Tc

"Richard J" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > TC wrote:
    > > "Richard J" wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >>GW wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>And that would help dispel prejudices about arrogant Americans? It
would
    > >>>help improve the image of US visitors how?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>Please! You mistake me for someone who cares what those bastards think!
    > >> They really don't appear to care what I think about being searched
    > >>every time I go across the border, although I've done it many times in
    > >>the past ten years.
    > >>
    > >>The ONE time I wasn't searched was five years ago when I took my wife,
    > >>kids, dog, and my RV across from Port Huron to Niagara Falls. The only
    > >>thing they asked for then was a current vaccination certificate for the
    > >>dog. The kids could have been stolen, and I could have had ten machine
    > >>guns with several thousand rounds of ammunition in the trailer. In
    > >>fact, I had two sporting shotguns which I did declare, and they didn't
    > >>care. Perhaps that was the difference between the guards at Port Huron
    > >>and Sault St. Marie where I usually enter a couple or three times each
    > >>Summer.
    > >>
    > >>Teflon
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Maybe if you figured out that the quickest way to Canada from Texas
wasn't
    > > through Northern Michigan?
    > I am a seasonal camper on the UP each summer. That's why I usually
    > enter Canada through Sault St. Marie.
    > >
    > > You guys bitch and complain that our border guards are not hospitable,
yet
    > > you scream that we are letting terrorists into our country, then whine
that
    > > your border guards let them into your land from ours? Have another
Coors.
    > That wasn't the reason the guards checked me. This has occurred for the
    > past ten years. The reason is because I come from a southern or
    > midwestern state in the US. I've asked them on more then one occasion,
    > and they admit it readily. They don't even normally check cars from
    > northern states.
    > In the US, we'd call that profiling, and have investigations. I guess
    > in Canada you just call it the law, eh?
    > >
    > > I have never met a hospitable border guard, in any country at any rate.
    > >
    > >
    > I have. I was most impressed with customs officers at Victoria Island,
    > B.C. on one occasion, and mostly of the time with US Customs. Of
    > course, but the time I return home, I'm usually so damned glad to be
    > back in the US............... Well, you know what I mean, eh?
    > Those guys can be professional and do their job without being arseholes.
    > Teflon


I used to go to the USA a lot by car, well before the days of 9/11, your
guys would be the toughest at the easy border points (like Vermont / Quebec)
or the Youngstown way. You could sail through the Detroit / Windsor Tunnel
without a problem.

My major concern in Canada is this bull crap gun registry, and how it
effects hunters from the US.

I used to spend time in Minneapolis / St. Paul (flying North to the USA),
and most that I knew went up to Ft. Francis and stuff.

I know that Canada has tightened up their restrictions at the airports,
right now, you practically need a passport to enter the USA. It's not a
cake-walk to get a passport anymore. There is certainly no easy way to
get into the USA by common border points without a visa (if you're not
Canadian) or a passport. You can still get in with picture ID, but a person
would be detained. The big problem is the hundreds of farm roads which
border our two countries. There's even a community in Quebec / Vermont that
the Border runs right through.

TC

Sjoerd

"TC" schreef in bericht news:7EJoa.118550>

I have never met a hospitable border guard, in any country at any rate.


Go to Cuba. The border guards that we had to deal with were friendly and
chatty.

Sjoerd

Marie Lewis

In article ,
TC writes
    >I find it terrible that I run
    >into people half my age (I'm 44) in mostly Anglo / French speaking
    >communities like Montreal who couldn't possibly travel outside it, with the
    >exception of Senegal, France, Ethiopia and parts of the State of Louisiana
    >due to the fact that they don't speak English.


Of course they can travel "outside it."


--
Marie Lewis

Jim Ley

On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:36:45 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
wrote:
    > Is
    >it worth to sack a well paid Boeing engineer just for the fun of denying
    >Chinese seamstresses their earning ?

Don't "seamstresses" need to be quite hands on with their clients? I
don't really see how you can do it as an export business?

Jim.

Mxsmanic

"Ken Pisichko" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > Freedom of speech turned out to be VERY expensive for him.

Then it wasn't really freedom, was it?

Mxsmanic

"TC" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected] ogers.com...

    > I'd like to add that Herr Zundel rates up with
    > Louis Farrakhan in my view.

Interesting. Has Louis Farrakhan been jailed for expressing his views?

Mxsmanic

"Bill" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > There was a report several weeks ago in the
    > United States attributed to the CIA which stated
    > that parts for French fighter planes had been
    > shipped to Iraq via the United Arab Emirates.

So France supplied parts to the UAE, not Iraq.

Craig Welch

On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:36:23 GMT, "Steve"
wrote:

    >Well said - thanks for bringing a bit of sensibility to this thread. One
    >should also keep in mind of the mortality rate, many of those people were
    >already ill, had medical problems and/or compromised immune systems.

Incorrect.

--
Craig

jbk

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:38:56 +0930, "GW" wrote:

    >I had prepared a complete response to you (it took over an hour, because you
    >actually used some arguments, not just mythology, which made it seem
    >worthwhile to get into some detail), but the computer crashed, and I lost
    >it. So, in the absence of time (or will) to write it all again, here the
    >brief version:
    >1) "Doesn't matter when, with or without an embargo. To provide Iraq neclear
    >technology is just stupid. One of the persons behind that business was
    >Chirac at that time primeminister."
    >Wrong, it was during the time of the Cold War when anyone sold weapons to
    >anyone else, as long as they were against one's enemy political system.
    >Nuclear technology was sold to other dictatorships (Argentina, for instance,
    >and not by France).

He's not wrong. You are. He said it was stupid not not done. And
he's right. You are just making his point, not refuting it.

    >2) The Soviet stance was well known, and shown in many investigative reports
    >in recent months.

Where?

    >3) Pacific Islands: a good reference is
    >http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/mururoa.htm (which is Australia's
    >equivalent TV network to the BBC, and the report was prepared at a time when
    >both Australia and New Zealand were violently anti-French... makes for
    >interesting reading).

With good reason, since the Frog government likes to send secret
agents into places like Auckland harbor to blow up Greenpeace ships
and then extort the NZ government to release them under economic
pressure. These clowns, of course, continute their "democratic" moves
in places like the Ivory Coast and threatening the East Europe
countries over EU membership when they take time out from trying to
impose a dual presidency of the EU on the rest of Europe without
consultation with anyone but Germany. And now, of course, after belly
aching for years about lifting the sanctions on Iraq, they are now
trying to screw them up whent he US agrees. Who wouldn't be
anti-French with these foul bastards. Just when is the violent part,
though, except for the French themselves?

    >4) Why not in the Central Massive? Because any explosion of significance,
    >nuclear or otherwise, causes earth quakes of some type. Makes sense to do
    >the testing away from population centres, which is why the US did it in the
    >Nevada desert, Britain in Australia (something Australians conveniently
    >forgot when they protested against tests 5000 km away), etc.

That was the whole point the Polynesians were making. The population
centers you're talking about were French. They had no compunction
whatsoever from blowing up the Polynesians.

    >Secondly, there is a cost factor - real estate in Central Europe is pretty
    >pricey.

Tough shit. Why does that give them the right to blow up someone
else's? How stupid can you be?

    >5) "No particular reasons to defend the US here ,but those tests were 50
    >years ago and they've learned better."
    >US nuclear testing continued until much more recently than that.

These were the dirty tests he was talking about. Above ground
testing, not underground. You really don't have a clue what you're
talking about do you?

Whizbang

"Newsreader" wrote in message news:...
    > I was in Nice, France a couple of weeks ago and there were plenty of
    > American tourists there. And a much greater police presence than the last
    > time I was there in 2001. Sign of the times, I guess. I was not aware of any
    > animosity towards Americans during my visit. I think this is all a bunch of
    > bs being stirred up by the media. Also, a previous poster had a good point
    > in saying that since there is no clear enemy in this war, it has become the
    > French by default. I do expect this anti-French nonsense to blow over before
    > very long. France and America have been allies for too long for a 3 week war
    > on another continent to cause a permanent rift. IMHO.

Haven't you heard? The EU plans to topple the United States from its
position of political and economic preeminence in the world. Led by
France, they have been screwing around with our arrangements and
alliances for several years running. If it doesn't turn into out and
out war within ten or fifteen years, it is going to become the next
Cold War. In fact, the Cold War between Western Europe and the US has
already begun. It just hasn't made the papers yet. They are trying
to resolve the emerging disputes behind the scenes before the people
of the countries involved get too worked up about it. Enjoy your
travels while you can. Before long, you won't be able to go there in
safety.

Whizbang

John Starrett wrote in message news:...
    > Johnny Hallyday wrote:
    > >
    > > http://www.canada.com/montreal/news/...F-FB41057F7E4E
    > >
    > > Americans are avoiding France and most of Canada. They are too
    > > concerned after hearing about Americans being robbed and beaten.
    >
    > Johnny, you are in my kill filter in another group because
    > you spread lies, insult people, make irresponsible
    > accusations, and try endlessly to divide people. You have
    > the honor of becoming the first in the can in **this**
    > group. ***PLONK*** with extreme prejudice.

That killfile stuff is chickenshit. I mean, it might come in handy in
the really extreme cases, like against someone who is stalking and
harassing you, but censoring out someone's ideas simply because you
think they are too direct or controversial, it reeks of cowardice. In
addition, you can no longer see what they are saying about YOU.

nightjar

"JohnDoe" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:11:56 GMT, "Rojosh" wrote:
    > >
    > >Oh you mean like WE do? The US is the arms dealer to the world.
    > >
    > sorry bub, no sale here, the US did not arm Iraq once sales of arms
    > were embargoed.

However, 59 US Companies have been fined by the US Treasury's Office of
Foreign Asset Control for illegally trading with rogue states, including
Iraq. The largest fines have gone to companies involved in shipping and
insuring embargoed goods. They may not have been selling the goods, but they
did make sure they arrived safely.

Colin Bignell

Mxsmanic

"whizbang" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > That killfile stuff is chickenshit. I mean,
    > it might come in handy in the really extreme
    > cases, like against someone who is stalking and
    > harassing you, but censoring out someone's
    > ideas simply because you think they are too direct
    > or controversial, it reeks of cowardice. In
    > addition, you can no longer see what they are
    > saying about YOU.

I tend to agree. I never killfile anyone. I'm not even sure how it works.
About the only time I can ever remember trying to block any specific sender
was on one or two occasions when someone was spamming a newsgroup I read
with hundreds or thousands of messages, and it just made it easier to read
the headers of the real messsages, but that was temporary.

Mxsmanic

"whizbang" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > Haven't you heard? The EU plans to topple
    > the United States from its position of political
    > and economic preeminence in the world.

The EU does not have the internal unity required to do this, despite its
name.

    > Enjoy your travels while you can. Before long,
    > you won't be able to go there in safety.

The sky is falling.

barney

In article , [email protected] (Richard J)
wrote:

    > GW wrote:
    > > And that would help dispel prejudices about arrogant Americans? It
    > > would
    > > help improve the image of US visitors how?
    > >
    >
    > Please! You mistake me for someone who cares what those bastards
    > think! They really don't appear to care what I think about being
    > searched every time I go across the border

Why should they? It's their border. They can search who they want.

Do they even have to let you into Canada? (I'm guessing not but I may be
wrong there -- NAFTA may have wrought changes since I lived in N.
America.)