I was just wondering why there is so much anti-American sentiment from our neibors and friends to the North.The beloved Canadians.I can understand it from certain middle east countries,but from Canadians im puzzled.Please inform me. Dissapointed. Thanks,Richard
Anti-American sentiment
- Thread starter Ripper77
- Start date
Anti-American??
Richard,
Are you feeling that from the people or from the government? When I cross over, I'm treated probably better there than on this side in regards to the people I meet...business or pleasure.
I'm in the lumber business, and of course our government had it screwed up for 2 years with the Anti-Dumping ruling...but that did not cause friction between my company and the mills over there. The Canadian Government made their decision on the war, but that wasn't done by vote or poll of the Canadian people. Likewise, no one asked our opinion on US involvement as well.
So, I'd go with our personal experiences in whether the Canadian "people" have anti-American feelings towards us. To date, I have not experienced any, in fact, all evidence points to the contrary. I would not get sucked into Government rhetoric or media spins. Let's face it, our Government can come across as being arrogant at times and, if on the receiving end...can leave a bitter taste, but that's Government to Government. I've seen words come from that side as well that didn't have the desired result for those particular politicians...no biggie.
Canada is a great country...the US is a great country. Underneath all the rhetoric and BS (not bodyslide Sheik..lol) we know we are neighbours and in this thing together...that's what's important! It would be a mistake to judge a nation by the speech of it's government (I know sometimes I cringe at what I hear on this side). Now, if you've been thrown some personal insults based on your citizenship...there's something to discuss??
Richard,
Are you feeling that from the people or from the government? When I cross over, I'm treated probably better there than on this side in regards to the people I meet...business or pleasure.
I'm in the lumber business, and of course our government had it screwed up for 2 years with the Anti-Dumping ruling...but that did not cause friction between my company and the mills over there. The Canadian Government made their decision on the war, but that wasn't done by vote or poll of the Canadian people. Likewise, no one asked our opinion on US involvement as well.
So, I'd go with our personal experiences in whether the Canadian "people" have anti-American feelings towards us. To date, I have not experienced any, in fact, all evidence points to the contrary. I would not get sucked into Government rhetoric or media spins. Let's face it, our Government can come across as being arrogant at times and, if on the receiving end...can leave a bitter taste, but that's Government to Government. I've seen words come from that side as well that didn't have the desired result for those particular politicians...no biggie.
Canada is a great country...the US is a great country. Underneath all the rhetoric and BS (not bodyslide Sheik..lol) we know we are neighbours and in this thing together...that's what's important! It would be a mistake to judge a nation by the speech of it's government (I know sometimes I cringe at what I hear on this side). Now, if you've been thrown some personal insults based on your citizenship...there's something to discuss??
Peace at all Costs, Or the old saying: Better Red than Dead
In all seriousness: What is your policy suggestion(s)? Put up or shut the FFFF up!
And Selina, how would you have handled the Nazis? If you will recall, American took it's time entering the Second World War. Look at how much death and destruction the Nazis were able to achieve while they encountered little resistance.
Freedom, a brand name? A "brand name" that even Selina subscribes too. Rarely do those who bemoan individual freedom test their dislike for it by living under a totalitarian regime. Instead, they opt for their subjective fanatasy. But the danger of this approach is that they want to force a collective blindfold over everyone else while they erode the remaining vestiges of liberty. When finally they're confronted with the logical consequences of their theory, and they live under a dictatorship, they attempt to find an escape hatch but none is to be found. Why? Because freedom requires principles they helped to destroy. Welcome to reality.
So how would Selina remove a Dictator? For example: Would Selina offer to give Saddam a blowjob if he left Iraq?Selina said:
In all seriousness: What is your policy suggestion(s)? Put up or shut the FFFF up!
And Selina, how would you have handled the Nazis? If you will recall, American took it's time entering the Second World War. Look at how much death and destruction the Nazis were able to achieve while they encountered little resistance.
Freedom, a brand name? A "brand name" that even Selina subscribes too. Rarely do those who bemoan individual freedom test their dislike for it by living under a totalitarian regime. Instead, they opt for their subjective fanatasy. But the danger of this approach is that they want to force a collective blindfold over everyone else while they erode the remaining vestiges of liberty. When finally they're confronted with the logical consequences of their theory, and they live under a dictatorship, they attempt to find an escape hatch but none is to be found. Why? Because freedom requires principles they helped to destroy. Welcome to reality.
I don't there is as much anti-American feelings, talk or action as the rehetoric would have you believe.
I have come to the conclusion that it has become a debating point i.e. your anti-American so you must be wrong.
I have been accused of being anti-american when I quoted recent history (un-disputed I might add) about the results or regime change. To be fair this accussation was made by Canadian.
Should we consider it anti-Canadain when US congressmen and senators make numerous false accusations about our border security based on either no information or the assumption that all things American are better than the rest of the world?
Is it anti-Canadian when American lobby groups, State Govenors, elected and appointed government officials make inaccurate or totaly false statments about our health care system?
An example of my concerns about us anti-Canadianism is the soft wood lumber issue. In spite of numbers intenational trade commission rulings and I believe one US court ruling that the Canadian procedures are not unfair subsidies. The accusation is made over and over again. The US lumber lobby will not rest as long as Canada runs our bussiness our way.
There are many similar examples and more blatant examples such Lydon Johnson physically assaulting Lester Pearson and the Amerian cabinet member calling Trudeau a pinko commie - on the record for public consumtion.
Bottom line on this lengthy rant is why is anti-American when it's said about a U.S. interest/ issue and simply freedom to express an opinion when Americans do it?
I have come to the conclusion that it has become a debating point i.e. your anti-American so you must be wrong.
I have been accused of being anti-american when I quoted recent history (un-disputed I might add) about the results or regime change. To be fair this accussation was made by Canadian.
Should we consider it anti-Canadain when US congressmen and senators make numerous false accusations about our border security based on either no information or the assumption that all things American are better than the rest of the world?
Is it anti-Canadian when American lobby groups, State Govenors, elected and appointed government officials make inaccurate or totaly false statments about our health care system?
An example of my concerns about us anti-Canadianism is the soft wood lumber issue. In spite of numbers intenational trade commission rulings and I believe one US court ruling that the Canadian procedures are not unfair subsidies. The accusation is made over and over again. The US lumber lobby will not rest as long as Canada runs our bussiness our way.
There are many similar examples and more blatant examples such Lydon Johnson physically assaulting Lester Pearson and the Amerian cabinet member calling Trudeau a pinko commie - on the record for public consumtion.
Bottom line on this lengthy rant is why is anti-American when it's said about a U.S. interest/ issue and simply freedom to express an opinion when Americans do it?
Last edited:
Wired...this sentence is bizarre
This one in particular...(But most of them have this disturbed quality to them.)
"Rarely do those who bemoan individual freedom test their dislike for it by living under a totalitarian regime."
Can you try to rewrite this so it at least sounds logical? Who are "those" specifically...and can you give some evidence of them "bemoaning" individual freedom? If they are on this thread can you give some evidence or is your post truly disturbed?
This one in particular...(But most of them have this disturbed quality to them.)
"Rarely do those who bemoan individual freedom test their dislike for it by living under a totalitarian regime."
Can you try to rewrite this so it at least sounds logical? Who are "those" specifically...and can you give some evidence of them "bemoaning" individual freedom? If they are on this thread can you give some evidence or is your post truly disturbed?
Re: "Operation Canadian Freedom" could be next......
What price does freedom have?????????
You are of Euroan background, You may have relitives who died supporting freedom, or some who died tring to quell it. But no matter the side your family was on. It is clear that people died to maintain and or establish freedom. If you want to know if freedom is worth the price. Ask the children of Iraq in 2 generations.
Selina,Selina said:
What price does freedom have?????????
You are of Euroan background, You may have relitives who died supporting freedom, or some who died tring to quell it. But no matter the side your family was on. It is clear that people died to maintain and or establish freedom. If you want to know if freedom is worth the price. Ask the children of Iraq in 2 generations.
All democratic governments are formed by undemocratic and elitist means. And yes, that means the United States of America too. During Independence, it was the intellectual class of the Thirteen Colonies who drafted the Declaration. But what about little ol' Joe Smith from I don't know .... New York State? Or that mediocre plantation worker Will Jones? Or the blacksmith Mr.Smith? None of these "average men", "common men" had a say in how their new country was going to be like. They were in fact "forced to be free".
In the West, government is based on the suprimacy of the law. And if you want to get theoretical, the law is simply a contract. So, we folks who live under this law have negative freedom and positive freedom. But then, this brings back the question, how free are we really compared to our primitive ancestors who were really free who roamed the great plains doing whatever they want. Or, how free are we really compared to the North American Indians who really had a lot of freedom besides the rules their community imposed on them?
Everytime you have a civilization, these shitty things come up. You've just got to follow the rules (laws) formal or unformal. And once you got to follow "laws" you are giving up your natural freedom for exchange for security and another form of freedom ...
Plus, I would have to say that, Richard (Ripper77), that Canada is not anti-American. I think Canada this time is only standing on the side of justice and doing what is right according to international law ... Yes, America is a fine country but it does not mean everything it does is just and right. Even the atomic bombs dropped on Japan is still being debated 50 years later. How about Vietnam? And now Iraq ...
In ancient Greek mythology, the gods were like people too, who, did things wrong and were most of the time persuaded by lust and passion. I mean if the gods can do bad, unjust things, so can we humans. This example also goes for natios too, and hence the United States.
Even the most wise, prudent man can sometimes do wrong and misjudge ...
PS - fuck ... I hope OTB does not jump in correcting my spelling, grammar and punctuation ...
SD
In the West, government is based on the suprimacy of the law. And if you want to get theoretical, the law is simply a contract. So, we folks who live under this law have negative freedom and positive freedom. But then, this brings back the question, how free are we really compared to our primitive ancestors who were really free who roamed the great plains doing whatever they want. Or, how free are we really compared to the North American Indians who really had a lot of freedom besides the rules their community imposed on them?
Everytime you have a civilization, these shitty things come up. You've just got to follow the rules (laws) formal or unformal. And once you got to follow "laws" you are giving up your natural freedom for exchange for security and another form of freedom ...
Plus, I would have to say that, Richard (Ripper77), that Canada is not anti-American. I think Canada this time is only standing on the side of justice and doing what is right according to international law ... Yes, America is a fine country but it does not mean everything it does is just and right. Even the atomic bombs dropped on Japan is still being debated 50 years later. How about Vietnam? And now Iraq ...
In ancient Greek mythology, the gods were like people too, who, did things wrong and were most of the time persuaded by lust and passion. I mean if the gods can do bad, unjust things, so can we humans. This example also goes for natios too, and hence the United States.
Even the most wise, prudent man can sometimes do wrong and misjudge ...
PS - fuck ... I hope OTB does not jump in correcting my spelling, grammar and punctuation ...
SD
Liminal's bizarre suggestion
I trust Liminal knows what I'm saying but doesn't have the intelligence to challenge me head on so he needs to resort to ad hominem arguments.
Obviously Liminal knows nothing about logic. Freedom needs to be defended. Moreover, peaceniks, like Selina, do equivocate on what freedom is. They blur the distinction between freedom and tyranny. While you are studying logic you might also try reading some History. Then when you have something to contribute, please do.Liminal said:
I trust Liminal knows what I'm saying but doesn't have the intelligence to challenge me head on so he needs to resort to ad hominem arguments.
I'm still waiting for you to rewrite that sentence
OK, OK...maybe that's beyond your abilities. You had your chance and you chose to pass.
I get the impression that you are a Poseur of the highest order. (now that's ad hominem and it's true!)
Your brief utterance is rife with logical fallacies...but we'll get to them once you explain yourself a little more.
Who, and give examples, has been bemoaning individual freedoms and what individual freedom have they been bemoaning?
Why do you connect peaceniks with eqivocating on Freedom? Just what are the areas of Freedom? What are its parameters?
Freedom needs to be defended. What freedoms and from whom? From within or from the outside. And whose freedoms are they.
Individual or collective. Which has primacy?
Blurring the distinction between Freedom and Tyranny? Sounds like something from a cheat sheet. It's so trite as to be meaningless. Explain, in detail what that means. Tyranny from whose viewpoint? One man's freedoms could be tyranny to his victim. And tell us how the peaceniks blur it.
Here's your chance to prove you are not a Poseur...I was hoping you would respond this way.
Let the games begin!
OK, OK...maybe that's beyond your abilities. You had your chance and you chose to pass.
I get the impression that you are a Poseur of the highest order. (now that's ad hominem and it's true!)
Your brief utterance is rife with logical fallacies...but we'll get to them once you explain yourself a little more.
Who, and give examples, has been bemoaning individual freedoms and what individual freedom have they been bemoaning?
Why do you connect peaceniks with eqivocating on Freedom? Just what are the areas of Freedom? What are its parameters?
Freedom needs to be defended. What freedoms and from whom? From within or from the outside. And whose freedoms are they.
Individual or collective. Which has primacy?
Blurring the distinction between Freedom and Tyranny? Sounds like something from a cheat sheet. It's so trite as to be meaningless. Explain, in detail what that means. Tyranny from whose viewpoint? One man's freedoms could be tyranny to his victim. And tell us how the peaceniks blur it.
Here's your chance to prove you are not a Poseur...I was hoping you would respond this way.
Let the games begin!
Last edited:
Ok ,the one thing i dont understand about anti-American opinion.especially on this war with Iraq.is why it is not a just war.President Bush and the administration receive more hateful and angry opinions from Canadians on the right to go to war than Saddam receives even after hes torcered and killed more muslims than anyone in history.I think it is more cowardice to sit and do nothing and let Saddam do what hes been doing for 30 yrs.
Because if you follow the links, very often the quotes come from DNC party members. The folks here just repeat many of themRipper77 said:
Liminal's sense of intellectual inadequacy projected
As for your questions, do a search. I have answered your questions numerous times. Why don't YOU do some work. We are all waiting to see a more elaborate version of your sophomoric abilities.
"Don't give me links to someone else's article or book. Think for yourself."
This is good. How many of you read books and see references to others works? All of you. That's what I thought. Thinking for yourself doesn't imply re-inventing the wheel. Thinking for yourself means chosing to defend, by the use of reason, a position. Now, if one chooses to link to a book, while providing a rational argument themselves, as long as that book or article has relevance to the argument, it is completely justified. You see this all the time. A quote, or link, is used to *buttress* one's argument, NOT as a substitute for it. Let's see an argument.
Liminal, I think projecting your sense of intellectual inadequacy onto me is not good psychologically. Deep down you know I'm right about that much.
A Poseur? LOL, all anyone has to do is search your contibution to Terbs Lounge section. Liminal , you have barely written a few sentences. I feel honored to know that I have had the largest word count yet. Thank you. These sentences you have written have been comprised of assertions and not arguments. An argument has a proposition with premises defending it, followed by a conclusion. Got that. Good.Liminal said:
Logical fallacies? I charge you with stealing concepts. You have no idea how to reason let alone understand how to spot a fallacy.Liminal said:
As for your questions, do a search. I have answered your questions numerous times. Why don't YOU do some work. We are all waiting to see a more elaborate version of your sophomoric abilities.
"Don't give me links to someone else's article or book. Think for yourself."
This is good. How many of you read books and see references to others works? All of you. That's what I thought. Thinking for yourself doesn't imply re-inventing the wheel. Thinking for yourself means chosing to defend, by the use of reason, a position. Now, if one chooses to link to a book, while providing a rational argument themselves, as long as that book or article has relevance to the argument, it is completely justified. You see this all the time. A quote, or link, is used to *buttress* one's argument, NOT as a substitute for it. Let's see an argument.
Liminal, I think projecting your sense of intellectual inadequacy onto me is not good psychologically. Deep down you know I'm right about that much.
You made the assertions, I'm asking you explain them
Calm down, Wired, I'm only asking you to explain your position.
I can sense your pride you when you talk about your word count. Now is your chance to add to it! Taking longer to say something than anyone else is a sign of intellectual prowess!
But, rather than taking a hissy fit, try to explain and defend your postion. I've offered some very clear questions. Your stated postions are predicated on answers to these questions.
Each of your responses is getting more and more shrill. I made the claim you are a Poseur - prove me wrong. No one would make the claims you have without having ample evidence at your fingertips. Provide us with it. But without links to someone else's hard work.
That's what a Poseur is...someone who takes a free ride on the accomplishments of others
I do have one question:
You stated:
"This is good. How many of you read books and see references to others works? All of you. That's what I thought."
Who are you talking to? Who answered you? Do you hear voices that answer your questions?
Calm down, Wired, I'm only asking you to explain your position.
I can sense your pride you when you talk about your word count. Now is your chance to add to it! Taking longer to say something than anyone else is a sign of intellectual prowess!
But, rather than taking a hissy fit, try to explain and defend your postion. I've offered some very clear questions. Your stated postions are predicated on answers to these questions.
Each of your responses is getting more and more shrill. I made the claim you are a Poseur - prove me wrong. No one would make the claims you have without having ample evidence at your fingertips. Provide us with it. But without links to someone else's hard work.
That's what a Poseur is...someone who takes a free ride on the accomplishments of others
I do have one question:
You stated:
"This is good. How many of you read books and see references to others works? All of you. That's what I thought."
Who are you talking to? Who answered you? Do you hear voices that answer your questions?
Last edited:
Oh please. At least those who quote DNC party members quote actual statements of logic, rather than 2 bit soundbites. "Class warfare" "Weapons of mass destruction" "Regime change" "the dividend tax cut is a bold tax plan" yadda yadda yadda. And i suppose it's just a coincidence that all we heard for 6 months was "weapons of mass destruction" but as soon as Bush turns on a dime and starts touting "liberation of the Iraqi people", all of a sudden EVERYONE who pushed the war talks about the "liberation of the Iraqi people". Uh huh.papasmerf said:
Ickabod said:
Na. Actually the liberation was discussed for along time; just not by the DNC. Your protests are about to turn to the OCCUPATION.
I am damned proud to express my own views. And proud I amary to constantly quoting others.
I love it when people use big words for the sake of using big words, rather than for communication.
We are All Poseurs, Liminal Discredited
Put simply: Your position is self refuting because you must also rely on others to communicate in English and be understood conceptually.
Quoting others is NOT appealing to authority. When the authority can back up his/her position to help your case; or if they provide a vaid argument on their own that so happens to agree with you, than this is, as I said, justifiable. To not rely on others is to be omniscient. We are not omnicient, therefore we need to rely on others.
To argue like this: I say X. So does expert Y. Therefore I'm right. Is not enough. That is appealing to authority.
I hope you've enjoyed this lesson.
I don't like dishonest people and you are dishonest.Liminal said:
I don't have to if I don't want to. I'm not an altruist. I've directed you to do a search. I've made arguments about this issue many times over. You've offered nothing. You've never once offered an argument. That's because you fear being challenged.Liminal said:
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the onus probandi principle. I do not have to disprove and assertion that you have provided zero evidence for. What evidence would you accept that I'm not a Poseur?Liminal said:
So when Aristotle discovered the laws of logic are we all "poseurs" when we take a "free ride" on his accomplishments? Since you are attempting to write in a grammatically correct fashion, are you also a Poseur because you don't credit those who discovered the rules of English grammar? Why don't you contradict yourself and make your own rules of grammar, you Poseur!Liminal said:
Put simply: Your position is self refuting because you must also rely on others to communicate in English and be understood conceptually.
Quoting others is NOT appealing to authority. When the authority can back up his/her position to help your case; or if they provide a vaid argument on their own that so happens to agree with you, than this is, as I said, justifiable. To not rely on others is to be omniscient. We are not omnicient, therefore we need to rely on others.
To argue like this: I say X. So does expert Y. Therefore I'm right. Is not enough. That is appealing to authority.
I hope you've enjoyed this lesson.
Personally, I'm just as disappointed that many Americans are taking any anti-war sentiment as anti-Americanism.
While there have been legitmate cases of politicians making anti-Americans comments, and these comments are inexcusable, I do not believe that these comments reflect on Canadian society as a whole.
I know of many people who are against the war for one reason or another, but are not anti-American at all. Does America's opposition to Canada and others trading with Cuba make all American's anti-Canada et al.?
As an American you must realize that whenever any country slights you, your media will pick up on it; I would expect this to happen in any country, not just America. It's stories like these that grab ratings. I doubt anyone would watch a news broadcast that had as its top story "Canadian politicians make no anti-American comments today."
While there have been legitmate cases of politicians making anti-Americans comments, and these comments are inexcusable, I do not believe that these comments reflect on Canadian society as a whole.
I know of many people who are against the war for one reason or another, but are not anti-American at all. Does America's opposition to Canada and others trading with Cuba make all American's anti-Canada et al.?
As an American you must realize that whenever any country slights you, your media will pick up on it; I would expect this to happen in any country, not just America. It's stories like these that grab ratings. I doubt anyone would watch a news broadcast that had as its top story "Canadian politicians make no anti-American comments today."
