Canada - You Have a Country You Should be Proud Of!

[Remiel]

Exactly how many Southerners who joined in the Constitution in 1787 were still alive in 1860? How many Southerners who were alive in 1860 were eligible to vote in 1787?

You put too much store in the " rules " without considering the implications of the source of the " rules " . You also put too much store in history without seeming to realize that when history was made it was the present.

[Peter F]

I have met two schoolteachers from Peterborough, Ontario who didn't know who Montcalm and Wolfe were.

ah, That explains what you think the Plains of Abraham was about. Thanks for the non-answer

[eyeball]

quote=eyeball: I think this capacity for change will allow us to evolve into something more realistic. Americans, despite all the rhetoric of Barack Obama, seem more fearful of change and its no surprise they're a more conservative people. Perhaps our being born out of an empire that disintegrated more or less peacefully has imbued us with a more Zen-like attitude towards nationalism. Nothing lasts for ever and its no big deal, we're a people who can rise above ourselves.

Americans most definitely can rise above themselves, too.

By rise above our/themselves I meant to rise above a country and nationalism. Of course anyone can rise above their own self.

We aren't all that different from you in the long run. And since you brought up Canada's peaceful separation from Britain vs. ours, one could say fighting for independence rather than being subservient to what we felt was being unfairly imposed on us would be the epitome of 'not being afraid of change.' After all, we were willing to put our lives on the line for change.

That might have been then but things never stay the same. In some ways America has become that which it rebelled against. Lots of Americans are looking at the parallels between its recent dynastic administrations and the rulership of the royalty is so eschewed in the past. Trying to force things to stay the same almost borders on the un-natural. Perhaps that's why Barack Obama has been able to capture the attention he has - on some instinctive level Americans are aware of just how un-natural an 'establishment' is in the face of real liberty. It'll be interesting to see how many Americans put their vote for change on the line. I live in hope.

Edited May 10, 2008 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

By rise above our/themselves I meant to rise above a country and nationalism. Of course anyone can rise above their own self.

That might have been then but things never stay the same. In some ways America has become that which it rebelled against. Lots of Americans are looking at the parallels between its recent dynastic administrations and the rulership of the royalty is so eschewed in the past....

The only problem with this thinking is that America has become "dynastic" and world hegemon through constant change. The power of change is what America has always been, for citizens and immigrants alike. America is the same as it ever was. Those who sit an watch (or hope) from the outside should consider why this has come to be.

[Peter F]

We will talk and elect our way into being a nonentity, or at best a country that tries so hard to be everything to everyone, it will no longer mean anything to anyone.

That assumes that we will talk and elect our way into being a nonentity. If we do what does that say about the value of Canada?

If not enough people support the continuation of Canada then by what mythology and fake misinformed bullshit pride should we instill in Canadians to make it valuable?

On the other hand Canada exists to this very day because Canadians see value in it. The seperatists lost 2 referendums about something very near and dear to thier hearts and I see no indication that they are going to win one anytime soon. So let Duceppe have his say...sometimes he's right. I would suggest that the Bloq's criticisms in parliament are no worse than Reforms criticisms of Canada or the NDP's or the Conservatives or the Liberals. The Bloq has done nothing to lessen the unity of this country and in fact have inadvertently strengthened it.

Unless, of course, Duceppe actually makes sense. In wich case why the struggle to prop up a sham?

Unlike the USofA we need no wars to keep this country unified.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Unlike the USofA we need no wars to keep this country unified.

True..because the definition of unity in Canada is a weak covalent bond (obligation covalente). It is the unCola.....

Edited May 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

The only problem with this thinking is that America has become "dynastic" and world hegemon through constant change.

What do you mean?

The power of change is what America has always been, for citizens and immigrants alike.

Again I'm a little unclear about what you're saying. Individuals have certainly been able to change their own personal situations but the collective known as your establishment - your wealthiest dynastic families and corporations, appear to resist any change of their status-quo especially in terms of who has the most influence and power. Look at Hillary Clinton for example.

America is the same as it ever was.

No it isn't. Nothing is. The only constant is change.

Those who sit an watch (or hope) from the outside should consider why this has come to be.

As it comes so it shall remain? Fixed eternally in place...forever? You can dare to dream I guess.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again I'm a little unclear about what you're saying. Individuals have certainly been able to change their own personal situations but the collective known as your establishment - your wealthiest dynastic families and corporations, appear to resist any change of their status-quo especially in terms of who has the most influence and power. Look at Hillary Clinton for example.

No...your view is myopic....America is in a constant state of change, up to and including "corporations" and "dynastic families". Individual freedom to change is a cornerstone of the American experience, and has included many millions of immigrants. The history of the United States is very dynamic in any context, be it political, economic, or social. Save the word "dynastic" for China (and even that is changing).

Example: Changes driven to a large extent by America make it possible for us to easily communicate with people nearly anywhere on the planet, just as we are doing now.

As it comes so it shall remain? Fixed eternally in place...forever? You can dare to dream I guess.

You can do whatever you choose....but more people dare to do it in the USA.

Edited May 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

That assumes that we will talk and elect our way into being a nonentity. If we do what does that say about the value of Canada?

If not enough people support the continuation of Canada then by what mythology and fake misinformed bullshit pride should we instill in Canadians to make it valuable?

On the other hand Canada exists to this very day because Canadians see value in it. The seperatists lost 2 referendums about something very near and dear to thier hearts and I see no indication that they are going to win one anytime soon. So let Duceppe have his say...sometimes he's right. I would suggest that the Bloq's criticisms in parliament are no worse than Reforms criticisms of Canada or the NDP's or the Conservatives or the Liberals. The Bloq has done nothing to lessen the unity of this country and in fact have inadvertently strengthened it.

Unless, of course, Duceppe actually makes sense. In wich case why the struggle to prop up a sham?

Unlike the USofA we need no wars to keep this country unified.

Quebec has had two referendums. That is the problem, as long as the hammer of separation is accepted as a bargaining chip in this country, it's future doesn't bode well. How many more times will we be forced to put up with this garbage? Who's suggesting a war? If you don't want to be part of this country, adiós because all this BS is just weakening the rest of it. I would rather just get it over with so we can all move on. I propose that the next time Quebec has a referendum, the rest of the of the country also have a referendum on whether they want Quebec to stay and under what conditions. Of course there is no way a province can be forced to leave Confederation, nor should there be but it might go a long way to clear the air. In or out, make up your mind because the rest of us are tired of this crap. Of course we never will have one because our government's are afraid of the possible answer.

So Duceppe is right occasionally, he still has no commitment to Canada. Exactly the opposite so who cares.

[jbg]

Exactly how many Southerners who joined in the Constitution in 1787 were still alive in 1860? How many Southerners who were alive in 1860 were eligible to vote in 1787?

Quite likely none. However, the compact was not limited to those limited at the time. There were benefits conferred and obligations incurred.

You put too much store in the " rules " without considering the implications of the source of the " rules " . You also put too much store in history without seeming to realize that when history was made it was the present.

You don't seem to understand what a Constitution is.

[bush_cheney2004]

You don't seem to understand what a Constitution is.

Indeed....seems it was just a political plaything Pierre Trudeau.

[jbg]

Of course there is no way a province can be forced to leave Confederation, nor should there be but it might go a long way to clear the air.

Sure there is. Have a referendum on forming a new country, sans parts of Quebec (remember, Chretien said that if Canada is divisible so is Quebec) and calling the new country, let's say, "Dominion of Canada".

In or out, make up your mind because the rest of us are tired of this crap. Of course we never will have one because our government's are afraid of the possible answer.

I personally think the tolerance of this cr*p should have ended November 23, 1976. Levesque should have been swinging from a rope.

[Wilber]

Sure there is. Have a referendum on forming a new country, sans parts of Quebec (remember, Chretien said that if Canada is divisible so is Quebec) and calling the new country, let's say, "Dominion of Canada".

I personally think the tolerance of this cr*p should have ended November 23, 1976. Levesque should have been swinging from a rope.

It's not my wish to force Quebec out but I believe we must put this constant threat of separation behind us if we are to move on as one country.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Wilber

[Peter F]

Who's suggesting a war?

The Americans.

[WestViking]

It's not my wish to force Quebec out but I believe we must put this constant threat of separation behind us if we are to move on as one country.

Then don't vote Liberal. The Liberals created the threat of separation as the paper tiger they along could vanquish, and have supported the PQ / BQ under the table for years. They nearly blew it through a false sense of their abilities, but have used the separation factor as a foil to fool people for a long time. Edited May 11, 2008 by WestViking

[Remiel]

Well, jbg, if you look at the practical implications of what you are suggesting, by your own admission next time you visit Canada we should round you up and do something unpleasant, perhaps permanent, to you. See, by suggesting that someone who is a separatist is a traitor, then you also suggest anyone who encourages seccessionist feelings is an enemy of the state. Since your incendiary remarks could be interpreted as ecouraging seccessionist feelings of outrage, you are therefore in fact an enemy of Canada. And remember, the is just a logical extension of your own words, not mine.

[jdobbin]

Then don't vote Liberal. The Liberals created the threat of separation as the paper tiger they along could vanquish, and have supported the PQ / BQ under the table for years. They nearly blew it through a false sense of their abilities, but have used the separation factor as a foil to fool people for a long time.

You'll have to show me that secret deal between the PQ/BQ and the Liberals. Seems to me that much of the BQ came about from a core of PC people, right?

[Wild Bill]

You'll have to show me that secret deal between the PQ/BQ and the Liberals. Seems to me that much of the BQ came about from a core of PC people, right?

True enough! But also a healthy dollop of NDP folks who were tired of never getting anywhere in Quebec and found a new parade ot get out in front.

[jbg]

You'll have to show me that secret deal between the PQ/BQ and the Liberals. Seems to me that much of the BQ came about from a core of PC people, right?

Whether or not there was a secret deal, the Royal Commission, bi-bi report wasn't secret and did much to foment separatism, as did the OLA, the restructuring of the Canadian Forces and the Civil Service, etc.

[WestViking]

You'll have to show me that secret deal between the PQ/BQ and the Liberals. Seems to me that much of the BQ came about from a core of PC people, right?

LOL!! Why do you think Trudeau has the FLQ six flown to Cuba? His pal Fidel kept the scruffy lot away from the media. Had the FLQ six stood trial in Canada, or been given access to the Canadian media, Trudeau's political career was over. Those misfits could not have planned a decent drunk, and the whole 'crisis' would have been shown up as the farce that it was. The Liberals were on to a good thing and have milked it ever since.

[Wilber]

The Americans.

They are saying they wouldn't put up with this crap. I agree with them.

[WestViking]

Does anyone realize that if Quebec were to separate today, Harper would be one member short of a majority government and that by the end of 2009 Harper could appoint a majority of CPC Senators?

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=Wilber: Who's suggesting a war?

The Americans.

Wrong. "The Americans" are doing no such thing.

[Peter F]

Wrong. "The Americans" are doing no such thing.

Quite right. I am guilty of unjustified use of a blanket statement. jbg represents himself and no-one else.

Jbg post 71:

If there were real Canadian pride anyone who formed a "Bloc Quebecois" or Parti Quebecois" would be either serving a life term for treason or swinging from the gallows rather than have esteemed roles in Parliaments, "National Assemblies" and in the media

Does jbg advocate that only Mssr Duceppe be treated as such? no. In fact all who are members of the Bloq Quebecois party or the Parti Quebecois should be arrested and tried for Treason.

Canadians have no 'real' pride in thier nation because we don't do what he suggests.

Americans, apparently, would do that. And they would do so, according to jbg, because they have real pride in thier nation.

jbg can shove that 'pride' where the sun don't shine.

[Michael Bluth]

Does jbg advocate that only Mssr Duceppe be treated as such? no. In fact all who are members of the Bloq Quebecois party or the Parti Quebecois should be arrested and tried for Treason.

Canadians have no 'real' pride in thier nation because we don't do what he suggests.

Americans, apparently, would do that. And they would do so, according to jbg, because they have real pride in thier nation.

jbg can shove that 'pride' where the sun don't shine.

I think it's a matter of a different approach to nation-building and constitutional interpretation in the two countries.

The U.S. was founded out of revolution and fought a devastating civil war.

Canada came into existence through negotiation and has never faced an armed conflict between warring factions within the country.

Is one country necessarily better than the other for its approach to maintaining its federation?

Not necessarily, but it is a good point for discussion.