Why Doesn't the US Respect Canada More?

[bush_cheney2004]

I believe that the US started to slide down hill when JF Kennedy was murdered by their own people just like they did with King and Bobby Kennedy. Every president since then except for Reagan and Carter, have take the country closer the the bottom of the barrel and leave it to GW to hit the bottom!!

Yea...things were just great with Jimmy Carter...yessuh!

I remember the US as a country with respectability and now its known for torturing, invading and a war mongering country. I hope the next president can, not turn the page, but start a new book and get the US back were it once was.

Nope...your memory is rose colored....American flags have been burned around the world for over 100 years. I am sure that, if elected, Obama will promptly bomb some poor bastard just like his predecessors. Salute!

[Oleg Bach]

We never fully respect the reality that America is now a huge crimminal enterprise - that needs to be cleaned up ...this is a fact dispite what the propogandist in the media and Hollywood put out...We have a media and general culture much like a father confessor you tells you that as you behave badly you are a good boy - and bad boys love being told they are good - which encourages them to be bad ....I knew a horrible man who did horrible things and he had a wife who knew better but never corrected him - because she wanted him to be weak in his error...much like we as cowards approve of the bad behavour of the US because we thing of them as our evil masters and some how a crumb of bread will fall from the masters table - seems the only crumbs that are falling a digits in the stock market - we must speak up and go for broke and say _That is wrong - Just as Pontious Pilate asked Christ - "what is truth" - he asked because he did not have a clue what realtiy is - America is like this and has to be told - like a big dumb child.

[bush_cheney2004]

....we must speak up and go for broke and say _That is wrong - Just as Pontious Pilate asked Christ - "what is truth" - he asked because he did not have a clue what realtiy is - America is like this and has to be told - like a big dumb child.

Nah..that would ruin all the fun. America may be big and dumb, but it is certainly no child. August said it best....nobody else rescues America.

[Kitch]

OK...but it is well known for a reason, no? America has been very successful, with ups and downs along the way, since those words were penned. Today's events are in keeping with that fine tradition.

As for the quote, no biggee, since most Americans wouldn't know the distinction either.

Hahaha, nice.

America has been successful indeed. I mean, it depends on your definition of success, but yes, they've (you?) been successful in a number of ways.

I'm not even really saying that the constitution needs to be re-worked. It doesn't hurt to question the validity of certain amendments from time to time though. And maybe a re-examination means nothing more than adopting a different interpretation of the same words. Or maybe the way that you achieve a certain... ideal... has to change from time to time.

Our 'culture' has changed a lot in the past 100 years and there's no reason to believe that it won't continue to change... the same, I believe, could be assumed for many cultures. My grandparents viewed black people in a different light than I do... banks used to give credit cards to people who were low risk, now they give them to people who are likely to make low monthly payments and carry a balance... there are many ways that our 'world' has changed and there needs to be checks and balances to make sure that people remain 'free'. ALL people.

[Kitch]

Yea...things were just great with Jimmy Carter...yessuh!

Nope...your memory is rose colored....American flags have been burned around the world for over 100 years. I am sure that, if elected, Obama will promptly bomb some poor bastard just like his predecessors. Salute!

Is that true??? 100 years?? Wow.

I think Obama will bomb some country too. As far as I've read, every single president has done something to some other country for... different reasons.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is that true??? 100 years?? Wow.

Yep...you ain't shit until somebody else burns your flag in protest.

I think Obama will bomb some country too. As far as I've read, every single president has done something to some other country for... different reasons.

Well, Obama did promise "Change".

[Sir Bandelot]

Well, Obama did promise "Change".

Right, and Obama does sound a bit like "bomb", so...

[Kitch]

Right, and Obama does sound a bit like "bomb", so...

I personally think Obama will be good for the states... in my humble and relatively uninformed opinion. But he will be an American president and I can't think of one who didn't use some military force, whether official or not, in some other country.

[Kitch]

Yep...you ain't shit until somebody else burns your flag in protest.

I know you're joking, but that is something some people would take pride in.

[Kitch]

I'm not even really saying that the constitution needs to be re-worked. It doesn't hurt to question the validity of certain amendments from time to time though. And maybe a re-examination means nothing more than adopting a different interpretation of the same words. Or maybe the way that you achieve a certain... ideal... has to change from time to time.

But seriously, is it not dangerous to even use a word like 'unpatriotic' to describe people? Isn't the word 'treason' or 'treasonous' good enough? Those are unambiguous whereas 'unpatriotic' could be (and is) used in such a way to control the behaviour of certain people.

[M.Dancer]

I personally think Obama will be good for the states... in my humble and relatively uninformed opinion. But he will be an American president and I can't think of one who didn't use some military force, whether official or not, in some other country.

Jimmy Carter. Unless you can count a badly hatched, poorly executed hostage extraction mission.

...that which sunk his relection bid.

[Kitch]

Jimmy Carter. Unless you can count a badly hatched, poorly executed hostage extraction mission.

...that which sunk his relection bid.

Wasn't he involved in Latin America?

[bush_cheney2004]

Jimmy Carter. Unless you can count a badly hatched, poorly executed hostage extraction mission.

...that which sunk his relection bid.

He was sunk for other reasons as well, but Carter also engaged "the enemy" covertly in places like Afghanistan, Cambodia, El Salvador, and Zaire. Unfortunately, he was guided by Zbigniew Brzezinski, now regarded as Kissinger Light.

And of course, the Cold War went on with business as usual.

Edited October 29, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

Well that's not fair. I don't believe that you REALLY think that Canadians are stupid, or that we don't understand America.

No, White Doors was asking "what part of Preamble to US Constitution would a Canadian want to change. I pointed out the quote he was referring to came from the Declaration of Independence and suggested that many Canadians would disagree with much of its contents. I was not suggesting stupidity at all.

(In case you're correcting me, I wasn't quoting the thing... as indicated by the ' instead of "... and I wasn't referencing anything. Just paraphrasing a well known American sentence).

Anyway, White Doors posted

I don't know bud. I don't claim to have any answers for America's problems, I just asked a question. It doesn't hurt to re-examine things that you hold to be true every once in a while. I mean, you wouldn't turn the furnace on all year if you lived in New York, would you? When the weather changes, you have to make a decision... and it's likely not the same decision you made a few months ago. But, maybe I'm wrong and the climate (read: economy or culture or society) where you live never changes.

I sort of see your point, but don't agree with it. I believe that what's important, ethically or philosophically, rarely changes, except maybe racial and religious toleration.

[jbg]

Jimmy Carter. Unless you can count a badly hatched, poorly executed hostage extraction mission.

...that which sunk his relection bid.

Double-digit inflation and gasoline shortages, especially in vote-rich states like New York and California (both rare Republican victories) didn't help either.

[White Doors]

No, White Doors was asking "what part of Preamble to US Constitution would a Canadian want to change. I pointed out the quote he was referring to came from the Declaration of Independence and suggested that many Canadians would disagree with much of its contents. I was not suggesting stupidity at all.

I sort of see your point, but don't agree with it. I believe that what's important, ethically or philosophically, rarely changes, except maybe racial and religious toleration.

Thanks for the clarification jbg.

In my estimation it has not been the declaration of Independance or the Constitution with the various amendments that has held America back, it was in not upholding them that held them back.

ie: People were thrown in jail for criticizing the government not too too long ago and certainly after free speech became a constitutional right.

Edited October 29, 2008 by White Doors

[Kitch]

No, White Doors was asking "what part of Preamble to US Constitution would a Canadian want to change. I pointed out the quote he was referring to came from the Declaration of Independence and suggested that many Canadians would disagree with much of its contents. I was not suggesting stupidity at all.

I sort of see your point, but don't agree with it. I believe that what's important, ethically or philosophically, rarely changes, except maybe racial and religious toleration.

My bad...

I was actually only vaguely familiar with the declaration and the constitution, so I just read the declaration and part of the constitution (damn that thing is long and detailed!).

From what I saw in the constitution, I don't really think that much should be changed. I'm guessing that you were referring to Canadians and their interpretation of the second amendment earlier. Well, I do think that is one that needs to be re-examined. Its purpose was to allow people in the colonies... states... to protect themselves from the British standing armies and/or the "savages" (I suppose). Well, there are no more foreign armies within the U.S. and Natives don't seem to be attacking people. The only reason to give people the right to bear arms would be to protect themselves from each other. Is this a legitimate concern? Perhaps. But it is entirely possible that this mindset leads to the necessity. A self serving prophecy if you will. Constant suspicion of people that you live with, whether you know them or not, doesn't necessarily lead to a safe environment.

But, I'm Canadian and don't live and have never lived in the U.S., so I'm just offering a point of view from without.

The 11th amendment is in direct conflict with part of NAFTA... the right of a company to sue a government if that government prevents the company from profiting. An example of this is (I'm sorry I can't reference it because I can't remember enough of the details to find it) when Canada banned some ingredient used in a particular pharmaceutical because it causes health problems and the American manufacturer of the pharmaceutical sued the Canadian government. Just the fact that this is able to happen isn't right.

The 5th and 6th amendments seemingly doesn't apply to all people but only to Americans... and even then only certain Americans.

Maybe I don't understand it as it was intended, but does the 15th amendment not say that people cannot be denied the right to vote based on skin colour but it's up to Congress to decide if it wants to follow this?

Why does the 22nd amendment exist? What is the problem if the people want to elect somebody president for longer than two terms?

I don't necessarily think that these parts of the constitution need or ought to be changed, but maybe the way that they're interpreted. Or maybe the people need to, as the declaration states, realize that they are the ones with the power and prevent their government from interpreting the constitution in a self serving way.

Again, just a humble outsider's opinion/questions. What do you think?

[jbg]

I'm guessing that you were referring to Canadians and their interpretation of the second amendment earlier. Well, I do think that is one that needs to be re-examined. Its purpose was to allow people in the colonies... states... to protect themselves from the British standing armies and/or the "savages" (I suppose). Well, there are no more foreign armies within the U.S. and Natives don't seem to be attacking people. The only reason to give people the right to bear arms would be to protect themselves from each other. Is this a legitimate concern? Perhaps. But it is entirely possible that this mindset leads to the necessity. A self serving prophecy if you will. Constant suspicion of people that you live with, whether you know them or not, doesn't necessarily lead to a safe environment.

The problem here is the text of the Amendment. Taken literally, it seems that people have the right ot bear arms. The "Jeffersonian" interpretation would be that the government should be afraid of the people, as much as the people are afraid of the government. I would modify the Amendment to subject the "right" to reasonable restrictions since taken literally Bernardo would have the right to a gun upon exit from prison.

But, I'm Canadian and don't live and have never lived in the U.S., so I'm just offering a point of view from without.

That's fine by me.

The 11th amendment is in direct conflict with part of NAFTA... the right of a company to sue a government if that government prevents the company from profiting. An example of this is (I'm sorry I can't reference it because I can't remember enough of the details to find it) when Canada banned some ingredient used in a particular pharmaceutical because it causes health problems and the American manufacturer of the pharmaceutical sued the Canadian government. Just the fact that this is able to happen isn't right.

The 11th Amendment prevents a person from suing a State government in the Federal Courts. It cannot prevent a foreign company from suing the U.S. government. NAFTA would in any event be a legislative waiver of the sovereign immunity codified by the 11th Amendment, even if it applied to the U.S. Government.

The 5th and 6th amendments seemingly doesn't apply to all people but only to Americans... and even then only certain Americans.

If you're thinking of the Guantanamo situation, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have held otherwise though I haven't read the decision. The text seems to apply to all people. However, I could see a construction that would exclude military situations.

Maybe I don't understand it as it was intended, but does the 15th amendment not say that people cannot be denied the right to vote based on skin colour but it's up to Congress to decide if it wants to follow this?

What this Amendment does is to create a right and allow Congress to work out an enforcement mechanism. Generally, voting rights are a matter of State and not Federal jurisdiction. Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

As to election of Presidents Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states in relevant part:

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Thus, the 15th Amendment removed the States' freedom to exclude blacks from voting, and empowered Congress to supplant states regarding the details. Congress passed legislation in, I believe, 1875 covering this issue, and then again, starting in 1957 and 1965, seriously enforced this part of the Constitution. In other words, prior to Congressional action, presumably judicial relief was available on an ad hoc basis. This was cumbersome, fickle and impractical in application.

Why does the 22nd amendment exist? What is the problem if the people want to elect somebody president for longer than two terms?

By tradition, U.S. Presidents stood down after two terms. Even British PM's get into trouble if they go much beyond two mandates. Just ask Maggie Thatcher.

When Roosevelt violated this tradition by running for a third and fourth term, it was felt necessary to make sure this didn't happen again. Unfortunately, the cure has proven worse than the disease by making the President more or less impotent during the second term. In fact, except for Reagan, the less said about most second terms in US history the better.

Again, just a humble outsider's opinion/questions. What do you think?

OPinions are always welcome when not delivered in hectoring manner, as much of the commentary about U.S. patriotism and about our President.

[Peter F]

The original title of this thread is: Why doesn't the US Respect Canada More? or What is the Right Question?

I suggest the Right Question is: Why doesn't jbg respect Canada more?

and only he can answer it.

[Kitch]

OPinions are always welcome when not delivered in hectoring manner, as much of the commentary about U.S. patriotism and about our President.

Thanks for that. (The whole thing... I just didn't want to repost your whole message).

I still don't understand why a president, even traditionally, wouldn't stay in office for more than two terms. I guess that happened here with Chretien, but I wasn't aware that it was a tradition. If Canada, or the U.S., was to elect a leader that was great for a lot of people, then why shouldn't that person be allowed to stay in office? (My question is in general and not necessarily directed at you... but feel free to express an opinion).

If you're referring to me asking about the nature of patriotism vs. unpatriotism, I assure you I didn't intend to push my opinion on anyone (although I do have a very strong opinion on the matter). I was simply asking a question. I wanted to know why some people don't think that branding some one unpatriotic ISN'T detrimental to society.

I have nothing to say about your President. He makes himself look foolish enough already. SNAP!!! Just joking. Have you seen Harold and Kumar II? I love the scene with President Bush.

[jbg]

The original title of this thread is: Why doesn't the US Respect Canada More? or What is the Right Question?

I suggest the Right Question is: Why doesn't jbg respect Canada more?

and only he can answer it.

Peter F-

You couldn't be more wrong on my attitude about Canada.

[Peter F]

Peter F-

You couldn't be more wrong on my attitude about Canada.

Ok. Well, Im at a loss to understand the point ot the thread. Typically it has evolved into why doesnt Canada respect Canada more .

and that could be because 1. the US couldn't possibly respect Canada more or 2. no one cares if the US doesn't respect canada more.

My own belief is 2.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Peter F

[bush_cheney2004]

....My own belief is 2.

Right....it's like asking why doesn't Denmark or Spain respect Canada more. I think this oft repeated question is just another manifestation of the inferiority complex harbored by some (not all) Canadians. Coupled with an American superiority complex, we have the perfect storm for such neurotic thoughts (and questions).

[jbg]

Ok. Well, Im at a loss to understand the point ot the thread. Typically it has evolved into why doesnt Canada respect Canada more .

and that could be because 1. the US couldn't possibly respect Canada more or 2. no one cares if the US doesn't respect canada more.

My own belief is 2.

I actually do want the US to respect Canada a lot more, since over the years the English-speaking world either stands together or (as almost happened in both World Wars) falls together. All that I want, as part of that equation, for Canadians to recognize that they live n a great country that should have some basis for pride other than being "not American".

[Peter F]

I actually do want the US to respect Canada a lot more, since over the years the English-speaking world either stands together or (as almost happened in both World Wars) falls together. All that I want, as part of that equation, for Canadians to recognize that they live n a great country that should have some basis for pride other than being "not American".

So its up to the USofA to respect us more, for the sake of the English-speaking world.

And because they don't its Canada's fault.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.