Canadians Still Distrust US of A

[Guest American Woman]

Americans are put under a microscope. Apparently at one time the majority said, in a poll, that they thought most people would want to be Americans. I guess that was seen as arrogant and thinking everyone wants to be like us. Yet it seems as if the rest of the world criticizes our gun laws, health care, military, penal system, etc., so apparently they think we should be just like them. And it's ok for them to think it, while it's not ok for us to think it.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Yet it seems as if the rest of the world criticizes our gun laws, health care, military, penal system, etc., so apparently they think we should be just like them. And it's ok for them to think it, while it's not ok for us to think it.

I don't take what they think or say very seriously when the line for entry visas is so long and many never go "home".

[Oleg Bach]

True, but America's potential has already been realized several times over. America will succeed or fail on its own terms, regardless of Canadian distrust even in partnership. Well intentioned but naive comparisons to "cousins", "brothers", or "neighbours" ignores the roles of nation states and interests. I think some Canadians abhor the US because they can't reconcile negative policy judgements with their own economic survival.

Hence...."Damn Americans....I hate those bastards".

MONEY - money money...we equate it with food shelter, power and pleasure. Most Canadians suck up to the states because they think there is a profit in the suck up. It's like calling a person a friend because you get paid to do it. Put the money and power aside for a moment. What I see with YOU is that you know your stuff and are wise in the ways of the world - but...you are also resonable....remember the one writer who said that I was overly sentimental when dealing with you...and that you would bayonet me if commanded to do so..? I disagreed with that idea...As a friend of mine said to me years ago..."eventually you will have to trust someone" Well - BC - I don't know you that well - but I trust you....It might be an old fashioned thing called honor..the young folks are not sure what the means.

[Topaz]

You know last week I heard another Tory politican use the word "harmonizing". It was referring with another item Canada and the US are sharing ,like military, the environment, and there was one more thing, but I can't remember right now. I don't think the people of these two nations want to be one nation, but our politicans may have a different view and they have the power to get the job done.I suggesting to all on here, just listen more when the seating governments speaks and when the word "harmonizing" is used.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... I don't think the people of these two nations want to be one nation, but our politicans may have a different view and they have the power to get the job done.I suggesting to all on here, just listen more when the seating governments speaks and when the word "harmonizing" is used.

Won't matter....Canada would be only 8% of the North American population...harmonized or not.

[PocketRocket]

The "invasion" was completed years ago when Canadians began taking the money.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but that would imply that about 1/2 the nations of the world have been similarly "invaded".

You are mistaken...American elections are not about the best possible man (or woman)...same as in Canada. Oh....wait...you don't even get to select him or her.....best or not.

True. They are about making people THINK this is the best man/woman for the job. I chose that word very carefully in my initial post.

[PocketRocket]

As heartwarming it is to hear that "the people themselves do not bother you" ( ) you might want to take a look at your own government. You do realize Harper is Canada's PM, right?

I'm glad to hear I warmed your heart, AM

As for Harper, I do NOT consider him the best person for the job, but given the alternatives at the time he was elected, he was probably the "least worst" person who could realistically be expected to win the election.

I didn't vote for him, but in retrospect, he's done no worse than most other PM's, and better than some.

Like the man once said, if you can't think of who you want to vote FOR, then think of who you want to vote AGAINST.

[PocketRocket]

It's all phony in my opinion. We are .. Canadian. We don't have to articulate what that means .. we know. Same as every other nationality in every other country.

Especially since, given your views that I should not have been allowed at the 2005 CPC convention, you don't want Americans to articulate anything about Canada. Or perhaps since you're so blitheringly inarticulate yourself.

Are you still telling the same lie jbg? I said nothing of the sort and have pointed this out to you more than once. I have quoted exactly what I did say more than once. Your lies say more about you than they do about me.

And I don't have to be anti-American to call you on it. I just have to be anti-liar. Your nationality has no bearing in the matter

I am not going to dig back through posts made in July or August 2006 to expose the fact that you are lieing. Your response is a smokescreen, itself belied by the post I responded to.

The purpose of the smokescreen is to avoid showing that you are intellectually incapable of saying anything about Canadian identity.

You know jbg, I'm sick of this. I've proven time and again that you are lying. Enough, just enough. If you can't add to the topic, just leave. This personal attack is unwarranted and against the rules.

You get what you give.

Now, please express your thoughts on Canadian identity.

It seems to me we have drifted a bit, but into two different issues.

First we have JBG accusing FORTUNATA of being a liar, apparently for something said several months ago.

Well, JBG, since this is a publicly-made accusation, and not all of us were here at that time, then the onus is on you to show evidence to back up your words, so kindly cite the posts in question, please, or else take your argument into private messages between the two of you. I am sure I'm not the only member who isn't interested in a "Youe lie", "Do not", "Do so", schoolyard-type spat.

The second issue you've drifted into is the old Canadian Identity thing.

Well, there is already a thread open on that issue, so why not discuss it over there???

[PocketRocket]

I actually went back and read the thread you are referring to. His response wasn't in regards to your "presence on MLW," but rather your posting about the US in the Federal Politics Forum and your claims to be a liberal (which I've questioned myself). Also, he did not say you should not have been allowed at the 2005 CPC convention; he said he found it strange that you attended.

Seriously, three years is too long to carry a grudge. By now you should either let it go, or ignore him and simply not respond to his posts. Furthermore, bringing up ancient history without a link to prove your claims really isn't fair.

Two thumbs up for this. You beat me to it, but I left mine up anyhow.

[bush_cheney2004]

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but that would imply that about 1/2 the nations of the world have been similarly "invaded".

For me, that's the only way of looking at it (economics). Reminds me of the punchline to a very old joke...."Madam, we have already established what you are....we are just negotiating the price".

True. They are about making people THINK this is the best man/woman for the job. I chose that word very carefully in my initial post.

Maybe, but it's not universal. I know very well that few of our political candidates are the "best in class" at anything. People of such caliber are most often doing far more important or meaningful things.

[Guest American Woman]

As for Harper, I do NOT consider him the best person for the job, but given the alternatives at the time he was elected, he was probably the "least worst" person who could realistically be expected to win the election.

I didn't vote for him, but in retrospect, he's done no worse than most other PM's, and better than some.

Like the man once said, if you can't think of who you want to vote FOR, then think of who you want to vote AGAINST.

That's fine, but to criticize Americans for electing Bush (some of whom did vote for him as a vote against someone else), while giving a pass to Canadians when Harper is your PM, makes no sense. Let's face it; Harper is basically a Canadian Bush.

[PocketRocket]

For me, that's the only way of looking at it (economics). Reminds me of the punchline to a very old joke...."Madam, we have already established what you are....we are just negotiating the price".

I've always liked that joke, and all it's analogs.

Maybe, but it's not universal. I know very well that few of our political candidates are the "best in class" at anything. People of such caliber are most often doing far more important or meaningful things.

True again, but to many among the "unwashed masses", whoever is running is "the best available".

There is some truth in that, if "available" simply means "has been pushed to the front of the party".

[PocketRocket]

That's fine, but to criticize Americans for electing Bush (some of whom did vote for him as a vote against someone else), while giving a pass to Canadians when Harper is your PM, makes no sense. Let's face it; Harper is basically a Canadian Bush.

Weeeeeelllllll....the crack about Bush was at least a LITTLE bit tongue-in-cheek.

And I would content that Harper is not even CLOSE to being another Bush, at least not unless he got a lobotomy that no one told me about. For one thing he is semi-articulate.......

If you really want to make that single one-liner an issue, we can go around in circles on this indefinitely, but to compare ANYONE to Bush is silly. He was possibly the least-intelligent, worst-spoken, most-self-contradicting and self-congratulatory waste of flesh ever seen as the leader of a free nation.

I would tend to compare Harper more to Bush senior or Reagan that to Bush Jr.

But we are drifting, for which I already scolded someone else.

If you want a serious debate on comparisons of Harper vs anyone else, then open another thread on it.

Personally, I am not interested.

[Guest American Woman]

If I wanted to open another thread on it, I would; but since I couldn't be less interested, I'll continue posting in this thread.

You made the comment, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise, that Americans aren't trustworthy because they elected Bush; I just pointed out that you have Harper for PM, which really makes your comment rather ridiculous, to put it kindly. Of course Harper isn't literally another Bush, because Canada isn't another United States. But given the chance, I'm sure Harper would be in the same league as Bush. Furthermore, I'm sure he'd love that chance.

It's actually quite amusing how Canadians like you make excuses for Harper and Brits made excuses for re-electing Blair, as they criticize Americans for Bush. Talk about having different standards for you and for us. But keep telling yourselves 'but... but....it's different for us!' Whatever gets you through the night.

[PocketRocket]

Back on topic, many say that the similarity between Americans and Canadians is noteworthy.

I don't see it that way. Consider that the two countries were founded at virtually the same time, in the same way, with lots of cross-pollination between the borders. Both were built by immigrants who tamed wild frontiers. Both went through separation pains from their parent countries. Both saw internal wars fought. Both had cowboys, indians, buffalo, beaver, various wildcats, bears, wolves elk, deer, etc etc etc. Both began their existence based largely on their fur trades.

If all else remained the same, but the two countries were on opposite sides of the planet, there would still be similarities; look at the Aussies, aside from their accent, not much to distinguish them from us.

Is it any wonder the two countries are so similar???

As an aside which does relate to this thread, a friend and I were speaking a while back. It started with the NFL. He made the observation (tongue in cheek again, AM) that no matter what they are participating in, the USA is not satisfied with being anything but "world champions".

He pointed out that whoever wins the Superbowl is declared "World Champions".

Of course the fact that the game is not played on any other continent makes no matter here.

But it doesn't stop with the NFL.

The NBA......World Champs. Did anyone invite any European teams to compete???

World Series of Baseball......World Champs. Did anyone invite any Japanese teams to compete???

It's almost like professional wrestling where every regional promotion used to have their own "World Champ". Doesn't matter that there's another world champ less than 100 miles away.

Back when Canadian teams dominated the NHL, we were quite happy to call them "Stanley Cup Winner" or "NHL Champions", in effect acknowledging the fact that not all the hockey-playing nations in the world had been represented.

Why this need of Americans to affirm their superiority???

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that Canadians suffer from insecurity.

Isn't a symptom of insecurity the need to congratulate oneself constantly about how wonderful one is???

Hmmmmm. I don't see too many large groups of Canadians, on their home soil at large sporting events chanting "Ca-na-da".

OTOH, you can barely turn to any sporting event involving American teams without suffering through the perennial "U-S-A.....U-S-A" being chanted by tens of thousands of people.

Why this need of Americans to affirm their general wonderfulness???

Even back to the Atlanta Olympics. Tradition, for over a hundred years, has dictated that the winner of the 100-yard dash is known as "The world's fastest man/woman". And yet, when Donovan Bailey won that race in Atlanta, suddenly the American who won the 200-meter race was the world's fastest, at least in all the American media. America simply made itself look ridiculous in the eyes of the world by taking this stance.

Change the rules, or at least the tradition, just to say "We have the world's fastest man"???

So tell me again, as a nation, who is more insecure???

Why is it that after any such event, there are tens of thousands of Americans chanting "We're number one, we're number one"???

Is a silver medal such a shame???

I know I'm Canadian. I know my country is great. (Does not necessarily make ME great, but...)

I don't have to tell myself or anyone else how wonderful Canada is.

Those that have been here know.

Yes, I am a proud Canadian, and when Elvis Stojko wins silver at the Olympics, I have no shame in saying "We're number two".

[PocketRocket]

If I wanted to open another thread on it, I would; but since I couldn't be less interested, I'll continue posting in this thread.

For someone who could not be less interested, you seem to be like a rottweiler with a grip on the mailman's leg....you cannot seem to let go.

You made the comment, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise, that Americans aren't trustworthy because they elected Bush; I just pointed out that you have Harper for PM, which really makes your comment rather ridiculous, to put it kindly. Of course Harper isn't literally another Bush, because Canada isn't another United States. But given the chance, I'm sure Harper would be in the same league as Bush. Furthermore, I'm sure he'd love that chance.

Unfounded speculation, something for which you've scolded others. I expect better from you.

It's actually quite amusing how Canadians like you make excuses for Harper and Brits made excuses for re-electing Blair, as they criticize Americans for Bush. Talk about having different standards for you and for us. But keep telling yourselves 'but... but....it's different for us!' Whatever gets you through the night.

I haven't made excuses for Harper. I don't see that he's done the job any worse than many others who've held his post.

But regarding his election, even if he is as poor a choice as Bush, something upon which I do not agree, he has still not been elected to a second term, although if the competition doesn't get smart, that may well happen.

Contrarily, there were some worthy opponents running against Bush.....

[Guest American Woman]

For someone who could not be less interested, you seem to be like a rottweiler with a grip on the mailman's leg....you cannot seem to let go.

Try to comprehend what I'm commenting on ... and what I said I'm not interested in. And if you manage to do that, let me know ..... and then perhaps I'll read what you have to say ......

[bush_cheney2004]

....If all else remained the same, but the two countries were on opposite sides of the planet, there would still be similarities;

Then why is one a superpower of 300 million, while the other distrusts because it is not?

[Fortunata]

Americans are put under a microscope. Apparently at one time the majority said, in a poll, that they thought most people would want to be Americans. I guess that was seen as arrogant and thinking everyone wants to be like us. Yet it seems as if the rest of the world criticizes our gun laws, health care, military, penal system, etc., so apparently they think we should be just like them. And it's ok for them to think it, while it's not ok for us to think it.

Canadians are under a microscope as well. Only it's our microscope instead of the world's. And, I think, our own is more critical than any you face. We always seem to be questioning ourselves over every little thing. This is part of what and who we are, for better or for worse.

As for Americans being criticized ... I think when a country proclaims it's the "best and greatest" democracy, institutions, etc. it's only normal you come under fire, if only to dispel the myth that you are superior. Or to make the inferior feel superior. Or a bit of both. Mostly, from where Canadians sit, we don't see you the best and greatest in everything. Some things better, of course. Some worse, undoubtedly.

All in all there are quite a few pluses in flying under the radar.

[jbg]

That's fine, but to criticize Americans for electing Bush (some of whom did vote for him as a vote against someone else), while giving a pass to Canadians when Harper is your PM, makes no sense. Let's face it; Harper is basically a Canadian Bush.

That's going a bit far. He's closer to a McCain.

[jbg]

Try to comprehend what I'm commenting on ... and what I said I'm not interested in. And if you manage to do that, let me know ..... and then perhaps I'll read what you have to say ......

He's an idiot. Don't waste your time.

[Smallc]

Harper is nothing like Bush. He is pragmatic and dishonest. Bush wasn't really pragmatic at all, but I'd say he was more honest.

[PocketRocket]

If you want a serious debate on comparisons of Harper vs anyone else, then open another thread on it.

Personally, I am not interested.

Try to comprehend what I'm commenting on ... and what I said I'm not interested in. And if you manage to do that, let me know ..... and then perhaps I'll read what you have to say ......

I would assume those two quotes are connected. And yet if you're not interested you still immediately follow with......

You made the comment, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise, that Americans aren't trustworthy because they elected Bush; I just pointed out that you have Harper for PM, which really makes your comment rather ridiculous, to put it kindly. Of course Harper isn't literally another Bush, because Canada isn't another United States. But given the chance, I'm sure Harper would be in the same league as Bush. Furthermore, I'm sure he'd love that chance.

....in which you're not only back to drawing comparisons, but also speculating on what you think Harper would become if HE were in charge of "another United States".

I believe I comprehend quite well in this case.

[PocketRocket]

Seeing that American Woman's comment, to which this was the reply, was directed at me, I can only assume this comment is ABOUT me....

He's an idiot. Don't waste your time.

....Someone once said that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

On the internet, personal insults are about as close to violence as you can get.

Do the math.

Edited November 13, 2009 by PocketRocket

[Oleg Bach]

For me, that's the only way of looking at it (economics). Reminds me of the punchline to a very old joke...."Madam, we have already established what you are....we are just negotiating the price".

Maybe, but it's not universal. I know very well that few of our political candidates are the "best in class" at anything. People of such caliber are most often doing far more important or meaningful things.

Yah like being Bush Cheney or Oleg Bach. Worldly abmition and the need to be important usually attracts those that are of little importance with great ambition who strive for great status politically and socially..meanwhile those that feel secure about who they are and do not care to be worshipped to not enter public life...so you get inferiours running the show..unless they are dedicated to public service for the right reasons - and there are almost none of this type of person left - do you think that Hilary would do what she does if she had to do it from the shadows as an unknown? Not likely! It's all about ego - or the need of it.