Back to previous post: You wrote what?

Go to Making Light's front page.

Forward to next post: Years since it’s been clear

Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)

September 5, 2008

I knew John McCain was hot for more wars, but—
Posted by Patrick at 04:44 PM * 56 comments

—until I saw today’s New York Daily News, I hadn’t realized he wanted to invade Canada.

Comments on I knew John McCain was hot for more wars, but--:
#1 ::: paul ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 05:02 PM:

Why does John McCain hate America?

#2 ::: Earl Cooley III ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 05:05 PM:

In the infamous Jesusland map, the United States of Canada is supposed to get the bulk of the blue states, so McCain's invaders will have a fight on their hands if they try anything (although Jesusland probably has more nuclear weapons, I suppose).

#3 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 05:50 PM:

One might ask better at what? Perhaps he wants to make sure that the US has better sprinters, in which case he plans to invade Jamaica.

#4 ::: dave hutchinson ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 05:55 PM:

Nah, he's obviously pointing towards England. (We're putting a fence up as I write.)

#5 ::: Sarah ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 06:13 PM:

No, sillies, it's a typo. It should say "butter." He's off to Ireland to pick up some Kerrygold.

#6 ::: Linkmeister ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 06:19 PM:

Sarah @ #5, in these days of high gas prices, wouldn't it be cheaper to go to Wisconsin for butter?

#7 ::: michiko ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 06:19 PM:

He can certainly try and invade Canada, but it's not going to work. I mean, remember 1776? And 1812? Third time's a charm is not guaranteed, you know...

#8 ::: SeanH ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 06:44 PM:

Sarah @5: Given Barack Obama's unfortunate comment regarding the section of US society often regarded as the Republican Party's natural base of support, perhaps it should be "Follow me to a bitter country"?

#9 ::: Summer Storms ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 06:44 PM:

Would anyone up there mind if my family I invade Canada, in the event of another Republican win stolen election? It's only a small force: three cats, three adult humans, armed with a small library of books.

#10 ::: Summer Storms ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 06:45 PM:

Er, make that "my family and I".

#11 ::: Sajia Kabir ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 07:03 PM:

We don't mind, Summer Storms, but you'll be facing the Conservatives here (at least until the coming federal election).

#12 ::: Summer Storms ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 07:16 PM:

Sajia @ 11: I have a bit more trust in the Canadian system of government - and the Canadian people - to correct that eventually than I would have in their American analogues to do likewise in the event of a McCain "victory".

#13 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 07:23 PM:

Perhaps the adjective should be 'bitter' given the tone of all the speeches preceding McCain's insomnia cure.

#14 ::: Constance ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 07:29 PM:

Buchanan wanted to invade Canada too. And Cuba. And -- I forget where else, and make them all the U.S.A. and safe for slavery. That's James Buchanan, btw, not Pat. Though maybe he does too, who knows?

What James did manage to do was send the navy and army to Paraguay while the confederacy-in-the-making prepared for secession and Civil War, and he helped by sending all the weapons and ammo to them.

Love, C.

#15 ::: pants ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 07:37 PM:

That was funny.
I actually laughed.
Really.

#16 ::: SylvieG ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 08:47 PM:

Well, sure, come on in! Make yourselves at home!Have some Timbits! Just make sure to wipe your feet on the mat before entering - we have enough conservative cooties as it is...

#17 ::: Lin D ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 09:23 PM:

Add two more people, a few more cats, and another library of books to the line waiting to move to Canada.

#18 ::: Ken Houghton ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 09:35 PM:

No, please. He can't come here. I just put a lot of effort into moving away from the coming McCain Administration.

Summer Storms: Here's the paperwork.

#19 ::: P J Evans ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 09:40 PM:

# 17
Make that three people and two libraries. (And at least three more computers.)

What, you thought I was going to let the cat leave without me?

#20 ::: Josh Jasper ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 09:54 PM:

Be^Hitter country.

#21 ::: Earl Cooley III ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 11:23 PM:

I suppose I could get used to poutine, since smuggling Texas BBQ north across the front lines could be problematic.

#22 ::: geekosaur ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 11:38 PM:

Summer Storms @12:
I'm a little worried about Canada: as bad as things are here, there are fewer safeguards of personal freedoms in the law there. (Granted, the way the US hs been going is leaving me rather paranoid about them.)

#23 ::: Summer Storms ::: (view all by) ::: September 05, 2008, 11:56 PM:

Geekosaur, the impression I get from most Canadians I speak to is that the Canadian mindset is geared such that they are unlikely to allow things to get as bad there as the Rethuglicans would like things to get here. Also, most personal freedoms seem to me to be more intact in Canada than they are here these days, in terms of actual practice.

Anyone from Canada care to comment on this, at all?

And I also have less fear of a theocratic takeover, Scudder-style, in Canada than in the U.S. As a woman and someone who is openly non-Christian, I'd have essentially no chance of a normal life under such a regime (not that it would be much better for anyone else).

#24 ::: Kristen Chew ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 01:08 AM:

McCain=Do Not Want.

We have our own troubles up here with Conservatives. They do not need reinforcements.

#25 ::: Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers) ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 01:48 AM:

Sajia Kabir @ 11, Summer Storms @ 12

In any case, Canadian Conservatives are almost leftists compared to the theokleptocrats we've got in the US now.

#26 ::: Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers) ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 01:49 AM:

I think the original word was "batter". He's a really abusive guy, if you ask me.

#27 ::: Jules ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 05:39 AM:

geekosaur @22: it seems to me that the Canadian constitution includes a pretty good enumeration of personal freedoms and rights. That's not to say I can't think of things that should be added to them, but the same's true for every such charter of rights I've ever seen.

#28 ::: Jules ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 05:46 AM:

Bruce @25: Agreed. Reading the summary of their main policies here they sound a lot more like the UK Conservative party, who may be idiots, but are at least _reasonable_ idiots.

:)

#29 ::: Graydon ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 07:56 AM:

The current Conservative Party is significantly dominionist; perhaps not so much so as the Republican Party, but the thread is there. It is certainly not as rich or as well organized, and it has not (yet) managed to move the discourse as far to the right; we've still got an effective Communications Commission, less nakedly pro-corporate legislation, and we don't have the equation of money and speech.

But, like everywhere else, organizations for profit maximization are a major problem and will either eventually be banned or take over.

The thing that worries me is not so much the Conservatives -- though I would very much like to know who paid for Steven Harper's leadership run; he has flatly refused to say -- as the fight in the Liberals between pro-corporate, pro-ideological-purity, and urm, govern? factions. Both of the first two are actively harmful, and doing very well on the passionate intensity front.

It is at times like these that the deep and pervasive cynicism of my fellow Canadians is a great comfort to me.

#30 ::: John Stanning ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 10:46 AM:

We need a map of the world according to McCain, like the ones for Reagan and Dubya. McCain does probably know where a few places are - I guess the map according to Palin would have a lot of blanks and "here be dragons".

#31 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 12:26 PM:

Summer 23: Yes, I've lost count of the number of things I'd be executed for if Palin and her ilk got their absolute druthers. Out-of-the-closet gay, out-of-the-broom-closet Wiccan, ACLUer (gotta send in that renewal), DSAer (ditto), voted Dem for every office (except non-partisan ones) in every election since I was old enough except one, and pro-Choice in that one.* Pro-hemp, pro-legalization-or-at-least-decriminalization of marijuana, pro-gun control, anti-war, pro-porn...the list goes on. Any one of them would be enough for them.

*Well, what would you do if a pro-Choice Republican (really good in other ways too) ran against a so-called pro-Life Democrat (and a wild-eyed wacko to boot)? It was the early 80s, the Republicans were more liberal than the Democrats are now, and Michigan was and is a weird, scary political place.

#32 ::: Doctor Science ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 12:33 PM:

Graydon:
I would very much like to know who paid for Steven Harper's leadership run; he has flatly refused to say

*blinks* Aren't donations to politicians a matter of public record Up North?

#33 ::: Graydon ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 01:26 PM:

Doctor Science @32 --

Donations to politicans are very tightly controlled, with low maximum values. (This is one of the things the Conservatives don't like, but it would be political suicide to try to change it with a minority, and no one has managed to actually get them charged with ignoring some of those laws yet in any case, though that is grinding forward slowly and will probably eventually eat a party functionary or two.)

But if you are not a sitting MP, and you're running for leadership of a political party, no such controls apply; it's legally entirely internal to the party; no different, legally, from someone campaigning to be president of their local Elk Lodge. So someone or someones ponied up a couple-three millions of dollars, and Mr. Harper will not say who, nor release the records.

So someone owns him, and the political costs of not saying who are high, so my expectation is that even a fair chunk of the consistent Conservative voters would be appalled if they found out precisely who it was. (Carl Rove's dominatrix? Coalition of beet farmers? Scaife? Haliburton? One can speculate endlessly; the best bet is "oil-worshipping dominionists".)

#34 ::: mommy c ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 03:38 PM:

McCain just wants to retrieve the draft dodgers and send them to Guantanamo. Or, maybe it's because Palin knows that there is a whole lot of oil and gas left in Northern BC and Alberta. Let the oil companies come up here and screw us, but for heaven's sake, leave Alaska alone ...they just may get fed up and choose to breakaway ...and join Canada. Oh hell, just invade us. It's been coming for years.

#35 ::: dave hutchinson ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 06:49 PM:

Perhaps it was supposed to be `barter country.' He's just proposing a new economic model to help the US through the credit crunch.

#36 ::: Paula Lieberman ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 07:26 PM:

#26 Bruce

Batter? McCain's making cookies?

Hmm, Gov Palin goes out moosehunting and McCain's staying home in the kitchn baking cookies?

#37 ::: Rob Rusick ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 07:27 PM:

Graydon @33: One can speculate endlessly; the best bet is "oil-worshipping dominionists".

I figured 'oil-worship' was the metaphor behind Prince of Darkness (by John Carpenter). That it featured Donald Pleasence as a priest is only a bonus.

#38 ::: Marilee ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 08:44 PM:

Earl, #21, when I left visiting with Luke on Wednesday, I stopped at a nearby restaurant and had as an appetizer (and thus brought 2/3 of it home) the Coachman Fries. French fries covered with chili covered with two kinds of cheese and then jalapeno slices. Boy, that was good. I have no idea why it's called Coachman Fries, though, and I did look carefully to make sure it wasn't Couchman Fries.

#39 ::: Earl Cooley III ::: (view all by) ::: September 06, 2008, 09:18 PM:

Not sure why they call them CoachMan Fries; it's probably named that to remind people that they're eating in a sports bar. I wouldn't dip fries in "spicy ranch dressing" on a dare. My favorite fries additive is cream gravy with lots of pepper (the kind often associated with chicken fried steak), although I have tried fries with vinegar in Winnipeg (during my 1994 Worldcon trip) and liked it without shame.

#40 ::: Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers) ::: (view all by) ::: September 07, 2008, 12:25 AM:

Paula @ 36

McCain's staying home in the kitchn baking cookies?

Nah. He'd make something manly like chicken-fried steak. Won't catch him doing something girly like baking!

#41 ::: Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers) ::: (view all by) ::: September 07, 2008, 12:31 AM:

Graydon @ 33

"oil-worshipping dominionists"

Ia! Ia! Shell Oil Fthag'n!

#42 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: September 07, 2008, 09:53 AM:

Great moments at the Republican Convention: The wrong Walter Reed.

Notice, though, that McCain actually is standing in front of a green screen. This is to make Cobert's Green Screen Challenge easier for everyone.

#43 ::: Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: September 07, 2008, 11:12 AM:

Now a Republican Women's group in Florida is saying Paling offered to go on Oprah and was refused; so they are boycotting.

I can see it now, "we'vre tried to get her in front of the people, but the, "liberal media" won't have her."

Oi.

#44 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: September 07, 2008, 11:39 AM:

Now a Republican Women's group in Florida is saying Paling offered to go on Oprah and was refused; so they are boycotting.

This is another "Hillary wouldn't meet with the Gold Star Mothers" moment. Oprah publicly stated, long ago, that she wouldn't have any of the candidates on her show. And she hasn't.

"The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

#45 ::: Juliet E McKenna ::: (view all by) ::: September 07, 2008, 11:48 AM:

You can read more on the Oprah issue at The Guardian. Just scroll down a bit.

I'm thinking the Federal bail-out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will attract more attention?

Breaking news on the BBC at the moment.

#46 ::: Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: September 07, 2008, 12:21 PM:

Jim: I didn't think it was true. I think it's a staged controversy, and meant to keep pressure on the press, and off the campaign for her lack of appearance.

We can only hope this little charade is lost in the fiasco of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

Now is the time to bring the Keating Five back to life.

#47 ::: James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: September 07, 2008, 05:02 PM:

Terry #46: meant to keep pressure on the press, and off the campaign for her lack of appearance.

I don't see how that's supposed to work. I don't know if anyone in McCain's base would notice whether or not she'd ever been on Meet the Press or Face the Nation or any of the other Sunday Talking Heads shows, but pretty soon it's going to be obvious to the independents and undecideds.

#48 ::: Earl Cooley III ::: (view all by) ::: September 07, 2008, 05:39 PM:

I dunno, I always thought that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were merely government agencies to start with.

#49 ::: Marilee ::: (view all by) ::: September 08, 2008, 01:55 AM:

Jim, #47, Meet the Press had Biden on today and Brokaw carefully said that they'd repeatedly invited Palin and hadn't had an answer. I think it will be obvious soon.

#50 ::: Earl Cooley III ::: (view all by) ::: September 10, 2008, 12:38 AM:

The US Army's suicide rate continues to rise. Could someone recommend a lickspittle neocon chickenhawk weblog that I could use as a punching bag?

#51 ::: Earl Cooley III ::: (view all by) ::: September 10, 2008, 11:47 AM:

Well, I didn't mean to shut down the whole topic. I suppose I could just take a few deep breaths and surrender to outrage fatigue instead of lashing out.

#52 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: September 10, 2008, 11:55 AM:

I share your feelings, Earl. The misuse and abuse of our troops in this war makes me want to kill everyone who advocated it. I suppress this urge, being a civilized being who doesn't want to go to prison, but the rage is there.

#53 ::: MickeyBr ::: (view all by) ::: July 31, 2009, 06:13 PM:

god I h8 that man...

#54 ::: MickeyBr ::: (view all by) ::: July 31, 2009, 06:14 PM:

god I h8 that man...

#55 ::: MickeyBr ::: (view all by) ::: July 31, 2009, 06:14 PM:

god I h8 that man...

Welcome to Making Light's comment section. The moderators are Avram Grumer, Teresa & Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and Abi Sutherland. Abi is the moderator most frequently onsite. She's also the kindest. Teresa is the theoretician. Are you feeling lucky?

Comments containing more than seven URLs will be held for approval. If you want to comment on a thread that's been closed, please post to the most recent "Open Thread" discussion.

You can subscribe (via RSS) to this particular comment thread. (If this option is baffling, here's a quick introduction.)

Post a comment.
(Real e-mail addresses and URLs only, please.)

HTML Tags:
<strong>Strong</strong> = Strong
<em>Emphasized</em> = Emphasized
<a href="http://www.url.com">Linked text</a> = Linked text

Spelling reference:
Tolkien. Minuscule. Gandhi. Millennium. Delany. Embarrassment. Publishers Weekly. Occurrence. Asimov. Weird. Connoisseur. Accommodate. Hierarchy. Deity. Etiquette. Pharaoh. Teresa. Its. Macdonald. Nielsen Hayden. It's. Fluorosphere. Barack. More here.















(You must preview before posting.)

Dire legal notice
Making Light copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 by Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. All rights reserved.