Anything Forums

My english teacher likes to talk about all the places she's been and experiences she's had. For some reason today in class, this lead to somebody in my class saying "Don't go to Canada. They hate americans." I pointed out that this isn't true, many Canadians are nice, and cited that I post on a forum with a majority of Canadians.
So you were all a part of my english class. Congrats.

Anyways, is this true? Is there some hatred for Americans in Canada like there is for Canadians in America? (Thanks majorly to South Park )

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69019

I think she's confusing Canada with France..

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69024

Thanks! >:D
and canada isnt that bad! lol. IVE BEEN THERE. It's cold.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69026

Chyse wrote: I pointed out that this isn't true, many Canadians are nice, and cited that I post on a forum with a majority of Canadians.
So you were all a part of my english class. Congrats.

I can only think of two Canadians here, Red and Ycontrol. There may have been one other, but they are only the majority on a really slow day.

I have been on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, amd one year I took a trip to the East Coast by cutting through Canada from Detroit to New York state.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69036

I believe Chris lives in Canada. Maybe i'm mistaken?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69038

Chyse wrote: I believe Chris lives in Canada. Maybe i'm mistaken?

Me?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69039

I would not say Canada "hates" the US. Hate can be a strong word. Some canadians may not be fond of the US and mostly it's goverment and their ways, but we are still going to be nice towards Americans.

See, we don't hate the US, we just hate their goverment. Obama may have made things better, I don't know, I don't really follow US politics. But lot of the stuff is beyond just one guy changing stuff, such as the stupid US copyright laws, and how they have more power over murder, etc... it's that kind of BS we hate, not necessarily Americans themselves.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69040

Chris Vogel wrote:

Chyse wrote: I believe Chris lives in Canada. Maybe i'm mistaken?

Me?

I think i'm mistaken...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69041

Chyse wrote: I think i'm mistaken...

I’m as Southern as grits and cornbread. (That site really talks us up.)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69043

I'm also not canadian.... don't know why that seemed important to say.. I'm not even drunk.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69044

FloodG8-9595 wrote: I'm also not canadian.... don't know why that seemed important to say.. I'm not even drunk.

Ah, but you are a southerner, and thus should join the AF Southern Alliance.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69045

manadren wrote: Ah, but you are a southerner, and thus should join the AF Southern Alliance.

Texans are a little iffy. He’d have to pass a background check.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69047

manadren wrote:

FloodG8-9595 wrote: I'm also not canadian.... don't know why that seemed important to say.. I'm not even drunk.

Ah, but you are a southerner, and thus should join the AF Southern Alliance.

Then I as a Minnesotan will have to join the Canadians in a Northern alliance.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69053

I'm Canadian and had spent much time throughout the u.s.

I would first like to clarify Canada doesn't hate the U.S. - If Canada is guilty of anything, it is the same sin the rest of the world would have,
1. envy
2. resentment of American superiority


American people are great, I have met many. American people portray an opposite reflection of the "national superiority" - This is a compliment that is a double edged sword, because someone could easily be lead to believe that Americans are 'ignorant' or 'uninformed'

As for the form of gov't, I would disagree. America's democracy or popular gov't is truly unique and has been a great success. There are flaws, but the same flaws as with a Parliament (Canada's democracy) - The major flaw of democracy is accountability. The Democrats or Republicans are not held accountable for their wrongs. If Clinton or Bush were so horrible leaders, what of their parties? The fact the parties survive their failures is the reason I hate democracy. This, however, is a failure of Parliament as well, and of Religious leaders.

America like the church have made many bad policies and if either are 'hated' it is because they haven't been held accountable. But its people are great, friendly, inviting, just like the church.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69057

scherzo wrote: The major flaw of democracy is accountability. The Democrats or Republicans are not held accountable for their wrongs. If Clinton or Bush were so horrible leaders, what of their parties? The fact the parties survive their failures is the reason I hate democracy.

Are you saying that the way to provide accountability is to disband an entire party if one of the individuals in that party has done wrong?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69060

Bookworm wrote:

scherzo wrote: The major flaw of democracy is accountability. The Democrats or Republicans are not held accountable for their wrongs. If Clinton or Bush were so horrible leaders, what of their parties? The fact the parties survive their failures is the reason I hate democracy.

Are you saying that the way to provide accountability is to disband an entire party if one of the individuals in that party has done wrong?

The party is in a position to remove itself from an individual and it is its responsibility to do so. The party can learn from its mistakes and correct them. But to clearly answer your question, 'yes' the party should dissolve. I am held accountable in my employment, and I do not think our local, state, federal or world leaders should have a pass on accountability.

In its current form 'popular gov't' or democracy is guaranteed to be re-elected as you only have 2 choices. Democracy in its theory or definition implies, "choice, freedom, equality" But in practice there is no freedom to choose, This statement is so true elections are predicted to the point of a loss or win well before the polls have opened, so the only 'real' choice you have is to choose to be on the 'winning' side or 'losing' side before an election takes place.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69067

scherzo wrote: The party is in a position to remove itself from an individual and it is its responsibility to do so.

Is a party really in a position to remove itself from an individual? If I tell people "I am a Republican," is there someone somewhere who has the authority to say, "Sorry, Bookworm, but you are not."? Isn't the accountibility actually in the election process? We can vote someone out of office if they are a failure, but a political party cannot "remove itself from an individual" apart from the voting process.

The party can learn from its mistakes and correct them. But to clearly answer your question, 'yes' the party should dissolve. I am held accountable in my employment, and I do not think our local, state, federal or world leaders should have a pass on accountability.

How does the dissolusion of the Democrat party or the Republican party aid in the accountibilty of the elected leaders?

In its current form 'popular gov't' or democracy is guaranteed to be re-elected as you only have 2 choices. Democracy in its theory or definition implies, "choice, freedom, equality" But in practice there is no freedom to choose, This statement is so true elections are predicted to the point of a loss or win well before the polls have opened, so the only 'real' choice you have is to choose to be on the 'winning' side or 'losing' side before an election takes place.

But "choice" is still very much involved, even if people can predict what the election outcome will be. The predictions are all based on the choices of people. And sometimes even those predictions are wrong. Minnesote elected Jesse Ventura to be governor, and nobody had predicted that his third-party candidancy would win.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69075

Is a party really in a position to remove itself from an individual? If I tell people "I am a Republican," is there someone somewhere who has the authority to say, "Sorry, Bookworm, but you are not."? Isn't the accountibility actually in the election process? We can vote someone out of office if they are a failure, but a political party cannot "remove itself from an individual" apart from the voting process.

I am unaware of how someone can vote out an elected official, unless you are speaking of voting again in pre-arranged election after a term has been served? If this is the case, I wouldn't call it "voting someone out of office" as it happens on a schedule and not after a perceived wrong. It would also happen no matter how good or bad a leader is perceived to be.

How does the dissolusion of the Democrat party or the Republican party aid in the accountibilty of the elected leaders?

It is the party who is responsible for placing the elected leader in their position. If the leader has wronged the party should should share in the discipline. The party must admit it has wronged and work toward achieving a remedy. Failure of achieving a remedy should be dissolution.

But "choice" is still very much involved, even if people can predict what the election outcome will be. The predictions are all based on the choices of people. And sometimes even those predictions are wrong. Minnesote elected Jesse Ventura to be governor, and nobody had predicted that his third-party candidancy would win.

Jesse Ventura's election is a exception and I don't accept it as an example in an argument. I use this rule in an argument of rape in abortion, where the majority of abortions are not 'rape' related, and have minimal influence on the theory of an argument, but carry far more weight in the process.

"Choice" if it exists in elections is unsatisfactory therefore Void's the choice. If you were forced to sell your home and I offered you $5.00 for it, would you consider this a choice? I can even argue that an offer of $5.00 isn't even an offer, therefore without an offer you were in no position to make a choice. If this can be true of a real every day event of bankruptcies, then it should also be true of a much more rarer and important 'choice' in elections

But the candidates available are the $5.00 choice or the $6.00 choice, and I do not consider them choices at all. They represent an offer that is so offensive to the ideal of democracy, they are Voided, they do not exist because they take advantage of a system that is designed to offer people choice.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69076

scherzo wrote:

Is a party really in a position to remove itself from an individual? If I tell people "I am a Republican," is there someone somewhere who has the authority to say, "Sorry, Bookworm, but you are not."? Isn't the accountibility actually in the election process? We can vote someone out of office if they are a failure, but a political party cannot "remove itself from an individual" apart from the voting process.

I am unaware of how someone can vote out an elected official, unless you are speaking of voting again in pre-arranged election after a term has been served? If this is the case, I wouldn't call it "voting someone out of office" as it happens on a schedule and not after a perceived wrong. It would also happen no matter how good or bad a leader is perceived to be.

Well, I am unaware of how a party can remove itself from an elected official. You had said, "The party is in a position to remove itself from an individual and it is its responsibility to do so." How does it do so? If a candidate has actually committed a "wrong" while in office, then there are impeachment proceedings that can take place in between elections. Otherwise, the pre-arranged election is the legal method for providing accountibility to our lawmakers. I don't see as how the party can have some greater obligation to remove the elected official, or to remove itself from the elected official, than the people who vote in elections, since the party is composed of the people who are doing the voting in elections.

How does the dissolusion of the Democrat party or the Republican party aid in the accountibilty of the elected leaders?

It is the party who is responsible for placing the elected leader in their position. If the leader has wronged the party should should share in the discipline. The party must admit it has wronged and work toward achieving a remedy. Failure of achieving a remedy should be dissolution.

Who is "the party." I can go to Republican organizing committee meetings and vote for a chairman to run the business meetings, but is that chairman the one who you think is "placing the elected leader in their position"? Who exactly should share in the discipline of the elected leader?

"Choice" if it exists in elections is unsatisfactory therefore Void's the choice. If you were forced to sell your home and I offered you $5.00 for it, would you consider this a choice? I can even argue that an offer of $5.00 isn't even an offer, therefore without an offer you were in no position to make a choice. If this can be true of a real every day event of bankruptcies, then it should also be true of a much more rarer and important 'choice' in elections

But the candidates available are the $5.00 choice or the $6.00 choice, and I do not consider them choices at all. They represent an offer that is so offensive to the ideal of democracy, they are Voided, they do not exist because they take advantage of a system that is designed to offer people choice.

I'm not understanding your analogy between bankruptcies and elections. It's not even like comparing apples to oranges. it's more like comparing apples to motorcycles.
Are you saying there should not even be candidates in an election, since having a candidate for the election is like being forced into a 5 or 6 dollar deal? The only alternative is to have someone be appointed to the office rather than elected, but if I have to live under an appointed leader, than isn't that worse than two poor choices? Having an appointed leader is truly being choiceless, so I don't see as how you can claim that the election process is choiceless.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69077

I've largely given up responding to Scherzo's arguments on pretty much any subject because it's like arguing with someone for whom the real world doesn't exist, only their bent rules of logic, utterly poor analogies (which make perfect sense to them), and high level of tenacity.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69078

Chris Vogel wrote:

manadren wrote: Ah, but you are a southerner, and thus should join the AF Southern Alliance.

Texans are a little iffy. He’d have to pass a background check.

Yeah, I live in Austin we're a weird bunch.




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69085

I THINK perhaps what his argument is.. is that the way American politics work there are only 2 viable candidates at any time and thusly we must choose between (to quote south park) A giant douche and a turd sandwhich... That having been said... The rest is an enigma to me...

I THINK perhaps he's saying that the Republican and Democrat party should kick out people who lie cheat and steal to get ahead in politics.. I'm just not so sure it's a implimentable (?) thing... youd have to change the way politics is done. and thats just not feesable.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69086

FloodG8-9595 wrote: Yeah, I live in Austin we're a weird bunch.

I meant a background check to prove your Southerness, because Texas is on the fringes, but we should probably do a criminal background check too.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69087

Stasi wrote: I've largely given up responding to Scherzo's arguments on pretty much any subject because it's like arguing with someone for whom the real world doesn't exist, only their bent rules of logic, utterly poor analogies (which make perfect sense to them), and high level of tenacity.

I simply love the idea of the 'real world' argument. Anyone who adopts this position are those that cannot find an argument, and rely on 'mob mentality'. These people include themselves in a position without blame and say, "I didn't make the rules".

But in this case we are talking about making rules, We are talking about placing people in a position to make rules that represent our ideals, our religion, our values.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69088

FloodG8-9595 wrote: I THINK perhaps what his argument is.. is that the way American politics work there are only 2 viable candidates at any time and thusly we must choose between (to quote south park) A giant douche and a turd sandwhich...  That having been said... The rest is an enigma to me...

I THINK perhaps he's saying that the Republican and Democrat party should kick out people who lie cheat and steal to get ahead in politics.. I'm just not so sure it's a implimentable (?) thing... youd have to change the way politics is done. and thats just not feesable.

not simply American Politics. Democracy itself. I actually prefer the American model over that of the Canadian because of Accountability.

Your South Park quote hits the nail on the head in its simplest terms : )





Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3941, old post ID:69089