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

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: 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.

I'm glad to see you qualify that. He sure doesn't speak for me or anyone I know.

Jbg post 71:

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 agree with you completely. He most definitely can take that "pride" and shove it. I've said as much here and here. His suggesting that Canada would be "greater" if it acted according to how he thinks it shoud act is presumptuous, to say the least; and personally, I find it quite obnoxious.

[Topaz]

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?

You know, I saw a map of North America after the NAU took hold and Quebec was not part of the NAU, it was country of its own. The way the US felt about the French after 911 they probably think who wants the headache of a war let them go to their own.

[jbg]

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.

Good post and point. The problem, as I see it, with negotiation is that it's constant and never takes a destructive option off the table. To me, even assuming for sake of argument that advocating secession is within the bounds of "freedom" it would seem that one referendum should do it. The matter should not be open for perpetual debate.

[bush_cheney2004]

...His suggesting that Canada would be "greater" if it acted according to how he thinks it shoud act is presumptuous, to say the least; and personally, I find it quite obnoxious.

But Americans are supposed accept identical presumptions on the part of other members with respect to US domestic and foreign policy?

[Wilber]

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

Louis Riel?

[jbg]

But Americans are supposed accept identical presumptions on the part of other members with respect to US domestic and foreign policy?

Are you referring to the penchant for lecturing Americans on warmongering, Bush, etc.?

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you referring to the penchant for lecturing Americans on warmongering, Bush, etc.?

Yes...and many other things....from health care systems to same gender marriage to capital punishment....yada yada yada.

[Guest American Woman]

But Americans are supposed accept identical presumptions on the part of other members with respect to US domestic and foreign policy?

"Identical" would mean 'exactly the same,' so that would not include "warmongering, Bush" etc, as jbg suggested, since the war and Bush's actions have affected the world. Whether or not Canada lets a separatist into their Congress affects no one but Canada. So it's not only presumptious to suggest Canada would be "greater" if it had the same laws as the U.S. in that regard, it's downright arrogant. Furthermore, since jbg links to the thread he started about how great the U.S. is and how much more freedom of speech we have, it's downright hypocritical of him to criticize Canada for allowing greater freedom of speech in that regard than jbg claims the U.S. has.

As for actual "identical presumptions," you actually have to ask me that??

[bush_cheney2004]

"Identical" would mean 'exactly the same,' so that would not include "warmongering, Bush" etc, as jbg suggested, since the war and Bush's actions have affected the world. Whether or not Canada lets a separatist into their Congress affects no one but Canada. So it's not only presumptious to suggest Canada would be "greater" if it had the same laws as the U.S. in that regard, it's downright arrogant.

Nonsense....you may parse it any way you wish...the point is evident and straightforward. It is equally "arrogant" for other members to suggest that US laws should parallel Canada, yet they have the right to do so.

Furthermore, since jbg links to the thread he started about how great the U.S. is and how much more freedom of speech we have, it's downright hypocritical of him to criticize Canada for allowing greater freedom of speech in that regard than jbg claims the U.S. has.

This doesn't change the veracity of jbg's main contention.....more freedom of speech in the USA.

As for actual "identical presumptions," you actually have to ask me that??

Then why did you respond?

[Guest American Woman]

Nonsense....you may parse it any way you wish...the point is evident and straightforward. It is equally "arrogant" for other members to suggest that US laws should parallel Canada, yet they have the right to do so.

Where did I say he didn't have the "right" to? I said it was arrogant and presumptuous, and it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Where did I say he didn't have the "right" to? I said it was arrogant and presumptuous, and it is.

No, you said it was presumptuous and personally obnoxious....this does nothing to change it from being a legitimate point of view and quite expected in the context of a political forum, just like the jabs directed at the USA.

[Shady]

I am currently reading David McCollough's 1776, about the founding of my country. It reminds me that people had to fight for their rights, initially, as Englishmen and when that became untenable for total independence.

I'm also in the process of reading 1776. It's an amazing book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone.

[jbg]

Where did I say he didn't have the "right" to? I said it was arrogant and presumptuous, and it is.

There is nothing arrogant and presumptuous about comparing the advantages and disadvantages of two somewhat similar countries.

[jbg]

I'm also in the process of reading 1776. It's an amazing book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone.

I have since finished that book and am reading Team of Rivals about Lincoln's terms as President.

I think that Canada had some major advantages by not suffering the carnage of either the Revolutionary War or the Civil War. That degree of quiet formation comes with its disadvantages, which include some lack of definition as a nation, and, as stated above, a bit too much tolerance for downright treason.

[Guest American Woman]

No, you said it was presumptuous and personally obnoxious....this does nothing to change it from being a legitimate point of view and quite expected in the context of a political forum, just like the jabs directed at the USA.

One... more ... time. I don't care if he had the "right" to say it, I don't care if such a comment is to be "expected" on a political forum; it's still presumptuous and arrogant, and personally, I find it abnoxious.

Now try to comprehend this. This thread is about Canada and I'm responding to posts in this thread. So if you have a problem with some of the "jabs directed at the USA," I suggest you go respond to those jabs, where ever they may be. In the meantime, I'll continue to respond to posts in this thread. Capice?

[bush_cheney2004]

One... more ... time. I don't care if he had the "right" to say it, I don't care if such a comment is to be "expected" on a political forum; it's still presumptuous and arrogant, and personally, I find it abnoxious.

So what?

Now try to comprehend this. This thread is about Canada and I'm responding to posts in this thread. So if you have a problem with some of the "jabs directed at the USA," I suggest you go respond to those jabs, where ever they may be. In the meantime, I'll continue to respond to posts in this thread. Capice?

I just did....

[Peter F]

I have since finished that book and am reading Team of Rivals about Lincoln's terms as President.

I think that Canada had some major advantages by not suffering the carnage of either the Revolutionary War or the Civil War. That degree of quiet formation comes with its disadvantages, which include some lack of definition as a nation, and, as stated above, a bit too much tolerance for downright treason.

Lack of definition as a nation? What is not defined?

Tolerance for downright treason? What treason? There's no treason at all.

[jbg]

Tolerance for downright treason? What treason? There's no treason at all.

From Frederickton on east (except for a bit a jog to the north) and from Kingston on west (except also for a bit a jog to the north), quite true.

Oops. Louis Riel was west of there, and Benedict Arnold lived out his days in what is now NB. Oops again.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm also in the process of reading 1776. It's an amazing book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone.

I'm in the process of watching the HBO mini-series "John Adams," and it's really good. As I watch, I wonder if the people living in Canada were subjected to the same treatment by England as the "colonies" were; and if so, if it was tolerated there or if there was opposition by some. I'd be interested in learning more about Canada's history along those lines, so if anyone has any suggested reading, etc., it would be appreciated.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm in the process of watching the HBO mini-series "John Adams," and it's really good. As I watch, I wonder if the people living in Canada were subjected to the same treatment by England as the "colonies" were; and if so, if it was tolerated there or if there was opposition by some. I'd be interested in learning more about Canada's history along those lines, so if anyone has any suggested reading, etc., it would be appreciated.

!776 - to 2006 - that sure was a short lived empire. at least you gave it a good try..Egypt lasted for a few thousand years....by the way Canada has no history other than hanging a Meti` and maybe Laura Secord - that became a desert in time>>> oh well - I am not proud to be a Canadian -when the tax departement started to take 100% of my earnings and drove me into proverty as the tax gouls laughed - well - I lost all respect for Canada - seeing their creeps lost respect for me. Imagine that - I started getting cheques with a dollar sign followed by a Zero - then a decimal then a couple of other zeros...I said that I can not operate on nothing..some lawyer from Jamacia..who worked for the feds..laughed at me - and now I am on frinking welfare - 54 dollars to spend after I pay my rent - Canada - a wonderful place - You try sustain on 54 bucks - it takes a crafty person to get buy..thank God I did not listen to the liberal abortion proponent - 24 years ago - or I would not have children and would be sleeping on a grate...the wife and kids send poor dad food on occassion...after all - I worked my ass off to feed them..CANADA _ IS A PRIVATE ESTATE OWNED BY THE QUEEN WITH HORRIBLE MANAGERS THAT HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE INEPT AT RUNNING THE FARM>.

[jbg]

CANADA _ IS A PRIVATE ESTATE OWNED BY THE QUEEN WITH HORRIBLE MANAGERS THAT HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE INEPT AT RUNNING THE FARM>.

Canada is to me one of the great defenders of that noble experiment accidentally started by the British; personal freedom.

[theboss60]

Canada always gets targeted (especially by those living in this country) as not being very patriotic. I personally disagree with this statement. I believe that Canadians are very patriotic. If you have ever been or watched and Ottawa Senators hockey game you hear the fans belting out "O Canada" at every game. They sometimes drown out the actual singer of the anthem. I do not think that there are two many countries that follow a national pass time like we do. Currently the world cup of hockey is being played in Canada. The fan support has been incredible with packed arenas every single game they play. When the World Juniors took place this December (starting on Boxing Day) and January Canadians made the trip to Pardubice, Czech Republic to see their team play. Not to mention all of the players gave up Christmas with their families just to play. In 2002 when Canada's men’s and women’s team won gold medals at the Olympic Games Canadians from all over packed the streets honked their horns and shouted at the top of their lungs (I was a part of this as well). One i will say that most of patriotism I have seen seems to revolve around hockey. However every Canada day I personally go up to Algonquin Park in Ontario and shoot off fireworks and I always wear my Canada shirt and hat. Some would probably disagree saying this is not patriotic but I believe this is a great well to celebrate Canada's birthday. There are still many ways that Canadaians can be more patriotic but I do believe that patriotism is still alive in Canada.

[jbg]

Canada always gets targeted (especially by those living in this country) as not being very patriotic.

Then why, even in relatively pro-American posts, do we come in for criticism of "hyper-patriotism"? Example below:

The "melting pot" way is much better, the US got that one right for sure. While their patriotism sometimes turns into hyper-nationalism and arrogance, i at least admire the Americans' patriotism and pride in their own history.

[Saipan]

One i will say that most of patriotism I have seen seems to revolve around hockey.

That may be nice but it won't defend our country. It's only interest in sport.

It's been said 67% of Concordia students couln't even tell shotgun from a rifle. That's pretty sad when potential enemy train half its 1.3 billion population in military for two years. And even students pre-military training.

Stephen Harper is far more patriotic defending our Northern Passage, even if it has to be militarily. No PM before really cared much.

"You don't have to go through life snarling, but it's

knowing you're willing to fight that keeps the other

dogs out of your dish".

[Moonlight Graham]

You failed history...didn't you....

The purpose of colonization was to insert people into new resource areas and create greater profits for the King. Thus land was occupied, timber, furs and other resources were harvested and returned to Great Britain all in the name of the King. The only thing that has changed is that the King has been replaced by major corporate interests, who are supported by government.

That's an overly simplistic explanation of the purposes of colonialism. There were many purposes/pressures from several different sectors within different European imperial countries, including the private profit sector, public sector, and religious sector. It all doesn't start and end with monarchies and governments, or economics.