing public by greedy shysters and con-men. But why single out
Cezanne for special attention ? Why not complete the list of no talent
hacks with bloated reputations ? To any list of alleged painters who
couldn't paint a small rock by dropping it in a bucket of paint,
I'd add :
Van
Gogh
Gauguin
Utrillo
Modigliani
Matisse
Chagall
Picasso
Pollock
Rothko
DeKooning
Warhol
Only when the childish dribblings of these frauds are finally consigned
to the poubelles where they belong will there be chance to restore some
sanity to an art world than has been contaminated by their delusions of
adequacy, and further contaminated by greedy and shameless dealers
desperate for something- anything - to sell.
Regards, Bill
Bill
an artist who puts out work beloved by millions around the word, who
has proven himself a master of his trade. And as if that were not
enough has proven himself a master ALSO of promotion, distribution and
marketing and has amassed millions by bypassing the shysters in New
York who like to think they control the art world ! He has left them
with egg on their faces, fuming with rage and terrified at the idea
that his idea may catch on and artists around the world may follow his
lead and thumb their noses at their 50 percent ripoff commissions !
Their frantic efforts to destroy this artist and every thing he stands
for, marks a new low for even the contemptible gang in New York, many
of whom belong in jail. AND indeed some of them ARE in jail. I'm
referring of course to the price rigging scandal cooked up between
Christies and Southebys which resulted in several trials, convictions
and jail terms for the crooks behind it.
How about ANOTHER great American artist that bundled a pile of
his canvases under his arm and sold them privately for over a million
dollars ? And of course paid ZERO commission ! He's the ONLY artist,
by the way, EVER to be given a showing at the White House in
Washington, DC ! Now that's impressive ! There are plenty of
artists I admire and I'm impressed with. And you can find them too if
you're careful and discriminating. No, they won't be discussed in
the glossy magazines. They are too busy pushing the drip and drizzle,
smear and queer work turned out by artists they can control or whose
supply they have managed to corner. But that's what makes life
interesting, isn't it ?
Who are these great artists I'm talking about ? YOU figure it out,
but don't tell anyone about it. Does Macy's tell Gimbels ?
Regards, Bill
CB
house in Bungaloid Pa must be impressive. Interesting too that that show was
hosted by none other than Richard Nixon, that paragon of artistic taste and
humanist ethics.
A show more up your alley might be the one of Arno Breker's work in
Schwerin, Germany. I'm sure you'd find lots there to sympathize with...
Cheers;
Chris
"Bill" <billm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153857112.2...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
CB
"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060726094833.728$9...@newsreader.com...
> "CB" <n...@this.address> wrote:
> > You mean you collect Thomas Kinkade & Andrew Wyeth prints? Holy moly,
> > that house in Bungaloid Pa must be impressive. Interesting too that that
> > show was hosted by none other than Richard Nixon, that paragon of
> > artistic taste and humanist ethics.
> >
> > A show more up your alley might be the one of Arno Breker's work in
> > Schwerin, Germany. I'm sure you'd find lots there to sympathize with...
> >
>
> everything he writes is spot on for an ignorant, aggressive American
bigot.
Well, if he starts talking about his fantastic sculpture collection from the
Franklin Mint, I might be forced to agree!
BTW - I started in on the book about Clement Greenberg, "Art Czar", it's a
bit breezy, but a great summer read. I know you aren't fond of Greenberg,
fwiw, I don't think the author (Alice Goldfarb Marquis) is either, but it
does provide a pretty good look at a really complex person, and very
determined writer. (I may retract that later, I only got halfway through the
book last night...). It's the sort of book I'd recommend going to enjoy
somewhere like Borders, and passing the day in one of their comfortable
chairs with a couple of cups of coffee. (Do they still let you do that?).
But it's not too pricey, and well referenced, so it can also be used as a
good starting point for anyone interested in the going deeper into the first
great explosion of American art on the world scene.
There's an enormous number of subthreads in the book worth following up (& I
know you are more aware of these than I) - from the effects of Greenberg's
political odyssey on his perception, to the support given to the art he
championed by folks like Nelson Rockefeller ("...modern forms of artistic
expression were the only area left in democracy where there was true
freedom....that it was one of the the great bastions of freedom and strength
in our lives..."). Anyway, quite enjoyable.
Cheers;
Chris
Bill
CB wrote:
Interesting too that that show was
> hosted by none other than Richard Nixon, that paragon of artistic taste and
> humanist ethics.
Considering Canuckistan's refusal to help American troops
fighting in Iraq I'm not at all surprised by your caustic comments.
But I really don't think that a Canadian- any Canadian- is in a good
position to snicker. Our politicians have achieved a rather enviable
position for America on the world stage, while YOUR politicians,
leaders of a MUCH larger nation, have done---- What ??
Those who are not embroiled in scandal seem to have no higher
ambition than to serve their time, grab their paychecks and grovel for
favors in front of OUR Presidents. When they are not groveling in front
of the fat old lady they supinely accept as their head of state. An
American seeks high office because he wants to DO something. His
Canadian counterpart seeks high office because he wants to BE
something. If ours make mistakes it's because they trip moving
forward. When yours make mistakes it's because they fall out of bed,
having consigned the Canadian people to wallow as third class subjects
of a second class monarchy.
Why third class? Despite some muttering and embarrassment the
Brits, have accepted their role as America's poodle. I suggest you
control your disdain for our politicians in a manner befitting your
status. Canadians, dear lady, play the role of lap dog to that
poodle.
Have a nice day. Bill.
CB
>
> CB wrote:
> Interesting too that that show was
> > hosted by none other than Richard Nixon, that paragon of artistic taste
and
> > humanist ethics.
>
> Considering Canuckistan's refusal to help American troops
> fighting in Iraq I'm not at all surprised by your caustic comments.
> But I really don't think that a Canadian- any Canadian- is in a good
> position to snicker. Our politicians have achieved a rather enviable
> position for America on the world stage, while YOUR politicians,
> leaders of a MUCH larger nation, have done---- What ??
Lol...Bill, I hate to tell you this, but political America (and I'm not
referring here to the everyday people, except perhaps those like you) is
pretty much perceived as a steroid pumped bully, with bulging muscles and a
correspondingly shrunk pecker, and an even smaller intellect. And a glass
chin.
What have Canadian politicians done? Lets see - in 1970, much to the chagrin
of your Wyeth loving president - they opened trade with China; poor old
Nixon came shrinking along 2 years later, hiding behind a bunch of ping-pong
players and secret meetings by that lovable, honest, open-hearted soul of US
decency, Henry Kissenger.
Despite constant threats from our southern neighbor, we've maintained
relatively cordial relations with the Cuban people, particularly through
trade; remember it was Canada and Mexico that led the OAS to stand up
against the a fuming Madeline Albright to turn your Helms-Burton law into a
meaningless piece of paper?
Canada's history of commitment to human values is long standing. Hence this
country was able to provide a refuge - despite the intolerance of many in
the white community - for your slaves; while you had to slaughter some half
million of your own citizens in order to get that point across. And frankly,
that issue wasn't settled in your country until almost 100 years after the
war, with the passage of the Civil Rights Amendment. Our relations with our
aboriginals are mixed - certainly there were wretched excesses (like
Newfoundland's extermination of the Beothuk, even if that occurred long
before it joined Canada, or the native "educational" system); but you won't
find an equivalent to Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears, or Wounded Knee. Why
is this, I wonder?
Perhaps it's just because Canadians aren't given to blowing their own horns,
and so have no self-aggrandizing histories with which to deceive themselves.
The military history that you seem obsessed with is a case in point. Let's
look at that, maybe it would explain the reluctance of many other nations to
participate in your efforts.
WW I - despite the modern bravado, America didn't contribute on anywhere
near the scale that Britain and France did until four or five months before
the end of the war, although US troops had started arriving a bit over a
year earlier. You werern't, in fact, even an Ally, but an "Associated
Power". By the time the US had the courage to enter, the British and
French - with help from smaller countries like Canada - had broken the back
of the German war machine; even at home Germany was wracked by a collapsed
economy (with output down roughly 50%), and hit by a massive social
upheavals. Certainly Canada suffered grevious losses in the war; but they
made the commitment to go when they believed it was necessary to support
both the French and English cultures from which Canada was born; and when it
was over they went home, built their centotaphs, and went on being happily
ungovernable. An intriguing aside is that while American black combat troops
were sent over, they were attached to the French, rather than the Americans,
due to the animosity of their white American counterparts.
WW II - Again, the US didn't enter the war until more than 2 years after it
started; by then it was relatively clear that Germany's future wasn't
bright, what with its failure in the Battle of Britain, the thinning of
supply lines in Russia and North Africa. But the US again didn't put any
massive number of troops into action in Europe until June of 44; by then
Russia had broken the back of the German army (remember, that country alone
faced two thirds of Germany's armed forces). In Africa, the US Operation
Torch didn't come into play until after Montgomery had defeated Rommel in
the second Battle of El-Alemain, while the Americans major engagement of
that year - the Kasserine Pass - was a disaster for your troops. Elsewhere,
prior to D-Day, American forces performed well in Sicily and Italy even if
it was a minor diversion compared to the war in Eastern Europe.
Interestingly enough, Italy was one of the theatres where the Canadians were
used as shock troops by the Allies, being somewhat more aggressive (even if
quieter) than our southern neighbor. And certainly the Americans did well
against Japan, if one ignores the ignomy of Bataan.But that theatre was
decided more by technology and raw material than anything else; the
important fact is that the US stayed out of the really gruelling major
theaters until others - particularly Russia - had more or less won the war
for them. Although that is neatly sidestepped in most American high school
texts.
Korea - Interestingly enough, it would appear that statements by MacArthur
and Acheson - essentially that South Korea was not part of the American
Pacific defense perimeter - may have led the kooks in NK to believe they
could attack with impunity. Reminds one of the mixed signals sent to Saddam
prior to GW I....In any case, it would appear to be the last war that the US
has fought somewhat effectively, though then again your political and
military establishments managed only to snatch a draw from the hands of
victory.
From Vietnam onward, US military history is pretty dismal; the litany of
military action ending in disaster for the US and whomever it decides to
"protect", undertaken in the enthusiastic faith that technology combined
with God will some how win the day, is well known. It appears to be a bully
with a glass chin. Curiously enough, these are also the military actions
fought without significant leadership contributions from other countries.
It's what comes from failing to have the courage to study your own history
honestly. The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Somalia; the fact
that it had to rely on piddling little Canada to extricate its hostages
after the fall of Iran, it's precipitate withdrawal after GW I and the
inability to commit to solving the recent crisis it started in Iraq tends to
keep people (like myself) who would like to support the US at a distance.
Being able to overrun Granada just doesn't cut it (Clint Eastwood not
withstanding).
It's one of the reasons I'm happy to have my kids raised in Canada. Of
course we have no shortage - particularly in Quebec and Ontario - of people
who wish to emulate the American experience by substituting a poorly
educated nationalism for individual thought based on historical awareness.
But whenever they get too big for their britches the Canadian tradition of
mocking the notion of "Canadianess" comes into play, being called a
"lapdog" - by a anti-Semitic homophobe collector of Kinkade no less - is
hardly worrisome compared to what we call ourselves :)
Cheers;
Chris
Mani Deli
>OK, I'm back to thinking that 'Bill' is a put-on. He's just too perfect --
>everything he writes is spot on for an ignorant, aggressive American bigot.
Tell me Fox do all "aggressive American bigots" dislike the artwork
you like?
I consider you an aggressive conformist American bimbo. However I
don't believe you are a put-on, just a typical jerk who can't tolerate
those who disagree with you.
Mani Deli
>
>CB wrote:
> Interesting too that that show was
>> hosted by none other than Richard Nixon, that paragon of artistic taste and
>> humanist ethics.
>
> Considering Canuckistan's refusal to help American troops
>fighting in Iraq I'm not at all surprised by your caustic comments.
We don't have a government here made up of criminals. We also refused
to join your even more idiotic war in Viet Nam.
>But I really don't think that a Canadian- any Canadian- is in a good
>position to snicker.
Snicker!
> Our politicians have achieved a rather enviable
>position for America on the world stage,
It's on a big decline because of idiots like you.
> while YOUR politicians,
>leaders of a MUCH larger nation, have done---- What ??
Nothing if you get your history from Fox news.
> An
>American seeks high office because he wants to DO something.
More often than not it's just plain larceny.
His
>Canadian counterpart seeks high office because he wants to BE
>something. If ours make mistakes it's because they trip moving
>forward. When yours make mistakes it's because they fall out of bed,
Man this guy's world view doesn't extend far beyond his out house.
>having consigned the Canadian people to wallow as third class subjects
>of a second class monarchy.
> Why third class? Despite some muttering and embarrassment the
>Brits, have accepted their role as America's poodle. I suggest you
>control your disdain for our politicians in a manner befitting your
>status. Canadians, dear lady, play the role of lap dog to that
>poodle.
>
The lapdogs are people like you.
Bill
You have a dirty mouth, Bimbo. Could it be due to an over familiarity
with peckers, shrunk and otherwise ? Canadian AND American ?
>What have Canadian politicians done? Lets see - in 1970, much to the chagrin of >your Wyeth loving president - they opened trade with China;
And you take credit for that ? Canada has a nasty habit of ignoring
monstrous civil rights crimes by brutal dictators and trying to sell
American technology under the table to said dictators which they cannot
get from us. Shame on you !
>and secret meetings by that lovable, honest, open-hearted soul of US decency, >Henry Kissenger.
Your hatred of America comes through loud and clear lady. But be
honest ! Stop using the sarcasm and the irony loaded with contempt.
If you have something to say, SAY IT.
>Despite constant threats from our southern neighbor, we've maintained relatively >cordial relations with the Cuban people, >particularly through trade;
Yes, what American technology Fidel can't get from us, he can
always depend on getting from Canada. You ought to be ashamed helping
him to maintain the biggest, most brutal dictatorship in this part of
the world. Has the lure of a few Loonies profit overcome your sense of
shame ? The Cuban people deserve better from you.
> remember it was Canada and Mexico that led the OAS to stand up against the a >fuming Madeline Albright to turn your Helms-Burton law into a meaningless piece of >paper?
Yes, Canada is always seeking allies to frustrate and block legitimate
American policies. Thanks for admitting it. The hatred comes through
loud and clear. And we'll keep it in mind in future dealings with
Kanuckistan.
>Canada's history of commitment to human values is long >standing.
Canada likes to fancy itself as a mediator, a peacemaker and a neutral
force in the world otherwise torn by dissent. A paragon of virtue. But
Canada's peacemaking is marked by stops and starts, constant failure,
and results which often worsen an already bad situation.
>Our relations with our aboriginals are mixed -
No. your relations with your aboriginals are putrid. But then your
relations with your whites are not much better. Viva Quebec Libre !
>it's just because Canadians aren't given to blowing their own horns,
That's funny. I could have sworn you were doing EXACTLY that.
>WW I - despite the modern bravado, America didn't contribute on anywhere near the >scale that Britain and France did until four or five months before the end of the war,
It was not OUR fight. We went only after the pitiful pleadings and
beggings of two worn out nations who might be still fighting had we not
gone in and tipped the balance against the Germans.
>Certainly Canada suffered grevious losses in the war; but they made the >commitment to go when they believed it was necessary to support both the French >and English cultures...
No. the Canadian people made NO commitment to go. They were sent when
the British aristocracy snapped it fingers and the British rulers of
Canada saluted and began to draft them. As I recall there was massive
refusal on the part of Quebec. In BOTH wars.
>what with its failure in the Battle of Britain,
Lacking any OTHER event on which to pin it's pride in WW II, Britain
has always try to exaggerate the importance of the so called "Battle
of Britain". A purely defensive operation that settled nothing except
the fact that they were virtually defenseless against an enemy far away
in Europe.
>the thinning of supply lines in Russia and North Africa. But the US
again didn't put >any massive number of troops into action in Europe
until June of 44; by then Russia >had broken the back of the German
army.
No. the US invasion of Africa came BEFORE, not after Stalingrad.
> (In Africa, the US Operation Torch didn't come into play until after Montgomery had >defeated Rommel
Wrong ! Montgomery never defeated Rommel. Rommel was not even IN
Africa at the time of El Alamain. He was in hospital in Germany. And
Montgomery fought with AMERICAN (torch) tanks and heavy equipment and
held the Germans while the Americans were attacking from the WEST !
Attacking what was by then a spent force. Montgomery merely happened
to be standing there when the German army collapsed from lack of
supplies.
>Interestingly enough, Italy was one of the theatres where the Canadians were used >as shock troops by the Allies, being somewhat more aggressive (even if >quieter) .than our southern neighbor.
Shock troops ? Canadians ? Surely you jest ! The term rings about as
true as the term "Dashing Swiss grenadier".
> And certainly the Americans did well
>against Japan, if one ignores the ignomy of Bataan.
For God's sake, Bimbo. Learn how to spell !
>the important fact is that the US stayed out of the really gruelling major >theaters .until others - particularly Russia - had more or less won the war for them.
Why shouldn't the Russians have fought back immediately? The
Germans had not invaded Hoboken, New Jersey! Cleaning up European
messes may not impress you. I can assure you that the English, the
Germans and the Russians WERE impressed. Sure, we threw tanks and
planes and artillery at them till hell wouldn't have it. That's
what we do. Unlike the Brits who thought human bodies were the best
weapons against machine guns.
> Although that is neatly sidestepped in most American high >school texts.
And you are fully aware of what is contained in MOST if not all
American high school texts ? Which would be the ONLY way you could
justify your remarks.
>From Vietnam onward, US military history is pretty dismal;
Yes the hatred comes through again, loud and clear
And yet we have not had to deal with attacks upon the US nor separatist
movements within our country such as the Parti Quebcois.
>It appears to be a bully with a glass chin...
It's because of people like you that Canada may get a chance to
TEST that glass chin. I'm referring to the time when America decides
to exercise it's right of free passage in international waters that
Canada has arrogantly tried to claim for itself. You may find the chin
a bit harder than you think. Of course Canada could always build a
fleet of forty or fifty war ships to meet the challenge, but then
Canada has ALWAYS depended on America for its defense. So I'll be
surprised if they don't try to defuse the situation by some of that
famous Canuckistanian peacekeeping diplomacy. Translation: Surrender.
>Being able to overrun Granada just doesn't cut it (Clint Eastwood not withstanding). >It's one of the reasons I'm happy to have my kids raised in Canada.
Grenada is one of the reasons ? I hope you have some better ones.
Canada and England like to think they have a better school system than
the US. The best they have, Oxford and Cambridge haven't had an
original idea in a century ! And Canada is just a pale imitation.
Start counting Nobel Prizes, lady.
>.But whenever they get too big for their britches the Canadian tradition of mocking >the notion of "Canadianess" comes into play.
Translation : God help the poor Canadian who suggests that they should
assert themselves and stop playing second fiddle to a tired, worn out
monarchy three thousand miles away.
> being called a "lapdog" - by a anti-Semitic homophobe collector of Kinkade
I support my government's efforts to come to the aid of Israel.
You support your governments REFUSAL to come to their aid. So who is
the anti-semite ? As for Kinkaid, if I had some relationship with an
art gallery then my anger and fury at the very existence of Kinkaid
would know no bounds. Any one suggesting that art could be bought and
sold OUTSIDE the art galleries would be a threat to my very existence
and I'd do what I could to destroy him. ( Yes, I'd try ridicule
first). But every ARTIST should get down on his knees and thank God he
has broken the rules and opened up the world of art to new and
different ways of promotion, marketing and distribution. The art world,
(thank God and Kinkaid,) will never be the same. And yes, compared to
the drip and drizzle artists he really CAN paint.
>hardly worrisome compared to what we call ourselves :)
Yes, self contempt was always a feature, enforced by the Anglo
elite, of ANY nation that Britain controlled. Without that self hatred
Canadians might actually start ACTING like a real nation instead of a
lap dog for the British poodle.
Have a nice day, Bill.
Bill
Mani Deli wrote:
>
> We don't have a government here made up of criminals. We also refused
> to join your even more idiotic war in Viet Nam.
Who is this "'we" you're talking about . Am I correct that you
are an American citizen ? Does this mean you'll be returning to the
land of your birth ? And would a one way ticket be of any use to you
?
> > Our politicians have achieved a rather enviable
> >position for America on the world stage,
>
> It's on a big decline because of idiots like you.
I wish I had a Loonie for every time I heard that America is finished,
and the end is near.
> > while YOUR politicians,
> >leaders of a MUCH larger nation, have done---- What ??
>
> Nothing if you get your history from Fox news.
What news ? Canada doesn't produce any news. It's like morgue up
there. That's why you hauled your ass OUT. Right ? It must be hell
for you though to live in a place you hold in such contempt.
>
>
> Man this guy's world view doesn't extend far beyond his out house.
You mean my bungaloid ? That's ANOTHER thing I'd like to
straighten out. American houses are better designed, better built,
more attractive and more comfortable by FAR than are those in the
people's republic of Canuckistan.
Enjoy your trip home. And let me know where to send the one way
ticket.
CB
addressing first; but before I do, I have to remark on your fixation with
gay oral sex. It really does seem to be overwhelming what few logical
faculties you have left. Maybe it's some thing you need to talk about? As
for dirty, well that's in the mind of the beholder. But it does remind me of
your odd similarity to Hezbollah - what with your fear of sex, Jews, gays,
women, and your tendency to fire of a barrage of unguided missiles and then
run for cover. I figure with any luck, you'll eventually strap on the old
martyr's vest and self implode in anticipation of finally getting laid (even
if it is by 72 virgin goats...)
But to the post, I'll try and sort out your ramblings as I go along.
China? Funny that you should accuse Canada of trading with a tyranny, only
to tiptoe in behind Canada two years later to trade with the same tyranny.
What's with this two years business anyway? It seems to be a habit down
south; you wait for two years or so to see if the coast is clear, and then
act like what you are doing is somehow brave.. WW I, WW II, China. There's a
pattern emerging....
Too bad you don't do the same with Cuba. As the American founding fathers
realized, open trade is one of the most liberalizing forces there is, if
carried out under the rule of law. It pried open Eastern Europe and Russia,
it's dramatically changed China (even if that country has a long way to go
still). One can only assume that you are afraid of the Cubans actually
attaining a democratic state. Perhaps the fact they are pretty intolerant of
the drug trafficking supporting the fringes of the CIA (lie that great
American, Ollie North) has something to do with it, or maybe their medical
care, education systems, and cigars put you to shame. Do you think Clinton
would have shown more class if he had baptized a Cuban cigar instead? Or
maybe it's just despite everything from the Bay of Pigs fiasco to your CIA's
attempts at assassination, an 80 year old Fidel just chortling louder, and
more firmly ensconced. Who knows? But you guys seem happy to trade with much
worse dictatorships...
Canadian peacekeeping - it's fine to call that into question, we do all the
time - but where are your facts? I see none listed. Certainly there are UN
disasters that have happened under Canadian watch; Rwanda being the most
glaring. But remember there it was General Dallaire (a typical Canadian,
being a francophone of Dutch birth) who called for support from the UN in
order to prevent the slaughter, or at least permission to intervene - but
the UN - and the US - refused. Why was that? Not your war, I suppose...But
(unlike the US in Somalia & Lebanon) you don't find Canadian troops heading
for home as soon as they are called on to do the jobs they have been called
on to do. Check out the history of Canadian peacekeeping, it's interesting.
Getting into the world wars, I can see why you refused to put this up on a
military history board. WW I? You entered after the Germans restarted
unrestricted submarine warfare, sank 3 American ships, and the Lusitania (a
British ship with some 150 American passengers on board). The Alloys had
been requesting your intervention for 2 1/2 years, but Americans preferred
to sell to both sides, not being literate enough to read the very clear
writing on the wall. Who knows what goods you sold to Germany during
American neutrality went into those sinkings? Turned out to be your war
after all, didn't it?
WW II - well Bill, I apologize for jumping back and forth in time in a
single paragraph, I guess I'm used to dealing with people more familiar than
you appear to be with things like when the Battle of El-Alamein happened,
but I'll keep it a little more straightforward for you. By the time the
American forces landed in Operation Torch (Nov 8, 1942), the Battle of
El-Alamein was already over, having taken place from Oct 23 to November 3.
And look at the cost of the two actions - Operation Torch, approximately
1200 Allied troops dead and wounded, approximately 2300 Vichy French and
Germans. El-Alamein? 23,000 Allies (though no Americans - they were still
happily sipping coke on their ships in the Western Med) dead and wounded,
60,000 Germans (dead, wounded, or captured). That last number represented
over 60% of German strength.
Interestingly enough, Churchill had forced Roosevelt to take on Operation
Torch because he didn't believe American troops could cut it in the direct
assault on Europe the Americans wanted. Maybe people who have part of both
countries in them (Churchill was half American) have a better ability to
separate American bluster from their true capabilities than Americans do
themselves. And Churchill proved to be right; American troops were decimated
through bad leadership and organization in their first major engagement in
North Africa, the Kasserine Pass.
As for the rest - I don't think anyone could fail to notice that you don't
address at all the issue of the consistent failure of American military
actions over the last 45 years, and why nobody (save the Brits, whom you
apparently despise) are willing to give you a hand now in Iraq?. What a
coward! Do you think the rest of the world is so ignorant they don't
recognize the cause of 3 million deaths from your adventure in Vietnam - and
the displacement of 2 million Vietnamese that you abandoned in your haste to
save your own skins? All we get is more defensive blather like those
comments about Quebec (but note - Quebec has held several referenda on the
issue, of their own design and choosing their own times, and have voted to
stay in Canada. No civil war required, no half-million dead as in your
resolution of similar issues, just debate and a free vote) or vacuous
threats to someday seize the Northwest passage when you can't even bring an
impoverished nation like Cuba to heel. LOL.. BTW - your Bill Clinton was
here the other day, promising eternal friendship with Canada. Although it
could just be another ruse, like "I never had sex with that woman", your
presidents have rarely been noted for their honesty (or taste).
So Bill, feel free to reply, especially with facts. One of the things I
really enjoy about this exchange is watching your (albeit painfully slow)
acquisition of ideas. We've changed your vocabulary (it's no longer just
"sodomites" but also "queers"), we've seen you beat a hasty retreat on
voicing your anti-Semitism (though you still haven't clarified your comments
about "European Jews who enjoyed poking their fingers in the eyes of a
Christian Europe"), you even are no longer telling foreigners they shouldn't
post here because they weren't invited. Baby steps, but it's a start. Like
that great Canadian poet Leonard Cohen said - "There's a crack in
everything/ that's how the light gets in".
Cheers;
Chris
"Bill" <billm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154033866.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Kraft...@aol.com
more than 2 years after it
started; by then it was relatively clear that Germany's future wasn't
bright, what with its failure in the Battle of Britain, the thinning of
supply lines in Russia and North Africa. But the US again didn't put
any
massive number of troops into action in Europe until June of 44; <
Surely you can run this past Canadians who actually fought in WWII;
they know better. My Dad, stationed at Deogham Green, Norfolk,
replaced two other COs killed in missions with their men. Dad told me
how he would fly over Italy, refuel in Russia, and take on Germany on
the return. These men had nearly the highest casualty rate in the War,
under appalling stress -- he never did recover from that stress,
telling me before his passing in 1975, 'I will never go back to
England.'
Your writings seem deranged for antipathy toward America, and your
reasoning fanatically flawed. Are you a Communist, or something like
that?
The real criticisms of today might well focus on the increasing
domestic totalitarianism and police state tactics of beaureaus of the
Executive Department created by Congress virtually to write and enforce
gargantuan laws under colour of regulations. Department of Justice is
full of such bureaus, and the Wars on pornography, drugs, terror,
fireworks, individual liberties are turning even patriots against the
Government -- which seems to figure that only firearms organisations
desire liberty, which is proper that they do (I'm a GOA member), whilst
patently ignoring the rest of the liberties the Xth Amendment
guarantees cannot be disparaged or abridged simply becasue not
enumerated. There are many wrongs being committed by the USA
Government under the bi-partisan system -- but you do not seem to have
touched on any of them; and, I suspect in Canada you are a supporter of
the same totalitarian centrist statism which *is* wrong with America.
America did not gratuitously enter the Second World War -- having
vilolated neutrality toward Europe by Lend-Lease, it did not declare
war until attacked by Japan and itself thereafter presented with the
German declaration of war. Arguably, the efforts of the past which you
criticise for insufficient belligerance were more 'regular' --
discounting the ill-advised Lend-Lease, and the horrific Morgenthau
Plan effected by General Eisenhower, of Swedish Jewish descent -- than
today's impromptu military efforts which are waged without Declaration
of War.
Please let us know if I'm mistaken.
KE
CB
news:1154097078.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Mr Caldwell writes: > WW II - Again, the US didn't enter the war until
> more than 2 years after it
> started; by then it was relatively clear that Germany's future wasn't
> bright, what with its failure in the Battle of Britain, the thinning of
>
> supply lines in Russia and North Africa. But the US again didn't put
> any
> massive number of troops into action in Europe until June of 44; <
>
> Surely you can run this past Canadians who actually fought in WWII;
> they know better. My Dad, stationed at Deogham Green, Norfolk,
> replaced two other COs killed in missions with their men. Dad told me
> how he would fly over Italy, refuel in Russia, and take on Germany on
> the return. These men had nearly the highest casualty rate in the War,
> under appalling stress -- he never did recover from that stress,
> telling me before his passing in 1975, 'I will never go back to
> England.'
>
I'm not too sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that indeed
the US had massive numbers of troops on the ground prior to D-Day?
Re. your dad; don't think I am not sympathetic. My dad as well was in
bombers - a navigator flying bombing runs over the Po valley, before he was
transferred to intelligence. FWIW, towards the end of the war he was being
trained as a spotter to be dropped behind Japanese lines to monitor shipping
(and those guys had an average life span some 6 weeks after the drop); the
use of atomic weapons probably saved his life. OTOH, he travelled freely to
all the former opposing countries (except the Eastern Bloc, which wouldn't
give access to former American intelligence officers), and formed close
friendships formed after the war with a number of people from the former
Axis powers.
If you read my posts, you'll see that one thing I don't do is criticise the
Americans that serve on the ground, anywhere; nor will I question their
commitment. My criticism is aimed at a government - and the society that
elects that government - which has been insulated from history, partly by
geography, partly by (a quickly evaporating) great natural wealth, partly by
wilfulness, from coming to terms with it's own actions. Iraq is a case in
point; prior to the invasion, most of my non-American (and anti-war
American) friends said just wait till the easy part is over, then it will
start turning into another Vietnam. I will admit I was stupid in not
accepting their advice; and yet look - Iraq is in anarchy, with 14000
civilian deaths last year, and death rates hitting 2000/month this year,
while most polls in your country indicate a majority of your citizens want
the US out by this time next year. Where will that leave the Iraqi people?
> Your writings seem deranged for antipathy toward America, and your
> reasoning fanatically flawed. Are you a Communist, or something like
> that?
No, in fact I'm a longstanding member of the Conservative party. Like most
Conservatives, I am not against miltary action (if necesary) in places like
Iraq. and certainly I support Canadian peacekeeping/peacemaking operations,
like the one in Afghanistan. But I don't support blindly following the
decisions of a Bible-thumping frat boy who seems to be operating with little
regard for your Constitution, international law, or even common sense.
>
> The real criticisms of today might well focus on the increasing
> domestic totalitarianism and police state tactics of beaureaus of the
> Executive Department created by Congress virtually to write and enforce
> gargantuan laws under colour of regulations. Department of Justice is
> full of such bureaus, and the Wars on pornography, drugs, terror,
> fireworks, individual liberties are turning even patriots against the
> Government -- which seems to figure that only firearms organisations
> desire liberty, which is proper that they do (I'm a GOA member), whilst
> patently ignoring the rest of the liberties the Xth Amendment
> guarantees cannot be disparaged or abridged simply becasue not
> enumerated. There are many wrongs being committed by the USA
> Government under the bi-partisan system -- but you do not seem to have
> touched on any of them; and, I suspect in Canada you are a supporter of
> the same totalitarian centrist statism which *is* wrong with America.
>
Well then, you would be wrong. I like to see government out of people's
lives as much as possible - from sexual relationships among consenting,
competent adults to gun ownership. But I also understand that one of the
main reasons we here elect a government is to provide support in various
forms for those at a disadvantage, whether it's medical assistance, equality
of education, free access to knowledge through the support of arts and
literature. The actual implementations vary among parties of different
perspectives, but all are probably more committed to the supposedly American
values of individual "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" than any
major party in the States. It shows up in all sorts of places - from our
crime and incarcerations statistics to to our educational levels to our
longer life spans to our acceptance of gay marriage.
As for the notion of "totalitarian" it would definitiely be a goof to see
someone try and install a totalitarian state here. Not that it hasn't been
tried in small form, but (as a come-from-away) I've found one of Canadians'
most endearing traits to be their ability to blithely disregard laws which
they see as truly invasive - from our Quebecois juries repeatedly refusing
to convict Henry Morgenthaler to gun owners everywhere just not bothering to
register their weapons to even splitting a joint with acquaintances in the
Quebec police. Totalitarianism cannot happen without complicity.
> America did not gratuitously enter the Second World War -- having
> vilolated neutrality toward Europe by Lend-Lease, it did not declare
> war until attacked by Japan and itself thereafter presented with the
> German declaration of war. Arguably, the efforts of the past which you
> criticise for insufficient belligerance were more 'regular' --
> discounting the ill-advised Lend-Lease, and the horrific Morgenthau
> Plan effected by General Eisenhower, of Swedish Jewish descent -- than
> today's impromptu military efforts which are waged without Declaration
> of War.
>
Hmm, Eisenhower of Swedish-Jewish descent? That's a new one (his family was
descended from Pennsylvania Dutch). Or do you mean Morgenthau? (I can
forgive the bobbled syntax, I do this all the time). In any case, of what
relevance is the descent? He was born in the States, and hence was American,
Swedish-Jewish parents or not. Sort of reminds me of Bill's harping on
Picasso being Jewish, but at least you are correct. But unless you can point
to how this factored into his plan (which found favour with many Jews and
non-Jews (like FDR), or Americans of Swesh descent or not (like FDR)) it's
simply gratuitous, and -like Bill's unadvised idiocy - deserves questioning.
But I will agree as to the essential stupidity of the plan. Marshall's was
intelligent and creative - it reflected one of the best sides of America -
and could serve as a model (with appropriate updating) for the aftermath of
many conflicts.
As for Lend-Lease; I'm curious as to why you see this as "ill-advised".
Frankly, my only significant beef is that it America used this and the
previous Cash and Carry program to continue dithering over its entry into
the war. Perhaps you see it differently?
Cheers;
Chris
CB
"CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lssyg.28172$pu3.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> I'm not too sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that indeed
> the US had massive numbers of troops on the ground prior to D-Day?
>
Sorry, that should read:
I'm not too sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that indeed
the US had massive numbers of troops on the ground in Europe prior to D-Day?
Cheers;
Chris
Mani Deli
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>>
>> We don't have a government here made up of criminals. We also refused
>> to join your even more idiotic war in Viet Nam.
>
> Who is this "'we" you're talking about . Am I correct that you
>are an American citizen ? Does this mean you'll be returning to the
>land of your birth ?
Not as long as its run by religious fanatics and unelected Banana
Republican criminals.
>> > Our politicians have achieved a rather enviable
>> >position for America on the world stage,
As losers and morons they are laughing stock of the civilized world.
Especially your unelected bimbo president
>>
>> It's on a big decline because of idiots like you.
>
>I wish I had a Loonie for every time I heard that America is finished,
>and the end is near.
Wishful thinking. I never said it's finished. Its on a precipitous
decline.
>> > while YOUR politicians,
>> >leaders of a MUCH larger nation, have done---- What ??
>>
>> Nothing if you get your history from Fox news.
>
>What news ? Canada doesn't produce any news.
We don't get Fox news here.
>It's like morgue up
>there. That's why you hauled your ass OUT. Right ?
Right. We have socialized medicine, a trade surplus, commodities, one
fifth of the worlds fresh water, a reasonably honest government, and a
land mass which isn't fucked like yours, we're not engaged in stupid
wars or forming a Banana Republic.
> It must be hell
>for you though to live in a place you hold in such contempt.
In your constipated imagination.
>>
>> Man this guy's world view doesn't extend far beyond his out house.
>
> You mean my bungaloid ? That's ANOTHER thing I'd like to
>straighten out. American houses are better designed, better built,
>more attractive and more comfortable by FAR than are those in the
>people's republic of Canuckistan.
Baloney! Our cities are booming, cleaner and far less corrupt.
>Enjoy your trip home. And let me know where to send the one way
>ticket.
You can shove it up your conservative ass, sideways.
Bill
Don't look for logic where logic doesn't exist. CB's foul
mouth and knee-jerk anti Americanism is not something you or anyone can
deal with by any kind of rational discussion. Also, their refusal to
help American troops bleeding and dying in Iraq is simply something we
Americans will just have to file away in our memories. I'm sure the
time will come, sooner rather than later I hope, when we can respond in
a proper manner and show the Canucks that two can play the game of
narrow, self centered, selfish nationalism.
Regards, Bill.
Mani Deli
>Kraft:
> Don't look for logic where logic doesn't exist. CB's foul
>mouth and knee-jerk anti Americanism is not something you or anyone can
>deal with by any kind of rational discussion.
Anti Americanism apparently is anything that doesn't agree with your
politics. I'm surprised that you haven't called him a traitor yet,
that par for the present fascists, get with it.
Fortunately we still have enough freedoms to disagree with the
gangsters presently in power. I don't know how much longer the
Constitution will hold up against the present creeping fascism,
corporate socialism, religious fanaticism and crooked elections. My
hopes a dimming.
>Also, their refusal to
>help American troops bleeding and dying in Iraq is simply something we
>Americans will just have to file away in our memories.
The refusal of those who sent them there on the basis of lies, who
refuse to even equip them properly, is something Americans are already
well aware of. The present US government is responsible for the
misfortunes of Iraq. Your feeble minded president is now losing a two
front war against the wrong people. That even stumped Hitler and
Napoleon.
I'm sure the
>time will come, sooner rather than later I hope, when we can respond in
>a proper manner and show the Canucks that two can play the game of
>narrow, self centered, selfish nationalism.
>
Nationalism has nothing to do with Canada's and the rest of the
world's refusal to support your idiotic war and your criminal
politicians.
PS If you want to discuss politics go to alt.politics.economics
instead of under the heading Dali on Cezanne. I will answer you points
in that conference from now on.
Bush: all hat and no cattle.