Canadian Hate
- Thread starter SDFeuerzauber
- Start date
Re: No Thanks, that's enough LOL
but dont hide behind ignorence and bliss
You have something to say on my defination say itgryfin said:Your lunacy speaks for itself. LOL
but dont hide behind ignorence and bliss
Canada , and its pedecessors, have always been free. The only threats to that freedom have been several invasions by our friends to the south; all of which were , thankfully, repulsed.papasmerf said:By the worlds defination 200 years is still young
I realize canada has been toataly free for what????
20 odd years?
It is funny that American's are so pissed right now with France. Little do they realize that they had help from the French for the "freedom" that they now claim they enjoy. I seem to recall a little statue on Ellis Island called the "Statue of Liberty".sorely said:There are many layers of Americans, with each having different characteristics.
One layer is exemplified by the current U.S. regime. The rallying cries of this large , but probably not majority group, are:
1) " If you are not with us , you're against us."
2) " God is on our side "
3) " Might is right "
4) " Preemptive invasions are justified "
5) " The U.N. is ineffective"
6) " the views of others are irrelevant"
7) " The religious right in the U.S. is somehow less fanatical and less dangerous than other fundamentalists in the world"
8) etc
This current regime, backed up by a maleable press, represents the "bully" aspect of the U.S. which so much of the world finds repugnant.
It's time for the other layers to reveal their colours, which may not be quite so RW&B.
Aww.....how little they remember!!!!!!!!
JA;
Two columns that I suggest you. and others, read:
1)Toronto Star Apr 6 2003 by Haroon Siddiqui " Siding with U.S. against Canada"
2)Toronto Star Apr 6/03 by Richard Gwyn " Get Ready For The Full Grovel"
Criticism of American foreign policy is not criticism of individual Americans. There are many worldly Americans, thank god. Unfortunately the current regime is not controlled by any of them.The power of the American machine is awesome.
Let's hope we can help them use their power properly. Talk is cheap; even, if it is correct. I agree that it is time that Canada took more action , not to gain the respect of Americans , rather to gain the respect of Canadians.
Pointing out to Americans their faults is a fine first step and we should keep talking --Also acting !!!
Two columns that I suggest you. and others, read:
1)Toronto Star Apr 6 2003 by Haroon Siddiqui " Siding with U.S. against Canada"
2)Toronto Star Apr 6/03 by Richard Gwyn " Get Ready For The Full Grovel"
Criticism of American foreign policy is not criticism of individual Americans. There are many worldly Americans, thank god. Unfortunately the current regime is not controlled by any of them.The power of the American machine is awesome.
Let's hope we can help them use their power properly. Talk is cheap; even, if it is correct. I agree that it is time that Canada took more action , not to gain the respect of Americans , rather to gain the respect of Canadians.
Pointing out to Americans their faults is a fine first step and we should keep talking --Also acting !!!
We
OTB
most certainly do remember it, it's the French who have forgotten why they're not speaking German at the moment. And just to clear up a small point, Lady Liberty is on Liberty Island not Ellis Island. You should visit some time, it's a great city.scubadoo said:It is funny that American's are so pissed right now with France. Little do they realize that they had help from the French for the "freedom" that they now claim they enjoy. I seem to recall a little statue on Ellis Island called the "Statue of Liberty".
Aww.....how little they remember!!!!!!!!
OTB
Canadian Hatred of America is Self Refuting
Many of us loath to define our terms. Why do you suppose that is? Freedom is freedom from the initiation of force from others. Survival for each of us is not automatically garaunteed. Humans survive by the (volitional) use of their reason. Reason is the faculty of the individual. Therefore in order to survive we must leave indivduals free to use their minds in the service of their *own* life. It is immoral to use others, without their *voluntary consent*, as a means to our own ends. The purpose of Government is to protect that freedom. Rights, as such, arise in a social context. These Individual Rights are antecedent to the State. They're grounded in man's nature qua man. The United States of America was the first nation in the history of the Human race to finally recognize this fact. That's it's crowning acheivement. Unfortunately this acheivement is being eroded from within -- but that's another story.
Yet, those who oppose America acting in it's own self interest (read: it's citizens) in foreign policy talk as if all social systems, and forms of Government, have equal validity. They are not all equal. Either your Government -- more or less -- recognizes civil liberties or it doesn't. True, the present U.S. Government is also rights violating (e.g. the thousands imprisioned because of the injustice of current drug laws) but it is a error to assume that major differences do not exist. This war has brought with it the need for precise distinctions, and, unfortunately, many of us fail to do this.
Freedom is one concept that is used by many in an Orwellian fashion. For example, many speak of Lenin "freeing" the Russians from Czarist rule. Only the useful idiot, would agree that Lenin was in support of freedom. Same goes for the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, were Iranians "free" after the fall of the Shah?sorely said:Canada , and its pedecessors, have always been free. The only threats to that freedom have been several invasions by our friends to the south; all of which were , thankfully, repulsed.
Many of us loath to define our terms. Why do you suppose that is? Freedom is freedom from the initiation of force from others. Survival for each of us is not automatically garaunteed. Humans survive by the (volitional) use of their reason. Reason is the faculty of the individual. Therefore in order to survive we must leave indivduals free to use their minds in the service of their *own* life. It is immoral to use others, without their *voluntary consent*, as a means to our own ends. The purpose of Government is to protect that freedom. Rights, as such, arise in a social context. These Individual Rights are antecedent to the State. They're grounded in man's nature qua man. The United States of America was the first nation in the history of the Human race to finally recognize this fact. That's it's crowning acheivement. Unfortunately this acheivement is being eroded from within -- but that's another story.
Yet, those who oppose America acting in it's own self interest (read: it's citizens) in foreign policy talk as if all social systems, and forms of Government, have equal validity. They are not all equal. Either your Government -- more or less -- recognizes civil liberties or it doesn't. True, the present U.S. Government is also rights violating (e.g. the thousands imprisioned because of the injustice of current drug laws) but it is a error to assume that major differences do not exist. This war has brought with it the need for precise distinctions, and, unfortunately, many of us fail to do this.
JA;
Don't be too concerned. The world is full of ignorant people. The United States, Canada and this board all have their share. Maybe we should be concerned ??
First you give them a chance to wake up and then you either move on or have a little fun.
By the way, how is an invasion and occupation of Iraq protecting the U.S. from imminent danger ?
Hope you haven't been watching CNN and MSNBC too much.
Don't be too concerned. The world is full of ignorant people. The United States, Canada and this board all have their share. Maybe we should be concerned ??
First you give them a chance to wake up and then you either move on or have a little fun.
By the way, how is an invasion and occupation of Iraq protecting the U.S. from imminent danger ?
Hope you haven't been watching CNN and MSNBC too much.
Re: Canadian Hatred of America is Self Refuting
I don't generally like being told what to do ( unless it is in the satisfaction of a sexual partner); so, freedom to me is being able to travel through life as I wish. A government that looks after the necessities without being too demanding is just fine, for me; but maybe not for others.
The actions of the current regime in the U.S. hardly is in the self interest of the majority of Americans. It suits the right wing religious conservatives who don't have to put their necks on the line. It also suits that sector of America that likes war, especially when their side has overwhelming superiority.
The Islamic overthrow in Iran did provide freedom under Islamic belief; so, you were correct in stating that the definition of freedom varies considerably.Wired For Sound said:Freedom is one concept that is used by many in an Orwellian fashion. For example, many speak of Lenin "freeing" the Russians from Czarist rule. Only the useful idiot, would agree that Lenin was in support of freedom. Same goes for the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, were Iranians "free" after the fall of the Shah?.......
Yet, those who oppose America acting in it's own self interest (read: it's citizens) in foreign policy talk as if all social systems, and forms of Government, have equal validity. They are not all equal. Either your Government -- more or less -- recognizes civil liberties or it doesn't. True, the present U.S. Government is also rights violating (e.g. the thousands imprisioned because of the injustice of current drug laws) but it is a error to assume that major differences do not exist. This war has brought with it the need for precise distinctions, and, unfortunately, many of us fail to do this.
I don't generally like being told what to do ( unless it is in the satisfaction of a sexual partner); so, freedom to me is being able to travel through life as I wish. A government that looks after the necessities without being too demanding is just fine, for me; but maybe not for others.
The actions of the current regime in the U.S. hardly is in the self interest of the majority of Americans. It suits the right wing religious conservatives who don't have to put their necks on the line. It also suits that sector of America that likes war, especially when their side has overwhelming superiority.
Sorely need to educate himself on what Freedom is
False. The above is completely opposite of what I wrote. Freedom is not slavery. Sorely would have us believe that all tyrannies are forms of freedom for those in power (and even that's not true as Trotsky found out). That is NOT what freedom means. Freedom is the recognition of individual rights. True, there have been periods in human history (Athens Greece) where people were far less free than they are today, but, we measure their freedom to the extent that their society recognized the rights of the individual. Sorely's approach would be like me saying that freedom of speech is only for those who agree with me, but, that is obviously NOT freedom of speech. I reject all laws against hate speech for that exact reason. I despise Ernst Zundel but believe he has a right to his opinion. The individual Iranian was NOT "freed" in 1979, and ISN'T, free in Iran today. What if a Muslim has a different view of Islam than the revolutionary council's, can he make his views known without censorship -- or worse -- being killed? Notice I'm talking of just " freedom under Islamic belief", not to mention other religious beliefs or atheism.sorely said:The Islamic overthrow in Iran did provide freedom under Islamic belief; so, you were correct in stating that the definition of freedom varies considerably....
You
The English got their asses kicked off the mainland after a very short battle and never considered re-landing without the US. The Russians did occupy half the German army so from that perspective they were useful in France. What other allies were you speaking of?
There was no one to soften the Western front for the US, the British could barley take care of themselves (had to be sent tanks and then helped in North Africa after multiple years loosing to the Germans there). The air war was won (battle of Briton) but was mainly defensive. You don't soften an enemy with defensive measures. England didn't have the heavy bombers with range to do real offensive damage against the Germans, those were US B17s.
And we didn't follow DeGaull into Paris, we had the party and invited him so that he could save that arrogant face of his. He paid us back by leaving NATO in 1966, bastards to the end.
OTB
don't bother reading much history do you. If your attention span is too short for reading may I suggest "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" as examples of that cake walk. If you're up for a bit more could I suggest a series of 6 books by Winston Churchill chronicling the war. You will find, if you bother to read these, that the moment the US entered the war was the moment that Churchill said he knew the Allies would win.sorely said:The English and the Russians probably had more to do with the liberation of France. The Americans arrived after the Krauts were well softened by the other allies .
Just another "cake-walk" as they followed DeGaul into Paris.
The English got their asses kicked off the mainland after a very short battle and never considered re-landing without the US. The Russians did occupy half the German army so from that perspective they were useful in France. What other allies were you speaking of?
There was no one to soften the Western front for the US, the British could barley take care of themselves (had to be sent tanks and then helped in North Africa after multiple years loosing to the Germans there). The air war was won (battle of Briton) but was mainly defensive. You don't soften an enemy with defensive measures. England didn't have the heavy bombers with range to do real offensive damage against the Germans, those were US B17s.
And we didn't follow DeGaull into Paris, we had the party and invited him so that he could save that arrogant face of his. He paid us back by leaving NATO in 1966, bastards to the end.
OTB
Como Si de es Se Ah fongulo me beacho
CNN???
that anti-american channel
hell do you recall when its former owner married a woman who went to Sigon to protest the war
Sure of couse you do.
CNN???
that anti-american channel
hell do you recall when its former owner married a woman who went to Sigon to protest the war
Sure of couse you do.
Hope that is 2 hours a week and not two hours a day ?Aphrodite said:Sorely
Oh and sorely... To watch those stations you have to watch television. I don't really do a lot of that. In fact it pushes the limits to say I do a little of that. Would a max of 2 hours (on average) not including movies be low in your opinion? Try a news paper hun... Better yet try 3 or 4.
Jenn
When you are watching , try CNN and MSNBC just to see how the "spin doctors" shape the "less worldly" U.S. public. Give it 15 minutes and then listen to some Canadian content.
As for news journals , please refer to my reply on page 4 of this thread.
for CNN one must be a hillery clithead lover
I would have canceled cable if CNN were the only Cable news net
I would have canceled cable if CNN were the only Cable news net
