1. Born Hillary Diane Rodham on Oct. 26, 1947, in Chicago to Hugh E. Rodham, who owned a drapery making business, and Dorothy Howell Rodham, a full-time homemaker. Her parents were Republicans.

2. When she was 12 years old, she wrote to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, asking how she could become an astronaut. She received a reply saying that NASA didn't accept women in the astronaut program. Her mother comforted her by saying that her eyesight was much too bad anyway.

3. While at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, she became head of the local chapter of the Young Republicans. While there she slowly turned leftward in her politics, campaigning for Eugene McCarthy for president, organizing the school's first teach-ins on the Vietnam War. She wrote her senior thesis on poverty and community development. She graduated in 1969 with a degree in political science.

4. She appeared as a contestant on the television quiz show College Bowl.

5. In 1969, she appeared in Life magazine after giving the first commencement speech by a student at Wellesley. She received a standing ovation after shocking the audience by criticizing the first speaker, Sen. Edward W. Brooke.

6. In the summer of 1970, she heard Marian Wright Edelman speak, inspiring her to volunteer to work for Edelman's Washington Research Project, which later became the Children's Defense Fund. While there, she interviewed the families of migrant laborers and reported her findings to Walter Mondale's Senate subcommittee. This began a lifelong friendship and commitment to children's issues.

7. While at Yale in Connecticut, she first noticed Bill Clinton while he was trying to convince a group of classmates that they didn't need shots to visit Arkansas. He boasted that Arkansas "has the biggest watermelons in the world." They first met in the law library after Hillary approached Bill and said, "Look, if you're going to keep staring at me, and I'm going to keep staring back, I think we should at least know each other. I'm Hillary Rodham. What's your name?"

8. In 1974, she went to Washington, D.C., as one of only three women out of 43 lawyers to work on the inquiry into the possible impeachment of President Richard Nixon.

9. When Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton were wed on Oct. 11, 1975, she kept her maiden name, not realizing it would become a controversial decision. After her husband's defeat for re-election in the 1980 Arkansas gubernatorial election, she changed her surname to Clinton. Voters had questioned their marriage's stability.

10. In 1977, she joined the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. After her husband's successful gubernatorial bid in 1978, she continued working at the firm, becoming Arkansas's first professional first lady. In 1980, she became the firm's first female partner. In addition, she gave birth to their daughter, Chelsea Victoria Clinton, who was named for Joni Mitchell's song "Chelsea Morning."

link (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070130/30clintonfacts.htm)

Interesting.
I know very little about her really.

M.

All I would like to know would be written on her grave stone.

1. Born Hillary Diane Rodham on Oct. 26, 1947

On July 8, 1947, reports emerged from the Roswell Army Air Field that a "flying disc" had been recovered.

You connect the dots.........

(((whistles X-Files theme)))

Arkansas really does have the biggest watermelons in the world.

I looked it up. :|

11) She gave patently false testimony under oath.
http://www.oicray.com/

12) Despite being new to the art of trading she amazingly turned $1000.00 into nearly $100,000.00 in 10 months.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n3_v47/ai_16709018/print


More to come...

White water...rose law records...theft of furniture from White House...

13) Hillary's secret Health Care Task Force was given a budget of $100,000. In secret, it spent almost $14 million.
http://www.aapsonline.org/newsletters/jan96.htm

More to come...

Isn't it amazing how the Clinton detectives can dig up so much dirt on them, yet can't find a thing on crooked politicians with R's besides their names???

... there's that reading comprehension problem going again. I wonder if there is some medication you can take for it?

The topic of the thread is Hitlery... NOT people with "Rs besides [sic] their names".

... there's that reading comprehension problem going again. I wonder if there is some medication you can take for it?

The topic of the thread is Hitlery... NOT people with "Rs besides [sic] their names".


Just exposing the fake outrage amongst you guys, if you were against corruption you'd be against it ALL.

Move along...

Just exposing the fake outrage amongst you guys, if you were against corruption you'd be against it ALL.

Move along...

It is pretty hilarious. They probably don't even realize that the only reason they hate Hillary so much is because she's a Democrat. They're most likely so blinded by their unbridled hatred that they believe the wild stories they make up bout her.

I don't hate Hillary, I just don't agree with her in thinking that Gov't should take care of us and solve all our proplems. With all the critizim of gov't why do people think that gov't can solve our problems? I belive we should shrink gov't, reduce taxes and let people take care of themselves. If you want to buy drugs instead of pay rent, quit school to have fun rather than get an education and make a better life for you and your children, buy fancy wheels for your car rather than pay for health care...well then its a free country, its your choice, just don't expect me to pay more taxes so the gov't will take care of you and your kids.

Isn't it amazing how the Clinton detectives can dig up so much dirt on them, yet can't find a thing on crooked politicians with R's besides their names???

Yet some how, only the crooked things done (or not done) by politicians with a (R) after their name ever make it into the Main Stream Media.

Amazing!

I don't hate Hillary, I just don't agree with her in thinking that Gov't should take care of us and solve all our proplems. With all the critizim of gov't why do people think that gov't can solve our problems? I belive we should shrink gov't, reduce taxes and let people take care of themselves. If you want to buy drugs instead of pay rent, quit school to have fun rather than get an education and make a better life for you and your children, buy fancy wheels for your car rather than pay for health care...well then its a free country, its your choice, just don't expect me to pay more taxes so the gov't will take care of you and your kids.

I don't understand this complete absence of altruism.

It's all about competitiveness and greed.

Yet it's supposed to be a nation of moral Christians.

Hypocricy...

Not that I care, luckily I'm not an American.

I would support a democrat any day, especially a woman democrat. It's about fu*king time.

I don't understand this complete absence of altruism. I

It's all about competitiveness and greed.

Yet it's supposed to be a nation of moral Christians.

Hypocricy...

Not that I care, luckily I'm not an American.

I would support a democrat any day, especially a woman democrat. It's about fu*king time.

Competitiveness? Absolutely. Greed? Uh not so much. Hypocricy? No, I just don't believe that Gov't should be put in the role of taking care of people. The preamble of Our Constitution states

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As I've stated here before, the order of the areas of responsibility for Our Gov't are not accidental. A system of justice, assure a peaceful society, provide mutual defense, 'promote welfare' (NOTE: it says promote, not provide welfare). NO doubt outher countries beieve their gov't should operated differently and that's fine. But Here, I believe the People need to take care of themselves and not rely on gov't the take care of them.

I don't understand this complete absence of altruism.


what absence of altruism. there is no nation on the earth whose people give more of their own wealth to chrity, both domestically and internationally.

oops - wrong thread.

Canada is according to many on the right side of the political spectrum in the US is a "Socalist" country yet;

It has a budget surplus

It is reducing its debt

It has a national Health care system

It has a small % of murders and crime in general.

It has a much smaller % of its citizens incarcerated.

Its tax rates are comparable with the US in every area with the exception of payroll taxes which are about 1/4 of the US levels.

So how is the US system so much better? How does the right wing approach work so much better? Why are all those socialist countries like Finland, Sweden and Norway listed above the US in world competitiveness rankings? Perhaps having a Social conscience isnt a negative thing but rather a positive.

what absence of altruism. there is no nation on the earth whose people give more of their own wealth to chrity, both domestically and internationally. Actually, uh, NO. Here are some stats for ODA: financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. Although USA places 3rd in total dollars - per capita, USA is in the 20th position (According to the CIA Factbook). In the mean time, 12% of USA population is below the poverty line, doing worse than freggin Thailand! So, that'd would mean 300 Million times 12% = 36 Million people below the poverty line in the USA alone: hey, Canada only has 32 Million people. Where is your charity for these people vindex???

ODA PER CAPITA

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-per-capita

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Luxembourg: $496.59 per capita
#2 Denmark: $366.93 per capita
#3 Norway: $303.63 per capita
#4 Netherlands: $242.55 per capita
#5 Sweden: $188.54 per capita
#6 Ireland: $149.43 per capita
#7 Switzerland: $146.20 per capita
#8 United Kingdom: $130.34 per capita
#9 Belgium: $103.29 per capita
#10 France: $88.71 per capita
#11 Austria: $83.12 per capita
#12 Canada: $78.55 per capita
#13 Finland: $72.45 per capita
#14 Japan: $69.82 per capita
#15 Germany: $67.94 per capita
#16 Australia: $44.12 per capita
#17 Spain: $32.92 per capita
#18 Portugal: $25.55 per capita
#19 New Zealand: $24.46 per capita
#20 United States: $23.12 per capita
#21 Italy: $17.20 per capita
#22 Korea, South: $8.67 per capita
#23 Lesotho: $2.18 per capita


TOTAL ODA

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don-economy-economic-aid-donor

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Japan: $8,900,000,000.00
#2 United Kingdom: $7,900,000,000.00
#3 United States: $6,900,000,000.00
#4 Germany: $5,600,000,000.00
#5 France: $5,400,000,000.00
#6 Netherlands: $4,000,000,000.00
#7 Canada: $2,600,000,000.00
#8 Denmark: $2,000,000,000.00
#9 Sweden: $1,700,000,000.00
#10 Norway: $1,400,000,000.00
#11 Spain: $1,330,000,000.00
#12 Switzerland: $1,100,000,000.00
#13 Belgium: $1,072,000,000.00
#14 Italy: $1,000,000,000.00
#15 Australia: $894,000,000.00
#16 Austria: $681,000,000.00
#17 Ireland: $607,000,000.00
#18 Korea, South: $423,300,000.00
#19 Finland: $379,000,000.00
#20 Portugal: $271,000,000.00
#21 Luxembourg: $235,590,000.00
#22 New Zealand: $99,700,000.00
#23 Lesotho: $4,400,000.00
Total: $54,496,990,000.00
Weighted average: $2,369,434,347.83

POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line

#1 Zambia: 86 %
#2 Gaza Strip: 81 %
#3 Zimbabwe: 80 %
#4 Chad: 80 %
#5 Moldova: 80 %
#6 Haiti: 80 %
#7 Liberia: 80 %
#8 Guatemala: 75 %
#9 Suriname: 70 %
#10 Angola: 70 %
#11 Mozambique: 70 %
#12 Swaziland: 69 %
#13 Sierra Leone: 68 %
#14 Burundi: 68 %
#15 Tajikistan: 64 %
#16 Bolivia: 64 %
#17 Mali: 64 %
#18 Niger: 63 %
#19 Rwanda: 60 %
#20 Comoros: 60 %
#21 Nigeria: 60 %
#22 Turkmenistan: 58 %
#23 Malawi: 55 %
#24 São Tomé and Príncipe: 54 %
#25 Georgia: 54 %
#26 Senegal: 54 %
#27 Peru: 54 %
#28 Honduras: 53 %
#29 Afghanistan: 53 %
#30 Madagascar: 50 %
#31 Kenya: 50 %
#32 Ethiopia: 50 %
#33 Nicaragua: 50 %
#34 South Africa: 50 %
#35 Djibouti: 50 %
#36 Eritrea: 50 %
#37 Colombia: 49.2 %
#38 Lesotho: 49 %
#39 Azerbaijan: 49 %
#40 Cameroon: 48 %
#41 Venezuela: 47 %
#42 West Bank: 46 %
#43 Yemen: 45.2 %
#44 Bangladesh: 45 %
#45 Burkina Faso: 45 %
#46 Armenia: 43 %
#47 East Timor: 42 %
#48 Ecuador: 41 %
#49 Kyrgyzstan: 40 %
#50 Cambodia: 40 %
#51 Mauritania: 40 %
#52 Guinea: 40 %
#53 Sudan: 40 %
#54 Mexico: 40 %
#55 Philippines: 40 %
#56 Iran: 40 %
#57 Argentina: 38.5 %
#58 Papua New Guinea: 37 %
#59 Côte d'Ivoire: 37 %
#60 Panama: 37 %
#61 Mongolia: 36.1 %
#62 El Salvador: 36.1 %
#63 Tanzania: 36 %
#64 Uganda: 35 %
#65 Laos: 34 %
#66 Belize: 33 %
#67 Benin: 33 %
#68 Togo: 32 %
#69 Grenada: 32 %
#70 Paraguay: 32 %
#71 Pakistan: 32 %
#72 Ghana: 31.4 %
#73 Nepal: 31 %
#74 Botswana: 30.3 %
#75 Serbia and Montenegro: 30 %
#76 Cape Verde: 30 %
#77 Jordan: 30 %
#78 Dominica: 30 %
#79 Macedonia, Republic of: 29.6 %
#80 Ukraine: 29 %
#81 Uzbekistan: 28 %
#82 Lebanon: 28 %
#83 Belarus: 27.1 %
#84 Micronesia, Federated States of: 26.7 %
#85 Fiji: 25.5 %
#86 Algeria: 25 %
#87 Burma: 25 %
#88 Romania: 25 %
#89 India: 25 %
#90 Albania: 25 %
#91 Dominican Republic: 25 %
#92 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 25 %
#93 Guam: 23 %
#94 Anguilla: 23 %
#95 Uruguay: 22 %
#96 Brazil: 22 %
#97 Sri Lanka: 22 %
#98 Israel: 21 %
#99 Trinidad and Tobago: 21 %
#100 Egypt: 20 %
#101 Turkey: 20 %
#102 Syria: 20 %
#103 Vietnam: 19.5 %
#104 Jamaica: 19.1 %
#105 Kazakhstan: 19 %
#106 Bermuda: 19 %
#107 Morocco: 19 %
#108 Chile: 18.2 %
#109 Costa Rica: 18 %
#110 Russia: 17.8 %
#111 Poland: 17 %
#112 United Kingdom: 17 %
#113 Indonesia: 16.7 %
#114 Canada: 15.9 %
#115 Korea, South: 15 %
#116 Bulgaria: 13.4 %
#117 United States: 12 %
#118 Croatia: 11 %
#119 Thailand: 10 %
#120 Ireland: 10 %
#121 China: 10 %
#122 Mauritius: 10 %
#123 Bahamas, The: 9.3 %
#124 Hungary: 8.6 %
#125 Malaysia: 8 %
#126 Tunisia: 7.4 %
#127 France: 6.5 %
#128 Austria: 5.9 %
#129 Belgium: 4 %
#130 Taiwan: 0.9 %
Weighted average: 37.1 %

I don't understand this complete absence of altruism.

It's all about competitiveness and greed.

Yet it's supposed to be a nation of moral Christians.

Hypocricy...

Not that I care, luckily I'm not an American.

I would support a democrat any day, especially a woman democrat. It's about fu*king time.

I truly despise people like you.

I don't hate Hillary, I just don't agree with her in thinking that Gov't should take care of us and solve all our proplems. With all the critizim of gov't why do people think that gov't can solve our problems? I belive we should shrink gov't, reduce taxes and let people take care of themselves. If you want to buy drugs instead of pay rent, quit school to have fun rather than get an education and make a better life for you and your children, buy fancy wheels for your car rather than pay for health care...well then its a free country, its your choice, just don't expect me to pay more taxes so the gov't will take care of you and your kids.

Exactly :nice:

I don't care about Hillary's personal life. It's none of my concern. What concerns me is her willingness to spend other people's money in a misguided attempt to make the government solve all our problems.

I truly despise people like you.

Hatred is fear in disguise.

Hatred is fear in disguise.

I didn't say I hated you and I certainly don't fear you.

Actually, uh, NO. Here are some stats for ODA: financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. Although USA places 3rd in total dollars - per capita, USA is in the 20th position (According to the CIA Factbook). In the mean time, 12% of USA population is below the poverty line, doing worse than freggin Thailand! So, that'd would mean 300 Million times 12% = 36 Million people below the poverty line in the USA alone: hey, Canada only has 32 Million people. Where is your charity for these people vindex???


canadiense, your country of 32,000,000 people has 15.9 percent of the population below the poverty line, compared to the US's 12 percent. that's 5,088,000 people. where is your charity for these people canadiense? also, you failed to note that ODA is assistance comprised of donor government agencies. ODA flows comprise contributions of donor government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries (“bilateral ODA”) and to multilateral institutions -OECD, Glossary of Statistical Terms

so you can spout off statistics in regard to how the ODA measures up per capita in any given nation, but by definition, ODA does not reflect personal, private charitable contributions. please read:

Side note on private contributions
As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities.

Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas—more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.
While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”. Hence these numbers and claims may be taken with caution, but even then, these are high numbers.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp


your point is moot.

I truly despise people like you.

"Hatred is the vice of narrow souls; they feed it with all their littleness, and make it the pretext of base tyrannies."
-- Honore De Balzac

"Hatred -- The anger of the weak."
-- Alphonse Daudet

"Love blinds us to faults, but hatred blinds us to virtues."
-- Iba Ezra

"Hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture."
-- Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us."
-- Hermann Hesse

"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life."
-- Eric Hoffer

"Hate can only flourish where love is absent."
-- William C. Menninger

"Hatred of enemies is easier and more intense than love of friends. But from men who are more anxious to injure opponents than to benefit the world at large no great good is to be expected."
-- Bertrand Russell

"It is a weakness of your human nature to hate those whom you have wronged."
-- Publius Cornelius Tacitus

Like anyone cares if Canada is superior or inferior to the U.S. The only people who care are people like Mrs. Canada who get off on running America down. If Canada is your thing great, who cares. Now shut up and get back on topic.

canadiense, your country of 32,000,000 people has 15.9 percent of the population below the poverty line, compared to the US's 12 percent. that's 5,088,000 people. where is your charity for these people canadiense? also, you failed to note that ODA is assistance comprised of donor government agencies. ODA flows comprise contributions of donor government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries (“bilateral ODA”) and to multilateral institutions -OECD, Glossary of Statistical Terms

so you can spout off statistics in regard to how the ODA measures up per capita in any given nation, but by definition, ODA does not reflect personal, private charitable contributions. please read:

Side note on private contributions
As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities.

Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas—more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.
While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”. Hence these numbers and claims may be taken with caution, but even then, these are high numbers.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp


your point is moot.

MY MOOT POINT WAS THAT YOU HAVE SO MUCH MONEY TO GIVE AND YOU HAVE MORE PEOPLE THAN THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF CANADA BELOW THE POVERTY LINE.:)

Like anyone cares if Canada is superior or inferior to the U.S. The only people who care are people like Mrs. Canada who get off on running America down. If Canada is your thing great, who cares. Now shut up and get back on topic.

America could be a better country. I'm not a idiot, it's not my intention to "run it down". I merely criticize certain aspects of the American mentality.

America could be a better country. I'm not a idiot, it's not my intention to "run it down". I merely criticize certain aspects of the American mentality.

while your own government allows it northern wildernesses to be raped for their natural resources, which are ultimately ending up in american cars and homes. i always get a laugh when i hear canadians going on about what's wrong with america, whilst their own government, who they allow to run willy nilly, betrays the interests of their own population. oh, by the way...thanks for the oil.

This is going sideways. The basic point of disagreement is if Hilary Clinton's altruism is appropriate for a government to support. I think that in the US's constitutional duty to "promote the welfare" it can provide for its citizens welfare directly. It isnt a limiting statement but rather a great deal of leeway in approach.

It would include everything from employment programs, welfare programs, healthcare, childcare and education. Of those I strongly believe education to be the greatest contributor to "the welfare..". Unfortunately as has been stated in another thread western countries are falling down badly on that issue due to testing and preformance criteria etc. But without a doubt those issues that are in the original post are all areas in which government can play a positive role.

America could be a better country. I'm not a idiot, it's not my intention to "run it down". I merely criticize certain aspects of the American mentality.

Fair enough, I take you at your word. I retract my despite for you if only for the fact that I am already in a foul mood and let my mood control my fingers which is something I need to work on as everyone on this board can tell you. Apologies.

while your own government allows it northern wildernesses to be raped for their natural resources, which are ultimately ending up in american cars and homes. i always get a laugh when i hear canadians going on about what's wrong with america, whilst their own government, who they allow to run willy nilly, spoken by a Bush voter HAH!:) betrays the interests of their own population. oh, by the way...thanks for the oil.

Here's a Canadian Nationalist point of view:

http://www.davidorchard.com/online/2do-index.html

How free trade changed us
Jobs are only one part of the trade equation. As the U.S. chips away at Canada's economic independence, we're slowly losing our sovereignty, says DAVID ORCHARD
by David Orchard

The Canadian Labour Congress chief is rethinking his opposition to free trade with the U.S. and suggests we should be "thinking about industrial strategies in a North American rather than purely Canadian context."

Ken Georgetti says he was misquoted and that the free trade agreements cost Canada 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs only to see them replaced by lower-paying ones.

In fact, in the first three years of the 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Canada lost a quarter of its manufacturing base. Hundreds of industrial plants closed their doors or relocated to the U.S. By 1992, Canada's number of unemployed hit a historic high.

However, lost in this exchange is the fact that jobs are only one part of the free-trade equation. The central issue, as Sir John A. Macdonald put it during the free-trade election of 1891, is our sovereignty. How, he asked, could Canada keep its political independence after it had thrown away its economic independence?

Instead of the promised "secure access" to the U.S. market, we have had more trade harassment than before 1989: on steel, wheat, lumber, beef, hogs, fish, lobster, blueberries and more.

The much heralded recent NAFTA "victory" on softwood lumber — after the industry spent tens of millions of dollars on Washington lawyers — will (if accepted by the U.S., which is far from certain) only return us to the situation that existed before the free-trade agreement.

Before the FTA negotiations began in 1986, Canada, trading with the U.S. under the GATT framework, had free trade in softwood lumber. Nor had the Americans been able to challenge our national institutions, block our exports or put tariffs on our wheat.

However, the FTA gave the U.S. unlimited rights to use its trade laws against Canada. The result: an unending series of actions taken against not only our exports, but also the very way we govern ourselves.

Laws passed by Parliament are challenged and overturned by U.S. corporations. The U.S. openly declares it will see the Canadian Wheat Board dismantled and has mounted 10 actions against the board since 1989 with more on the way. One remaining protection for western farmers, the CWB is the world's largest marketer of wheat and barley and Canada's biggest net earner of foreign currency. Without it, Canada's grain industry would move overnight into the hands of the U.S. agriculture giants.

An Ontario NDP government promise of public auto insurance was abandoned in the face of U.S. industry threats of retaliation under the FTA.

After 15 years of "free trade" with the United States, fewer than a dozen major, widely held Canadian companies are left listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. More than 10,000 Canadian companies have been taken over by U.S. owners. Even the Hudson's Bay Company, part of the country's very foundation in 1670, is apparently to be absorbed by a U.S. retail chain, while the Molson "I am Canadian" brewery is merging with an American conglomerate.

Free trade would be wonderful for the beef industry, the promise went in 1988. Instead, the border has been blocked to our exports of cattle, bison, sheep and other livestock for more than a year, while 90 per cent of the packing industry is now in U.S. hands and enjoying sky-high profits.

One energy company after another has gone to U.S. owners: B.C.'s Westcoast Transmission to Duke Energy, even Bob Blair's Nova is now based in Pittsburgh. Canadians' remaining shares in Petro-Canada are about to be dumped into the market in a short term (and shortsighted) cash grab by the government. Shoppers searching to buy Canadian hunt in vain, from farm machinery depots to stationery stores.

Evidence of the "ever-tightening economic ties" from a free-trade agreement that Sir John A. Macdonald warned of in 1891 is everywhere.

As America attacked Iraq last year, prominent Canadians urged that, even though such an invasion was clearly illegal, we should help bomb that little country, because our close trade ties made it important that we not irritate the U.S.

If Nova Scotia wishes to give drivers the cheap, effective public insurance coverage Saskatchewan enjoys, the FTA says no. If New Brunswick wants some offshore Canadian gas, too bad. A Canadian ship building industry? A Canadian automobile? A Canadian environmental policy? All run smack up against FTA provisions.

Without a vision, a nation and a people die. While shipping raw resources out of the country at a completely unsustainable and even accelerating rate, we assemble machines designed and manufactured elsewhere and dream other people's dreams.

Yet Canada has the potential to be a proud industrial power using its abundant natural resources to create all the industries of a modern nation, including a shipbuilding industry, a pollution-free automobile, a world class motion picture industry, a farm machinery industry (as recently as 1968, a Canadian company was the largest tractor maker in the world) and more.

Instead of learning to live within the straitjacket imposed by the free-trade agreements, we need to open the doors to a comprehensive examination of what we have signed and how it is impacting our economic, political and social well-being.

A full inquiry into the effects of the FTA and NAFTA, undertaken without ideological blinkers, would blow the dust off stale perceptions of what Canada could be and inject a sense of hope and optimism into a country now often lacking both.

I heard if you feed Hillary meat loaf she will fart 6" fire balls with incredible accuracy at ranges up to 25 meters.

spoken by a Bush voter HAH! -canadiense

i didn't vote.

i looked at your post till i read 'canadian nationalist perspective', then i switched off. cry,cry,cry. boohoo.

Hatred is fear in disguise.

Empty headed, leftist psycho babble.

Hate CAN be fear, but it is not necessarily JUST fear.

Empty headed, leftist psycho babble.

Hate CAN be fear, but it is not necessarily JUST fear.

Well if anyone knows hate, it certainly would be you.

I would support a democrat any day, especially a woman democrat. It's about fu*king time.

I hate sexist statements. :nonono:
Please stay in Canadia or wherever you're from. Thanks. :)

I don't hate Hillary, I just don't agree with her in thinking that Gov't should take care of us and solve all our proplems. With all the critizim of gov't why do people think that gov't can solve our problems? I belive we should shrink gov't, reduce taxes and let people take care of themselves. If you want to buy drugs instead of pay rent, quit school to have fun rather than get an education and make a better life for you and your children, buy fancy wheels for your car rather than pay for health care...well then its a free country, its your choice, just don't expect me to pay more taxes so the gov't will take care of you and your kids.

I do completely agree with the placement of responsibility-there's too much of a cultural shift as of late to find any problem, conceive a new problem, or just outright complain for idiotic reasons that people are being held too responsible, or achievement shouldn't be celebrated because those less successful feel hurt by it...kind of a "responsibility should be removed from culture because it places too much pressure on a person" idea that I DETEST. People still sing about the home of the FREE and the brave but they forget that alongside with Freedom comes RESPONSIBILITY and that if they allow government officials like Hilary to take it from them, they will eagerly do so. We'll be communists very quickly if people continue to be pansies.