Grantler

Ok, well, for example I will take my American warfare class. The Prof has came out in class stating that the American public are just as idiotic as their president. And you can take that as a quote. She believes that the nation is rediculous and people are idiotic due to the fact that almost every household put up a yellow ribbon when the War in Iraq began to signify support for the troops. 95% of the classroom agreed that Americans are rediculous imperialists and this is when talking about the people. I was sickened. Anyhow, this may be a problem since it was a confined group but still, I would tend to view this as Anti-American and this is why I made the post (And just for clarification I didn't mean our in the description...meant OUT). Disliking Americans for supporting troops that are just doign their job is a little severe. They have no choice.

LOL. Ok Ok. Now this is what I call a good post. Maybe normal Canadians don't hate Americans...but let me reiterate...a large percentage of students do. Maybe its just a phase. Or, maybe even better, it is an attempt by profs to pull the youth to the left in Canada.

I do not think that it is how the word originated that gives it its meaning. The word shit originated for who knows what reason. Now, it isn't respectable to use it in public. Well, what if it's original meaning was, let us say, LEGISTLATION. Would that make it ok to go against the modern social nature of the word. For example, Paul Martin rises in the House and states..."We are going to pass this SHIT into law." Now, I do not think that is appropriate to argue a words legitimacy based on its original meaning. Marriage has developed into a very meaningful institution for say the Catholic Church which recognizes marriage as a Sacrament. This is the modern meaning of the word.

Sorry but I do not see this thread in this religious forum within the past 30 days. It may be in the other forums or prior to 30 days but I want to see the religious side of this argument along with all others without going back months or even years. You do not have to lecture me on how to use a forum either as I am fully capable and understand how to do it. Anyone want to respond to my original statements?

I totally agree. Its too bad that professors tend to limit debate to their own beliefs in school. That is why I am trying to get my board going for young and old alike. I think that a part on this board would be worthwhile if we could get enough students in. You would be surprised at the thoughts they have.

Very well put.

Really, how else can it be taken? The real test of any government is a money bill so get a hold of yourselves for this one.

I don't see a reason for gay or straight couples to need to government to provide a religious term to a union. What does the term marriage offer the government? Churches bless marriages as a matter of their existance be them Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish etc. Let them do so. Neither gay nor straight couples need the government to call their end of the issue marriage. Here is my argument: spearation of church and state is good...marriage is a religious term, it should be turfed.

I guess I am just looking at it from my view on a University campus. I am not understating that there is a large hatred for America in general, even its people. My hometown is on the border and I also have family in the USA but it seems that a lot of students do not. This has led to a blurring between the people and the government when we think of America. I think that it is a problem and I am not sure why Canadians continue to assume that we are so much different than our Souther neighbours.

The United Nations is an organization that declares itself as a necessity in the world. With this in mind, why are many of its member nations dictatorships and others show low standards of human rights?

Should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children? This is going to become the next debate once marriage is over with so I want to get a jumpstart on the debate. What are the positives/negatives here?

Clarkson sucks. Spending tax payers money to travel the world. Really, come on, who cares if they meet the Governor General of Canada? Well, they might care, but there is no point in caring. All she does is give a brief Canadian history lesson to people that don't even know anything about the country.

Furthmore, is my generation out of touch with reality because we are so protected in thinking whatever we want? ie. America is a terrible monster that we need to have nothing to do with? I think that this is the most prevalent thought among youth. Unfortunetly, it is not that simple and in my opinion, totally rediculous.

It seems to me as though Anti-Americanism in this country is out of control. Is it right for Canadians to hate America, as they do, because of their dislike for an administration. In 4 years it will be a new one and then what? What if the leader is another Bill Clinton who we can tolerate, do we just flip the switch back after years of constant attacks on the country as a whole?

This is a joke. The President of the United States is never irrelevant. You just care not to listen to him because you disagree with him and that is just as bad as him not giving a shit about you.

I am interested in this... Seems as though we are always going to be at odds with each other. What do you think?

Tax money is going to international causes everyday. Spend your hard earned money on yourself and screw charity.

Well, in defense of thinking about the missile shield. Maybe it would be prudent to go ahead with it. Technology is spreading and we cannot expect rogue nations not to be able to develop nuclear weapons with delivery mechanisms forever. Maybe if we get something in place that we can always improve on we will be in a better position in the future.

Hmmmm. Well I think that this is a fairly good debate, but I want to ask a couple of questions to you. 1. You think a woman with good looks has a better chance of succeeding? 2. You think that men are the reason women need to be beautiful to succeed? 3. Do you think that women desire other women in positions of power moreso than they want men? 4. Is there not something instinctual to our animal being about desiring beauty that we cannot change?

Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.38 I could be the Pope!

Well, I have heard some pretty terrible stories about the history departments across our land. I thought that I would share what I have heard, and experienced in my own class rooms, to you all. Well. First of all, history in institutions is no longer about real history. It is about socially acceptable history. I cannot count the times where important events have been skipped completely because of the way they are peceived. For example, in my second year American history class we did not even talk about what George Washington did for the country. Instead, we talked about all of the terrible things the white man did to the slaves. It seems that the ability to teach history as it happened is wrong because it is dominated by white males the farther you go back. But, why take what happened out altogether? Would it not be better to balance the teaching around actually events and then plug in instances of slavery, women's rights, etc? On another note, military history is going out the window. I heard a horror story from my teacher's assistant who was denied her master's due to the fact that she wrote it on military history. The panel stated it was a great project but that she will not be passed because Canadian institutions do not want military historians anymore. What they want are social historians only who present a homogenous picture of a past that the white man pushed onto all others. She won in court and did pass. But, what is going on? A second instance is the case I heard of a school in this country that offered a women's history course and a Vietnam history course. Well, the Vietnam course for years offered a very limited amount of seats while far too many students tried to get into it. The other course availible was the women's history course that offered 800% more seats than were actually taken up by students who signed up. To fill the gap, the extra Vietnam students has to take it to fulfil their requirements. How the hell is this fair? Well, the courts ruled it wasn't and that the department was in violation after students finally complained effectively. Is it not time for the government to act and see exactly what these professors and often tenured professors are doing? I mean, if I didn't have my own will the professors at my institution might have very well turned me into a American hating student disgusted by the way in which Canada came to be. Ie. damn white people writing history.

Thank you for telling me caesar. I would have to state that August seems to be part of the Canadian problem. It is hard to be a country when you have people who do not even recognize it as such.

Ok, wow, I am stunned. That personal story you give should make anyone in Canada sick to their stomach. I cannot believe that. This is a country that prides itself on health care and to have systems that benefit the use of money is rediculous. I will provide this stat for you. The United States spends 2.6% of its GDP. Canada, 0.6%. It was a shock to me. ------ But, on the other side of the coin, Canada's system is not what it use to be. Althought I cannot remember the exact numbers, something around 15 people use to work for every 1 dependant on the system. Nowadays, the is probably down to between 3-5 people working for everyone 1 dependant (don't take my numbers as excatly true; they are just meant to state a point). I am sure that part of the problem lies in this statisical reality. What do you think?

"All liberals agree on the primacy of individual freedom and individual choice, which distinguishes liberalism from, for example, socialism and nationalism. But some liberals argue in favour of these core values by means of highly abstract reasoning." Big L liberal: I would define this as the political nature of the word. Liberalism is something that the political party in Canada should hope to achieve...a balance between social programs and fiscal respinsibility etc. Small l liberal: This is more along the lines of the early political philosophy. The idea of passing individual freedoms to all is an amazing thought. But, when does this become a farce? Take my American Warfare class at UWO. We discuss American Wars and then 90% of the students and the prof take pot shots at the current regime and all of America's "terrible" actions over the past that restricted freedom. Is it really necessary to hate America based on how they view liberalism since it is obviously not as "liberal" as ours?

I have a question though. Does this take a shot at English speaking Canada? Does it take a show at English speaking Canada's education system? This could turn into a good topic discussion.