Canada losing status as prime U.S. ally??
Previous 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Zipperfish @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:09 pm
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Tokimini Tokimini:
Brent Swain Brent Swain:
We don't get tied up trying to control other people's turf.
I think a member of the First Nations might disagree with you on that point.
Indeed, an angel cannot live under the wing of a demon.
Because light is the child of darkness.
Canadians indulge themselves by abusing the analogy.
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
Benoit @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:14 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Tokimini Tokimini:
Brent Swain Brent Swain:
We don't get tied up trying to control other people's turf.
I think a member of the First Nations might disagree with you on that point.
Indeed, an angel cannot live under the wing of a demon.
Because light is the child of darkness.
Canadians indulge themselves by abusing the analogy.
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
The analogy of the wet socks can be abused without offending anyone though.
Streaker @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:42 pm
OPP OPP:
sthompson sthompson:
Yeah I always find that argument about the US protecting Canada very funny. We need protecting from the US!! Economically for sure, and also, it's always been the US that's been bent on invading us throughout history, not other countries.
And Yup Bart, Streaker's right, the whole point is that Mulroney wasn't just friends with the US President--he practically licked Reagan's boots. That's not a friendship because it isn't an equal relationship. It's a subordinate one (master and servant). And you seem to be saying that kissing up and bootlicking US leaders is ideal in Canadian leaders, while most Canadians tend to feel differently. (Again, see Mulroney's extremely low popularity by his second term.)
Yet if we say so, then you slander us by labelling us "anti-American", which is no different than calling someone a communist back in the day. It's not an argument, it's an insult, meant to conveniently discredit without actually answering the substance of the argument.
Meanwhile, haven't you noticed that the US doesn't treat Canada any better even when we bend over and do what the US wants? Having "free trade", Harper (and going to Afghanistan) didn't prevent the US from appealing every NAFTA decision on softwood lumber. Or putting protections up at the border. Being "good friends" and doing what the US wants never wins us any better treatment in any way that counts (I personally couldn't really care less if Bush visits while the Canadian softwood industry tanks for example).
Even US reps understand that Canada shouldn't be kissing more US ass to improve our situation--we should be negotiating from a stronger position, being tougher, such as by putting oil and gas on the table and using that as a way to gain some leverage in trade agreements like NAFTA. If we act like doormats, then the US will treat us like doormats, not suddenly decide to make sure Canadian sovereignty, interests, and resources are protected. And that's been the story so far.
Lastly, Canada might be "just another blue state" to most Americans, but that doesn't mean it's true. It's an insult, and an ignorant one at that. We do still have our sovereignty. That attitude is what drove me out of working for US progressive organization MoveOn--even the progressives I worked with in the US didn't get that not everyone thinks the US is the greatest democracy in the world. Because, guess what! We're not Americans! We're Canadians!
But it's disturbing how far that ethnocentric rhetoric has really penetrated into the US consciousness.
And Yup Bart, Streaker's right, the whole point is that Mulroney wasn't just friends with the US President--he practically licked Reagan's boots. That's not a friendship because it isn't an equal relationship. It's a subordinate one (master and servant). And you seem to be saying that kissing up and bootlicking US leaders is ideal in Canadian leaders, while most Canadians tend to feel differently. (Again, see Mulroney's extremely low popularity by his second term.)
Yet if we say so, then you slander us by labelling us "anti-American", which is no different than calling someone a communist back in the day. It's not an argument, it's an insult, meant to conveniently discredit without actually answering the substance of the argument.
Meanwhile, haven't you noticed that the US doesn't treat Canada any better even when we bend over and do what the US wants? Having "free trade", Harper (and going to Afghanistan) didn't prevent the US from appealing every NAFTA decision on softwood lumber. Or putting protections up at the border. Being "good friends" and doing what the US wants never wins us any better treatment in any way that counts (I personally couldn't really care less if Bush visits while the Canadian softwood industry tanks for example).
Even US reps understand that Canada shouldn't be kissing more US ass to improve our situation--we should be negotiating from a stronger position, being tougher, such as by putting oil and gas on the table and using that as a way to gain some leverage in trade agreements like NAFTA. If we act like doormats, then the US will treat us like doormats, not suddenly decide to make sure Canadian sovereignty, interests, and resources are protected. And that's been the story so far.
Lastly, Canada might be "just another blue state" to most Americans, but that doesn't mean it's true. It's an insult, and an ignorant one at that. We do still have our sovereignty. That attitude is what drove me out of working for US progressive organization MoveOn--even the progressives I worked with in the US didn't get that not everyone thinks the US is the greatest democracy in the world. Because, guess what! We're not Americans! We're Canadians!
But it's disturbing how far that ethnocentric rhetoric has really penetrated into the US consciousness.
That could have been pretty much anyone from any part of the world wrighting this. The U.S is screwing everyone over and people all over the world are pretty fucking tired of it.
Indeed, an aggressive, bullying empire is everyone's problem, not just Canada's.
Benoit @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:11 pm
Streaker Streaker:
OPP OPP:
sthompson sthompson:
Yeah I always find that argument about the US protecting Canada very funny. We need protecting from the US!! Economically for sure, and also, it's always been the US that's been bent on invading us throughout history, not other countries.
And Yup Bart, Streaker's right, the whole point is that Mulroney wasn't just friends with the US President--he practically licked Reagan's boots. That's not a friendship because it isn't an equal relationship. It's a subordinate one (master and servant). And you seem to be saying that kissing up and bootlicking US leaders is ideal in Canadian leaders, while most Canadians tend to feel differently. (Again, see Mulroney's extremely low popularity by his second term.)
Yet if we say so, then you slander us by labelling us "anti-American", which is no different than calling someone a communist back in the day. It's not an argument, it's an insult, meant to conveniently discredit without actually answering the substance of the argument.
Meanwhile, haven't you noticed that the US doesn't treat Canada any better even when we bend over and do what the US wants? Having "free trade", Harper (and going to Afghanistan) didn't prevent the US from appealing every NAFTA decision on softwood lumber. Or putting protections up at the border. Being "good friends" and doing what the US wants never wins us any better treatment in any way that counts (I personally couldn't really care less if Bush visits while the Canadian softwood industry tanks for example).
Even US reps understand that Canada shouldn't be kissing more US ass to improve our situation--we should be negotiating from a stronger position, being tougher, such as by putting oil and gas on the table and using that as a way to gain some leverage in trade agreements like NAFTA. If we act like doormats, then the US will treat us like doormats, not suddenly decide to make sure Canadian sovereignty, interests, and resources are protected. And that's been the story so far.
Lastly, Canada might be "just another blue state" to most Americans, but that doesn't mean it's true. It's an insult, and an ignorant one at that. We do still have our sovereignty. That attitude is what drove me out of working for US progressive organization MoveOn--even the progressives I worked with in the US didn't get that not everyone thinks the US is the greatest democracy in the world. Because, guess what! We're not Americans! We're Canadians!
But it's disturbing how far that ethnocentric rhetoric has really penetrated into the US consciousness.
And Yup Bart, Streaker's right, the whole point is that Mulroney wasn't just friends with the US President--he practically licked Reagan's boots. That's not a friendship because it isn't an equal relationship. It's a subordinate one (master and servant). And you seem to be saying that kissing up and bootlicking US leaders is ideal in Canadian leaders, while most Canadians tend to feel differently. (Again, see Mulroney's extremely low popularity by his second term.)
Yet if we say so, then you slander us by labelling us "anti-American", which is no different than calling someone a communist back in the day. It's not an argument, it's an insult, meant to conveniently discredit without actually answering the substance of the argument.
Meanwhile, haven't you noticed that the US doesn't treat Canada any better even when we bend over and do what the US wants? Having "free trade", Harper (and going to Afghanistan) didn't prevent the US from appealing every NAFTA decision on softwood lumber. Or putting protections up at the border. Being "good friends" and doing what the US wants never wins us any better treatment in any way that counts (I personally couldn't really care less if Bush visits while the Canadian softwood industry tanks for example).
Even US reps understand that Canada shouldn't be kissing more US ass to improve our situation--we should be negotiating from a stronger position, being tougher, such as by putting oil and gas on the table and using that as a way to gain some leverage in trade agreements like NAFTA. If we act like doormats, then the US will treat us like doormats, not suddenly decide to make sure Canadian sovereignty, interests, and resources are protected. And that's been the story so far.
Lastly, Canada might be "just another blue state" to most Americans, but that doesn't mean it's true. It's an insult, and an ignorant one at that. We do still have our sovereignty. That attitude is what drove me out of working for US progressive organization MoveOn--even the progressives I worked with in the US didn't get that not everyone thinks the US is the greatest democracy in the world. Because, guess what! We're not Americans! We're Canadians!
But it's disturbing how far that ethnocentric rhetoric has really penetrated into the US consciousness.
That could have been pretty much anyone from any part of the world wrighting this. The U.S is screwing everyone over and people all over the world are pretty fucking tired of it.
Indeed, an aggressive, bullying empire is everyone's problem, not just Canada's.
You are still captive of the perennial scapegoating logic.
Toro @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:43 pm
Benoit Benoit:
Canadians indulge themselves by abusing the analogy.
Toro @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:55 pm
bump
Benoit @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:37 pm
If the US would be like any other countries, the world would not necessarily be a better place.
Zipperfish @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:51 pm
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Tokimini Tokimini:
Brent Swain Brent Swain:
We don't get tied up trying to control other people's turf.
I think a member of the First Nations might disagree with you on that point.
Indeed, an angel cannot live under the wing of a demon.
Because light is the child of darkness.
Canadians indulge themselves by abusing the analogy.
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
The analogy of the wet socks can be abused without offending anyone though.
Unless the lack of offence is the offence itself!
Benoit @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:57 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
The analogy of the wet socks can be abused without offending anyone though.
Unless the lack of offence is the offence itself!
Contrition is purification.
Zipperfish @ Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:02 pm
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
The analogy of the wet socks can be abused without offending anyone though.
Unless the lack of offence is the offence itself!
Contrition is purification.
And intransigence is glorification.
fifeboy @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:16 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
The analogy of the wet socks can be abused without offending anyone though.
Unless the lack of offence is the offence itself!
Contrition is purification.
And intransigence is glorification.
Benoit @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:16 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
The analogy of the wet socks can be abused without offending anyone though.
Unless the lack of offence is the offence itself!
Contrition is purification.
And intransigence is glorification.
Intransigence is being possessed by a false god.
Zipperfish @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:28 am
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
The analogy of the wet socks can be abused without offending anyone though.
Unless the lack of offence is the offence itself!
Contrition is purification.
And intransigence is glorification.
Intransigence is being possessed by a false god.
False gods are but the glittering clothes of the true god.
Benoit @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:36 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
The analogy of the wet socks can be abused without offending anyone though.
Unless the lack of offence is the offence itself!
Contrition is purification.
And intransigence is glorification.
Intransigence is being possessed by a false god.
False gods are but the glittering clothes of the true god.
The US are not going naked.
Zipperfish @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:39 am
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Benoit Benoit:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Indeed--never weigh your socks when they're wet!
The analogy of the wet socks can be abused without offending anyone though.
Unless the lack of offence is the offence itself!
Contrition is purification.
And intransigence is glorification.
Intransigence is being possessed by a false god.
False gods are but the glittering clothes of the true god.
The US are not going naked.
Thye are wearing an emperor's clothes.
Previous 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next