| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| espoir wrote: |
| Beej wrote: |
Who picks on Canadians? First you say Canadians are loved by everyone and that Americans are ignorant of Canada. Then who does the picking on?
You dont get to comment on the First Amendment. You dont have one.
Canada was not a country in 1812, so you didnt have a war with anyone. The US was fighting your colonial overlords in 1812.
When did Canada become a full fledged nation anyway. Around 1980? Why is there a picture of a soveriegn from another nation on your money? |
Okay Beej first off you need to get at least some facts straight.
First off Canada was officially a nation with the passing of the constitution Act of 1867, which by the way was done without a shot being fired (although yes there were minor conflicts in upper and lower canada before then)
What you are referencing was the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms which was passed in 1982 which further entrenched equality rights and minority rights, and also the freedom of speech in the Constitution.
Secondly there is no picture of any foreign Sovereign on our money. Queen Elizabeth II is the queen of Canada only when she is in Canada. And while she is not in Canada she is technically (by her authority to issue laws and tradition) not the Queen of Canada. Hence why we have a governor general who is the Queens representative in Canada and acts with the full authority of the crown in Canada whilest the Queen is absent and without interference from the British monarchy.
Thirdly I believe I made sure to mention the fact that the British were fighting the war of 1812, alongside colonial Canadian troops and our natives. Maybe it would have been more accurate if I instead put colonial canada and the British burned down Washington DC and the white house. And as per our colonial overlords, well we definately seemed to prefer them to the American invaders, otherwise it would have been a much shorter war. |
There was no Canada in 1812, so dont refer to Canadian troops. All were British subjects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
joshuahirtle27
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There was no Canada as you know it today. It was there and there were people living there. They were still called the Canadian Colonies. It's not like New England became over populated so they moved north. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joshuahirtle27 wrote: |
| gypsyfish wrote: |
| Did they have the Maple Leaf sewn on their backpacks? |
Not if they were Canadians IN Canada. That doesn't make sense. 
| Quote: |
ReeseDog wrote:
Let me fill you in here on a little something everyone else already knows. Canada is a shit-stain on the globe. I mean, it's right there with other useless countries like Mali or Estonia - places that don't mean anything to the world. If Canada was actually worth something, I guarantee you that it wouldn't exist as a nation today; the United States of North America would have sixty states (plus a few more territories).
I'll bet Estonia and Mali are on that same list of countries that some can't pick out on a map. Now you know why. |
Do you know where Canada is?
Where is this magical country of "the United States of North America"?
You are aware that Canada didn't have slavery while the US did, right?
You are aware that a lot of the US trade economy is based on what goes to and comes from Canada, right?
You do know that for a while in '07 the Loonie was worth $1.10 American and held strong at par for months RIGHT?
So reesedog, as I say to my kids when decide to go off into their own little world" PAY ATTENTION"! |
Canada's somewhere to the north of us. Up there somewhere. Doesn't really matter. That's my point.
The United States of North America is what we would have had had Canada been worth taking. I suppose subtlety's lost on you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DRAMA OVERKILL wrote: |
| ReeseDog wrote: |
Let me fill you in here on a little something everyone else already knows. Canada is a shit-stain on the globe. I mean, it's right there with other useless countries like Mali or Estonia - places that don't mean anything to the world. If Canada was actually worth something, I guarantee you that it wouldn't exist as a nation today; the United States of North America would have sixty states (plus a few more territories).
I'll bet Estonia and Mali are on that same list of countries that some can't pick out on a map. Now you know why. |
You are losing your bashing privileges!!! |
Oh, fine, I'll lay off. Just having some fun. Canadians get all riled up really easily. It's fun to watch. I'll ease up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
espoir
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Location: Incheon, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay Beej I suggest you do more than rely on Wikipedia for your Canadian history. In 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was passed which also included the repatriatation of the Canadian Constitution. However since the initial passing of the Constitution Act of 1867 Canada was for all intents and purposes a sovereign nation. Although it wasn't until after WW1 that we also gained the option to conduct our own foreign policy.
The mistake you are making is between what is technically true and what is based upon tradition. Unlike American law and constitutionalism, Canada and Britain rely more heavily upon traditions than written code. Hence why the British technically do not have a formal constitution (pretty sure on this point anyways). For a prime example of this read the Constitution Act of 1867 and tell me where it mentions the role and position of the Prime Minister. You will see it doesn't, yet since 1867 and with Sir John A. Macdonald (our first PM) Canada has had a Prime Minister. This is because of tradition and therefore although the Constitution makes no reference to a Prime Minister the position still exists as full legal entity.
Therefore although the Canadian Constitution which designated Canada as a sovereign nation was technically an act of british law, by tradition, practice and all reality since its inception in 1867 Canada has been a Sovereign nation, hence why we can say that the birth of canada was in 1867 not 1982. Also the british Governemnt and the governor general merely acted as a rubber stamp procedure whenever issues would arise and whenever they attempted to emddle in Canadian affairs it also turned embarrassingly for them and ultimately led to them rubber stamping things as traditionally conducted.
And lastly I actually made reference to Canadian colonial troops which existed well before 1812. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IncognitoHFX
Joined: 06 May 2007
Location: Yeongtong, Suwon
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ReeseDog wrote: |
| they know that a "higher" education in Canada roughly equals a tenth-grade education anywhere else. |
I'd like to see you back that up. I spent four years with a few Harvard and Yale PhDs in my university. They told us all about the "Gentlemen's C" and the lack of academic standards at "Ivy League" schools.
Then there is the fact that one in every five Americans can't find America on a map.
Also, your comment about Canadians in Japan... I know tonnes! Many are from second rate Universities on the East Coast of Canada too. It's not that hard to get a job in Japan.
The only reason there isn't more Canadians there is that of money. Most of us have huge student loans and live in an economy that hasn't created any jobs for recent grads to work at, including those who have excelled in their fields. You can't blame us for following the money we so desperately need.
For me and a lot of others, it's either Korea or McDonalds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fishead soup
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
The mullet orignated due to caucasian North Americans' desire to maintain body (primarily neck) warmth during long and often brutal mating rituals. The short bangs in front allow for unobstructed vision when searching out potential recipients for a pass or evading incoming elbows from opposing tribes. It has been theorized that the benefit of scoring multiple goals per mating session far outways any of the negative aspects regarding appearance when attracting a mate of the northern persuasion.
It is currently unknown what benefits the mullet brings to those North Americans living beneath the 49th parallel as it appears to have neither resulted in improved on ice performance or increased ability to attract a mate. In fact, North Americans living below the 49th parallel who wear mullets have been statistically shown to attract fewer mates and reside, on average, in far less comfortable dwellings than their average northern bretheren. Inexplicably, members of the male species sporting mullets south of the 49th parallel often encounter derision and hostility from non-mullet wearing tribesmen. This bizarre anomoly has lead many scholars to come to the conclusion that the wearing of mullets should only be attempted north of the 49th parallel.
-source materials: The Canadian Encyclopedia
Tim Horton's Donuts and Hairstyles
CBC's Mullet Night in Canada
'Mulroney's Mullet' by Margaret Atwood
'Let Us Compare Mullets' by Leonard Cohen |
The earlies idea of the mullet came from the fur traders cap with the beaver tail down the back. This was considered a sign of virility for travellers in the tundra.
The latest variation of the mullet is to accomadate trailor park trash sending their children to play hockey. They can't afford a new helmit to accomidate the new long locks and they don't want to lose the long maim down the back. So they chop off the top hair so they don't have to buy a new hockey helmit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshuahirtle27
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ReeseDog wrote: |
Canada's somewhere to the north of us. Up there somewhere. Doesn't really matter. That's my point.
The United States of North America is what we would have had had Canada been worth taking. I suppose subtlety's lost on you. |
Somewhere? How many places do you figure are NORTH of the United States of America? Your comment about the USNA was not completely lost on me... it just made NO sense. Much like your arguments thus far have made no sense. I'm going to assume your degree isn't in something to do with world history and give you the benefit of the doubt rather than call you a moron. American forces tried to take land from the colonies in the early 1800's which resulted in a war. Now I'm 37% sure that in those days the only real reason to fight over land in North America was to EXPAND the empire. If the land was useless and held no worth then wouldn't it make sense to leave it alone? Yes! Is that what happened? NO!. Now that I've pointed out your flawed argument I should also point out that MANY of the people who are now known as Canadians are of "American" descent, meaning that their families immigrated (defected) from the Colonies... you don't intentionally live on useless land.
Another flaw in your "Canada is useless" argument is the fact that we have one of the worlds largest supplies of oil, lumber, fresh water, fish, arable land, AND an economy that is NOT going into the crappier (that's French for crapper) quite as fast as the US economy who's money is backed by trees.
| Quote: |
ReeseDog wrote:
they know that a "higher" education in Canada roughly equals a tenth-grade education anywhere else. |
Please back this up with sources that are not found at www.enwiki.com or something that is academically referenced. I have 3 words for you "Talking To Americans" It's done my Rick Mercer.
Go lick your ass doggy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshuahirtle27
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fishead soup wrote: |
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
The mullet orignated due to caucasian North Americans' desire to maintain body (primarily neck) warmth during long and often brutal mating rituals. The short bangs in front allow for unobstructed vision when searching out potential recipients for a pass or evading incoming elbows from opposing tribes. It has been theorized that the benefit of scoring multiple goals per mating session far outways any of the negative aspects regarding appearance when attracting a mate of the northern persuasion.
It is currently unknown what benefits the mullet brings to those North Americans living beneath the 49th parallel as it appears to have neither resulted in improved on ice performance or increased ability to attract a mate. In fact, North Americans living below the 49th parallel who wear mullets have been statistically shown to attract fewer mates and reside, on average, in far less comfortable dwellings than their average northern bretheren. Inexplicably, members of the male species sporting mullets south of the 49th parallel often encounter derision and hostility from non-mullet wearing tribesmen. This bizarre anomoly has lead many scholars to come to the conclusion that the wearing of mullets should only be attempted north of the 49th parallel.
-source materials: The Canadian Encyclopedia
Tim Horton's Donuts and Hairstyles
CBC's Mullet Night in Canada
'Mulroney's Mullet' by Margaret Atwood
'Let Us Compare Mullets' by Leonard Cohen |
The earlies idea of the mullet came from the fur traders cap with the beaver tail down the back. This was considered a sign of virility for travellers in the tundra.
The latest variation of the mullet is to accomadate trailor park trash sending their children to play hockey. They can't afford a new helmit to accomidate the new long locks and they don't want to lose the long maim down the back. So they chop off the top hair so they don't have to buy a new hockey helmit |
Sources or it didn't happen  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joshuahirtle27 wrote: |
| Fishead soup wrote: |
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
The mullet orignated due to caucasian North Americans' desire to maintain body (primarily neck) warmth during long and often brutal mating rituals. The short bangs in front allow for unobstructed vision when searching out potential recipients for a pass or evading incoming elbows from opposing tribes. It has been theorized that the benefit of scoring multiple goals per mating session far outways any of the negative aspects regarding appearance when attracting a mate of the northern persuasion.
It is currently unknown what benefits the mullet brings to those North Americans living beneath the 49th parallel as it appears to have neither resulted in improved on ice performance or increased ability to attract a mate. In fact, North Americans living below the 49th parallel who wear mullets have been statistically shown to attract fewer mates and reside, on average, in far less comfortable dwellings than their average northern bretheren. Inexplicably, members of the male species sporting mullets south of the 49th parallel often encounter derision and hostility from non-mullet wearing tribesmen. This bizarre anomoly has lead many scholars to come to the conclusion that the wearing of mullets should only be attempted north of the 49th parallel.
-source materials: The Canadian Encyclopedia
Tim Horton's Donuts and Hairstyles
CBC's Mullet Night in Canada
'Mulroney's Mullet' by Margaret Atwood
'Let Us Compare Mullets' by Leonard Cohen |
The earlies idea of the mullet came from the fur traders cap with the beaver tail down the back. This was considered a sign of virility for travellers in the tundra.
The latest variation of the mullet is to accomadate trailor park trash sending their children to play hockey. They can't afford a new helmit to accomidate the new long locks and they don't want to lose the long maim down the back. So they chop off the top hair so they don't have to buy a new hockey helmit |
Sources or it didn't happen |
Exactly. I find the world of Academia is producing less and less qualified researchers as time goes by. Please note my excellent source material. 
Also, its HELMUT not HELMIT. You certainly didn't graduate from a Canadian university. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get that whole "Canada wasn't even a country in 1812" argument. Isn't that like saying that anything Americans did before the Traitors' War of 1775 isn't really American? Or that anything Korea did before 1945 (or perhaps you prefer to say before the Chosun unification) doesn't count as Korean history... that Germany has no history before all its little provinces came together?
Who cares when the country was made. It's the peoples' history. My ancestors fought in the war of 1812 and they were Canadian... biatch! just kidding.
Beej and Reese can go back to being idiots. It's amusing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Newbie wrote: |
I don't get that whole "Canada wasn't even a country in 1812" argument. Isn't that like saying that anything Americans did before the Traitors' War of 1775 isn't really American? Or that anything Korea did before 1945 (or perhaps you prefer to say before the Chosun unification) doesn't count as Korean history... that Germany has no history before all its little provinces came together?
Who cares when the country was made. It's the peoples' history. My ancestors fought in the war of 1812 and they were Canadian... biatch! just kidding.
Beej and Reese can go back to being idiots. It's amusing. |
Let me tell you what's idiotic. Im sitting in a bar. Meet random Canadian. Within thirty seconds after establishing that Im American said Canadian says "let me tell you about how we kicked your ass in the War of 1812."
This has happened to me no less than 25 times in bars here in Seoul. Add about another 100 times if we include Canadians at the workplace.
This is very sad and pathetic. It tells alot about the Canadian inferiority complex regarding the US.
I couldnt care less about the War of 1812. But if you must spout out that nonsense, at least be accurate. There was no nation of Canada in 1812 so no war could have been won by a nation that didnt exist. Furthermore the outcome of the war was dubious and murky with each side (American and British) getting minimal victories . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
espoir
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Location: Incheon, South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beej wrote: |
| Newbie wrote: |
I don't get that whole "Canada wasn't even a country in 1812" argument. Isn't that like saying that anything Americans did before the Traitors' War of 1775 isn't really American? Or that anything Korea did before 1945 (or perhaps you prefer to say before the Chosun unification) doesn't count as Korean history... that Germany has no history before all its little provinces came together?
Who cares when the country was made. It's the peoples' history. My ancestors fought in the war of 1812 and they were Canadian... biatch! just kidding.
Beej and Reese can go back to being idiots. It's amusing. |
Let me tell you what's idiotic. Im sitting in a bar. Meet random Canadian. Within thirty seconds after establishing that Im American said Canadian says "let me tell you about how we kicked your ass in the War of 1812."
This has happened to me no less than 25 times in bars here in Seoul. Add about another 100 times if we include Canadians at the workplace.
This is very sad and pathetic. It tells alot about the Canadian inferiority complex regarding the US.
I couldnt care less about the War of 1812. But if you must spout out that nonsense, at least be accurate. There was no nation of Canada in 1812 so no war could have been won by a nation that didnt exist. Furthermore the outcome of the war was dubious and murky with each side (American and British) getting minimal victories . |
The only time I would ever bring up the war of 1812 is whenever Americans feel the need to say that they are superior to canadians and they could have kicked our ass any time in history if they really wanted to. But I always make reference to the fact that it was mainly the British alongside colonial canadian forces who pushed back the American invaders.
In all fairness the war of 1812 resolved absolutely nothing. The borders went back exactly to where they were prior to the start of the war. Also while we did burn the white house, Americans also burned/sacked York (also known today as Toronto). But then again we also took Fort Detroit without ever having to fire a shot, we just showed up and the americans surrendered it to Major-General Sir Issac Brock (yes i am only paraphrasing the whole complex history there)
And we Canadians also tend to reference the War of 1812 a lot mroe because the vast majority of Americans i have ever talked to deny that it ever happened or that we actually sacked Washington DC. All in all it was a stupid war that accomplished nothing, yet since Canada fights so few wars (and during our colonial period it was always against the natives/french) this war tends to stick more into our minds than most others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread went to shit quick.
Canada not being a nation in the War of 1812 is irrelevant. Just as the war was. Who cares who burned what down either? Most Canadians and Americans are pretty cool. Sometimes you meet are jerks though. I believe some of them are arguing on this thread right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beej wrote: |
... the Canadian inferiority complex regarding the US
|
Word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
