Who Hates the USA?

[mcqueen625]

LEAFLESS:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

The purpose behind a poll was to simply have a look at the alleged "hatred" of Canadians toward the USA.

Far too many threads have been either started or sidetracked by accusations of Canadians "hating" the USA.

These invariably come from a select few posters who are using it as a sweeping blanket accusation of all so called "Lefties".

It does little to advance logical debate, and I am hoping to set that particular issue to rest, or at the very least, minimize its recurrence on this board.

If I speak out against policies of a current American administration, it certainly does not mean I hate the USA, but that seems to be the interpetation given to many such posts by those who disagree with the poster.

I think you are right, and a good part of the blame for this is misleading editorials by pro-Liberal, Pro-NDP news agencies like most of our mainstream media here in Canada, such as CTV, CBC, Global. Most of these people THINK they speak for Canadians when the truth is they speak only from their own biases. How many times have we seen both CBC, and CTV imitate shows currently on U.S networks, as if we need any more posers just so some second-rate actors can get media exposure funded with taxpayer's dollars through Heritage Canada. I think it is time the our government gets out of the movie and entertainment business, does away with Heritage Canada and start using those taxpayers dollars where they will do far more good.

[guyser]

How many times have we seen both CBC, and CTV imitate shows currently on U.S networks, as if we need any more posers just so some second-rate actors can get media exposure funded with taxpayer's dollars through Heritage Canada.

Which ones have we imitated ?

[sideshow]

I dont hate the US at all. I dislike some of their foreign policies, and think that there is an arrogance level in their senior government that is a bit disconcerting, but in the end, Americans are just people wanting the same thing as Canadians-prosperity, health, freedom, etc. They have just followed a bit of a different (and not really that different) path than us to get there.

Most Americans can be compared to most Canadians-there are desirables, and undesirables in both countries.

[jbg]

I dont hate the US at all. I dislike some of their foreign policies, and think that there is an arrogance level in their senior government that is a bit disconcerting, but in the end, Americans are just people wanting the same thing as Canadians-prosperity, health, freedom, etc. They have just followed a bit of a different (and not really that different) path than us to get there.

Most Americans can be compared to most Canadians-there are desirables, and undesirables in both countries.

Off the pigs!!!! Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!!!

Hugo Chavez Rocks!!!

[daniel]

I dont hate the US at all. I dislike some of their foreign policies, ...

Yes, but since the invasion of Iraq, some people keep equating that criticizing US government policies is equivalent to hating Americans. You can try to explain the difference again, but some people would just think that you're "a broken record".

[kuzadd]

I dont hate the US at all. I dislike some of their foreign policies, ...

Yes, but since the invasion of Iraq, some people keep equating that criticizing US government policies is equivalent to hating Americans. You can try to explain the difference again, but some people would just think that you're "a broken record".

Yes, but since the invasion of Iraq, some people keep equating that criticizing US government policies is equivalent to hating Americans."

that is soley because those people making that type of 'equating', are simple minded, requiring simple , thought and statements, easy for there comprehension, I'll reword, "simple thoughts for simple minds" and that's all there is too it!

It goes without saying one can disagree with US foreign policy, but , there is no need to "hate Americans"

Unless one thinks ALL America is , is their foreign policy, which is of course ludicrous!

it's no different then not liking all the actions your kids take, BUT, no matter what , loving them just the same!!

I'll assume that if these persons who espouse these simplistic thought, equates, disciplining there child (through restriction of priveleges, as an example) as meaning they hate there own kids, because certainly in disciplining your kids, you would have to be critical and criticism equals hatred, to the simple folk.

simple thoughts for simple minds!

[ft.niagara]

that is soley because those people making that type of 'equating', are simple minded, requiring simple , thought and statements, easy for there comprehension, I'll reword, "simple thoughts for simple minds" and that's all there is too it!

That is not quite all there is to it. I am an American, and I understand the US needs to defend itself. End of story. I can understand that after 911, the US with some prodding, felt it necessary to check out what was going on inside Iraq. There was at best conflicting information, and many UN resolutions which went unanswered. Besides, it was time to kick some butt. At that time, people were critical, France, Germany, Canada. In my opinion, that was unacceptable.

After it was found that there were no WMD, it was time to leave, period. At this time, the voice should be, "in your best interest, leave", however, the same antiUS crap, from the same mouths denotes the simple minds who spout it. This whole thing is not simple, it is complex. The who, why, what, where requires some thought, not the "simple thoughts for simple minds" knee jerk blabber expoused above. This whole 'who hates the US" thread which will not die is positive only to those who wish to continually twist the knife.

[guyser]

. This whole 'who hates the US" thread which will not die is positive only to those who wish to continually twist the knife.

A dumb topic with a dumb name. And those who continually twist the knife are small in numbers and generally misguided. Take no heed from them.

[scribblet]

Well let me make this simple for those simple minded who do seem to think that U.S. bashing is a national sport.

U.S. bashing is more than normal critique of policy, it is a radical extreme, where the goal is not to advise and help, but to condemn and destroy.

Those who bash rather than give normal critique only wish to repudiate and destroy everything the U.S. does; they view every U.S. action both past and present as wrong, no matter what, nothing the U.S. does is ever right. That is the difference between constructive crit, and radical U.S. bashing.

[kuzadd]

that is soley because those people making that type of 'equating', are simple minded, requiring simple , thought and statements, easy for there comprehension, I'll reword, "simple thoughts for simple minds" and that's all there is too it!

That is not quite all there is to it. I am an American, and I understand the US needs to defend itself. End of story. I can understand that after 911, the US with some prodding, felt it necessary to check out what was going on inside Iraq. There was at best conflicting information, and many UN resolutions which went unanswered. Besides, it was time to kick some butt. At that time, people were critical, France, Germany, Canada. In my opinion, that was unacceptable.

After it was found that there were no WMD, it was time to leave, period. At this time, the voice should be, "in your best interest, leave", however, the same antiUS crap, from the same mouths denotes the simple minds who spout it. This whole thing is not simple, it is complex. The who, why, what, where requires some thought, not the "simple thoughts for simple minds" knee jerk blabber expoused above. This whole 'who hates the US" thread which will not die is positive only to those who wish to continually twist the knife.

"That is not quite all there is to it. I am an American, and I understand the US needs to defend itself. End of story. I can understand that after 911, the US with some prodding, felt it necessary to check out what was going on inside Iraq. There was at best conflicting information, and many UN resolutions which went unanswered. Besides, it was time to kick some butt. "

"I understand the US needs to defend itself." If one is not being attacked ,one cannot defend. Your claiming the US was defending itself against Iraq, this is a false claim.

to need to 'defend ' oneself, one needs to be attacked.

You do understand that is symbiotic,, right?

For if not attacked,there is nothing to defend against.

"I can understand that after 911, the US with some prodding, felt it necessary to check out what was going on inside Iraq. "

9/11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 , only the excessive use of propaganda cojoined them in irrational minds. ( not trying to be personally insulting) why I use the term irrational is a rational mind would NOT have cojoined Iraq and 9/11, based on the fact that there was NO evidence, connecting them.

" There was at best conflicting information, and many UN resolutions which went unanswered."

There were plenty and I mean plenty of people, shouting from the rooftops those truths, including the US's own agencies. These people were intentionally slandered, and fear was used against the populace.

"Besides, it was time to kick some butt. "

blatant machsimo, also irrational, should not be the basis of foreign policy, and actually, it isn't!!

it is blind rah-rahing.

"In my opinion, that was unacceptable." criticism is unacceptable?? Criticism is necessary! Criticism keeps people rational! Criticism can encourage open-mindedness, the development of alternatives, etc.,

This whole 'who hates the US" thread which will not die is positive only to those who wish to continually twist the knife.

In your own way, without realizing it, you demonstrated, exactly what I said.

You went through a string of 'justifications of American actions, based on false reasoning inc 9/11, then again attacked critics, as twisting the knife.(being hateful)

as a newer poster here, I thought I would put a thought here on the topic.

I stand by what I said.

The type of thinking displayed is simplistic and unrealistic.

Like a child who needs criticism to correct and guide, when on the wrong track, criticism is valid. It is not an indication of hate, but an indication of concern.

I will go further and say this use of ugly language to attack critics, is an attempt to censor opionions, that cannot be rationally (with reason) disputed. So the use of attacking, or negative labelling is a way to squelch criticism, without looking at the criticism, just discrediting, the critic. Therefore, one never has to acknowledge the possibility that one is mistaken, nor accept another's point of view, nor even consider another point of view, one can simply attack the critic as hateful and then dismiss them.

again , simplistic!

[ft.niagara]

I will go further and say this use of ugly language to attack critics, is an attempt to censor opionions, that cannot be rationally (with reason) disputed. So the use of attacking, or negative labelling is a way to squelch criticism, without looking at the criticism, just discrediting, the critic. Therefore, one never has to acknowledge the possibility that one is mistaken, nor accept another's point of view, nor even consider another point of view, one can simply attack the critic as hateful and then dismiss them.

again , simplistic!

Your moronic postings make me laugh. It looks like you just joined, so why don't you just take the time and read the other 18 pages of 'Who Hates the US'. The whole issue certainly has been covered, you're a little late in the game. Get off your high horse and read them, and btw, the CN tower wasn't blown down, so where is your moral authority to huff and puff. As far as your 'simplistic' rant, you are a typical elitist who thinks they are something special. You're not. You take a crap the same as everybody else, just probably more often for the obvious reason.

And talk about using ugly language to discredit a critic, what is "that is soley because those people making that type of 'equating', are simple minded, requiring simple , thought and statements, easy for there comprehension, I'll reword, "simple thoughts for simple minds" and that's all there is too it!" Go read a political book. You are probably not out of high school yet.

[kuzadd]

I will go further and say this use of ugly language to attack critics, is an attempt to censor opionions, that cannot be rationally (with reason) disputed. So the use of attacking, or negative labelling is a way to squelch criticism, without looking at the criticism, just discrediting, the critic. Therefore, one never has to acknowledge the possibility that one is mistaken, nor accept another's point of view, nor even consider another point of view, one can simply attack the critic as hateful and then dismiss them.

again , simplistic!

Your moronic postings make me laugh. It looks like you just joined, so why don't you just take the time and read the other 18 pages of 'Who Hates the US'. The whole issue certainly has been covered, you're a little late in the game. Get off your high horse and read them, and btw, the CN tower wasn't blown down, so where is your moral authority to huff and puff. As far as your 'simplistic' rant, you are a typical elitist who thinks they are something special. You're not. You take a crap the same as everybody else, just probably more often for the obvious reason.

And talk about using ugly language to discredit a critic, what is "that is soley because those people making that type of 'equating', are simple minded, requiring simple , thought and statements, easy for there comprehension, I'll reword, "simple thoughts for simple minds" and that's all there is too it!" Go read a political book. You are probably not out of high school yet.

I would presume it is your postings that keep'em laughing.

Loaded with assumptions, and more.

Like Your an 'elitist', BUT, then I am "probably not out of high school"??? Of course, you are certain, I think I am special? well which is it? Am I elitist, special, or not out of high school?

Does it even matter, as long as you think you are insulting me?

and you still play the 9/11 card wrt to Iraq, NO connection ok??

BTW: I like the "moral authority" questioning. Is that how you see your postings, having "moral authority'??

I thought we were all just exchanging opinions?? huh! who knew, it was all about "moral authority" percveived or otherwise??

BTW: thanks for the "warm" welcome. LOL!

[White Doors]

Well. another one to add to the ignore list.

[scribblet]

Well. another one to add to the ignore list.

Anyone who doesn't agree with her is simple hmmm Think I'll join you on that one now, faster than SOB

[kuzadd]

Well. another one to add to the ignore list.

trolling or flaming?

I wondered, because being new here, I did read the forum rules

NO TROLLING/FLAMING

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

and then scriblett joins in?!

but neither of you had anything to add to the discussion???????

[ScottSA]

Well let me make this simple for those simple minded who do seem to think that U.S. bashing is a national sport.

U.S. bashing is more than normal critique of policy, it is a radical extreme, where the goal is not to advise and help, but to condemn and destroy.

Those who bash rather than give normal critique only wish to repudiate and destroy everything the U.S. does; they view every U.S. action both past and present as wrong, no matter what, nothing the U.S. does is ever right. That is the difference between constructive crit, and radical U.S. bashing.

Sort of like Bush derangement syndrome, wherein every action, every thought, every breath Bush takes is evil. Not only is Bush the moral equivalent of Beelzebub, but his father, mother, extended family, distant relatives and even his circle of acquaintances are tainted, to the bone, with hellgloop. Some even try to drag his ancestors into the mire, by virtue of the fact that this or that one knew someone who had a maid who had a son who saw Hitler in a parade once, thereby establishing a clear link between Bush and Hitler.

Same with a lot of asinine canadians when the US comes up for discussion. A short history of the US in this view is that a bunch of white grandees floated over from England, killed the indians, slaughtered the buffalo, started oil companies just to annoy mother earth, nuked the japanese after locking them up for no good reason, napalmed the vietnamese for entertainment while polluting the bejesus out of everything in sight, oppressed el salvador for fun and then invaded iraq so they could steal the oil.

[ft.niagara]

well which is it? Am I elitist, special, or not out of high school?

Anyone who refers to another as simple minded is an elitist (thinks they are smarter, better educated).

No you are not special.

You are immature, and therefore my high school analogy.

And no, these are not assumptions, they are facts.

[jbg]

Another "bickering" thread?

[scribblet]

Sort of like Bush derangement syndrome, wherein every action, every thought, every breath Bush takes is evil. Not only is Bush the moral equivalent of Beelzebub, but his father, mother, extended family, distant relatives and even his circle of acquaintances are tainted, to the bone, with hellgloop. Some even try to drag his ancestors into the mire, by virtue of the fact that this or that one knew someone who had a maid who had a son who saw Hitler in a parade once, thereby establishing a clear link between Bush and Hitler.

Exactly, BDR is an unreasoning hatred. Is it strictly because of the Iraq war, or do they hate Bush because he and the republicans come between them and their vision of Utopia.

The big difference between constructive crit. and BDR is that their crit. is malevolent towards him and the U.S. They simply want the US. to fail at anything and everything it does and appear to openly cheer for the enemy.

edited to correct spelling

[kuzadd]

well which is it? Am I elitist, special, or not out of high school?

Anyone who refers to another as simple minded is an elitist (thinks they are smarter, better educated).

No you are not special.

You are immature, and therefore my high school analogy.

And no, these are not assumptions, they are facts.

Dearest Ft Niagara: I will leave you and your cohorts to your flaming, etc.,

If you would have wished to discuss, why my opinion, on the fact that people who equate through

simplistic reasoning, criticism = hatred, was faulty. Using an anology as an example?

I used the example of being critical of a child's behaviour for the benefit of the child, is not hateful, but done out of concern, love and an attempt at guidance.

Unfortunately instead, yourself and other chose to demonstrate, IMO, the irrational attacking/name calling.

I will leave you to it.

It does bring to mind the said analogy of the child, who, cries," You hate me", when disciplined, and throws him/herself, down on the ground, whatever, because there mind cannot , at that time, process, what as a loving parent, is actually being done is for there benefit, perhaps even saving there very life. So they act irrationally in response.

Do you really wonder, why I come to the conclusion that I do??

When I look at the responses of yourself and your equals??

No wondering is necessary.

Good-day.

[jbg]

The big difference between constructive crit. and BDR is that their crit. is malevolent towards him and the U.S. They simply want the US. to fail at anything and everything it does and appear to openly cheer for the enemy.

Neocons and neo-libs (Bush and Bill Clinton, respectively) have always aroused irrational hatreds. I suspect the reason may relate to their "crossover" appeal and the suspicion that they can do far more damage that a right- or left-wing idealogue.

[ScottSA]

The big difference between constructive crit. and BDR is that their crit. is malevolent towards him and the U.S. They simply want the US. to fail at anything and everything it does and appear to openly cheer for the enemy.

Neocons and neo-libs (Bush and Bill Clinton, respectively) have always aroused irrational hatreds. I suspect the reason may relate to their "crossover" appeal and the suspicion that they can do far more damage that a right- or left-wing idealogue.

I've been checking through political BBs for over a decade, and there was never anything remotely like BDR against Clinton. Not ever. Lots of snide commentary about Monica, some criticism of Kosovo, but never the gleeful bodycounts, desperate apologia and outright cheering for the enemy that goes on today. Nothing even close.

[Black Dog]

Another "bickering" thread?

Notice any common demoninators?

[guyser]

I've been checking through political BBs for over a decade, and there was never anything remotely like BDR against Clinton. Not ever.

Respectively then , I would suggest you either (A) are not being truthful ( are being truthful but did not see the real truth or © never went near a right wing BB .

A decade ago, perhaps...perhaps that was true, but since then , plenty of BB's are vociferously anti-Clinton even to this day. They are now though switching gears against Pelosi and Gore.

Editted to add: DU is the worst of the worst, and seems to me to be a juvenile place to post.Of course they are all about BDS.

[Canadian Blue]

Anyone ever hear of Troopergate?

Clinton was somehwhat popular as president, even when he was getting impeached. Many consider Bush to be the worst president ever.

I've noticed that lately the bickering thread's have one thing in common, but I'm not sure what it is.