...and you yanks wonder why the world is not too fond of you!

-- overwhelmed (byaprimeminister@insane.asylum), April 01, 1999

Answers

Us Americans are good people, but our damned political leaders, including idiot Clinton, are screwing up our country, eh?

-- old sailor (old sailor@aol.com), April 01, 1999.

Don't worry, eh! Our government is going down for sure in 2000! Just ask old Gary North, eh! He knows, eh!

-- smitty (smitty@sandiego.com), April 01, 1999.

Maybe *before* 2000, at this rate.

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 01, 1999.

It ain't us yanks neighbor, it's the Mafia and the Bilderbergers that runs this country! It didn't start out this way siiiiiiiiiiigh. (;{D)

-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), April 01, 1999.

"...and you yanks wonder why the world is not too fond of you!"

I don't wonder. I agree. That is the sole reason Y2K bothers me.

If this country was still the Constitutional Republic it was founded as (concerned only with "Nationalist" domestic issues), with a hard- working citizenry, Y2K would not concern me more than any other big risk. Instead though, we are a "multi-cultural", "diverse" Socialist (increasingly) "Democracy" told what to think by the best propaganda machine the world has ever known.

I just wish I knew who was telling the media what to tell the people to think.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), April 01, 1999.

anyone got a hot link to the story?

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), April 01, 1999.

What else is Canada good for? If Mexico had 26 million people massed along our boarder we would build an impenitrable barrier with armed gaurds patrolling along it to try and catch those souls trying to escape their Third World prison (oh wait we do). So why do we not have such a boarder with Canada? They have lulled us into a false sense of security and then just when the time is right they will sweep down and destroy our way of life. From some of the opinions I have read on this board that should be sometime in early January of next year.

-- armed and ready (paranoidinidaho@hayden.lake), April 01, 1999.

"What else is Canada good for? ..."

DANGER Will Robinson! Troll Alert!

DANGER!!

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), April 01, 1999.

Anybody have any idea what the heck he's referring to? They've been shipping U down here for a while....what are we now shipping the "leftover's" back up there to help keep the eskimo's warm? 8<)

The only Pu I know that got shipped to Canadanaian country was the Russian Pu-powered satellite that broke up and crashed across several miles of the Yukon and NW Territories a few years ago. As it burned up it and decended, it spread several pounds of the stuff in the atmosphere and across the wilderness.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 01, 1999.

Gosh I have been labeled a Troll. Gee that hurts. What ever shall I do?

-- armed and ready (paranoidinidaho@hayden.lake), April 01, 1999.

This stuff will be shipped overland at the risk of its falling into the wrong hands. "Better that happen in Canada than in Russia," says a nuclear physicist.

"Updated: April 26, 10:38 pm Greenpeace, Firefighters Oppose Plutonium Shipment

There were a couple of thumbs down Monday for an idea Ottawa's considering that involves shipping plutonium to Canada. The radioactive fuel would come from Russian and American nuclear warheads and shipped to Ontario from either Montreal or Halifax. It would then be tested in labs to see if the weapons-grade plutonium could be converted into energy in Candu reactors.

Ottawa insists it will ship a small amount of the fuel --less than a kilogram and use it only for a test. But if the test is successful, Canada could decide to go ahead and ship in another 100 tonnes of plutonium in the coming year. None of this is sitting well with environmentalists or firefighters.

On Monday the International Association of Firefighters said the shipments were unsafe and called for a moratorium. The emergency workers say they don't know anything about plutonium and would not know how to handle a spill.

Greenpeace has also voiced its concern, saying it plans to have a bus follow the itinerary the plutonium is expected to take and alert towns along the way. They're worried about a spill as well but also worry the stuff could fall into the wrong hands and be used for creation of more weapons.

The government says it's taking the plutonium to encourage disarmament and make the world a safer place. But Greenpeace's anti- plutonium coordinator says that's just a cover. Steve Shallhorn says the plutonium comes from weapons that had already been disarmed.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited says Greenpeace and the firefighters are scare-mongering. AECL insists its fuel is safe. AECL spokesman Larry Shewchuk says hospitals handle more dangerous materials every day.

While the debate continues, one thing is known. Scientists on both sides of the debate agree Canada will be responsible for the nuclear waste produced by the plutonium fuel -- waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years to come."

-- why (not@your.place), April 27, 1999.

Sounds like a simple test to me - try it, using Pu for power is much less dangerous than keeping it fabricated and "stored" in nuclear weapons waiting for somebody to "push the button".

Won't be Clinton though - he lost his nuclear codes couple of days ago - seems he (and his staff) left the NATO summit in such a hurry that they left without the military officer carrying the codes.

Ooops. Now, shouldn't we trust this staff to keep track of a simple little computer bug?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 27, 1999.