Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Really? Do tell.

   

When we Blow off some anti-american steam they suck it all in yet if an american were to do the same to american they would be shot on the spot .

When we say we are pissed we are drunk and they are angry .

   

Well, we get a lot of shows for free that would probably be categorized under pay per view on your airwaves...

A lot of songs I've noticed if I hear it on an American station, they blank out several words that are deemed "inappropriate" whereas on our own radio stations, the words do actually exist.

We've also got shows like "Baby Blue" which is on CityTV on Friday nights at 1am, and its a series of sex tales basically... rather explicit ones at that. Swingers & all sorts of "naughty" things. There's also Webdreams which follows Dugmor from the adult industry through his career as he searches for talent Malezia and then finds her & launches her career with Vivid Entertainment. Again its pretty explicit, it shows her first anal sex scene, and stuff like that. There's also Sin Cities which is a british bloke who goes around to all the fetish/sexy spots through the world, and explores every kind of kink imagineable. BDSM, Bondage, Blowjobs, BBW, Orgies, all kinds of things. His dick & balls & all sorts of womens tits are all over the show.
Then there's another show which airs at all hours of the day depending on what channel you get it on, called SexTV which explores things like tantric sex and kama sutra and sexual therapy & that one is a little bizarre, I saw it a couple of times & basically there's just a lot of people in the same room, practicing different varieties of sexual positions & "flavors" If you will.

Canadian television rocks. None of the above is pay per view, and yes it all rather clearly shows insertion & thrusting motions & balls slapping buttocks & bouncing tits and all the rest.

Then there's our commercials, which I've had a few American friends of mine comment that nothing like that would ever be allowed to air on American airwaves, most common example of that would be the AXE Deodorant commercials which have always been filled with plenty of sexual suggestion.

   

My radio has soemthing called "The American Top 40". It's the only time I hear music with bleeped words. it's really stupid.

And I love our commercials to no end,

   

...Continued from russia greece turkey thread.

I would still have to disagree.
Although the drafting of the constitution left room for the us federal government to assume powers, I would still argue that a state has more powers over it's citizens tha a province.
Here is some important U.S. legistlation detailing government powers.
Articles of Confederation
Article II
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

United States Constitution
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

United States Constitution
Article I, Section 8: Powers Granted to Congress

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Now, here is a description of Canadian federal powers:
Under the Constitution Act of 1867, the federal government is responsible for national defence, criminal law, banking, the postal system and foreign relations. It is also involved in many other areas, including transportation, communications, immigration, health and environmental matters.

vs. the province:

Provincial governments are constitutionally responsible for civil justice, property and municipal institutions. They also share responsibility with the federal government for such matters as health services, agriculture, immigration, social assistance and transportation.
The example you sited is that the provinces are more powerful in that they have more power to amend the constitution than in the U.S., but I would say that this is more of difference in the kind of power. The American constitution aimed to design a federal government where laws would be made. And I would not consider the power to amend the constition that you described as an individual power:
(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
if anything it readdresses my point that we as Canadians are forced to look across our provincial borders for support in certain areas, thereby causing us to take more notice of distant opinions.

*You are probably right that some Americans just don't give a shit.

   

I don't question for a moment the idea that the states originally had a great deal of autonomy, but history has been very hard on the rights of the states. In modern practice, states choose to do things like pass laws legalising medical cannabis, but the federal government refuses to accept those laws and continues to arrest people anyway. They do this under the theory that, since congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since cannabis may be transported across state lines and sold, that they have the right to regulate it everywhere. In one recent case in federal court, this exact issue was brought up -- whether congress had the right to regulate the 2 cannabis plants being grown for a woman who had cancer, when there was absolutely no reason to think that any of her 2 plants would ever make it across a state border. The federal court, not surprisingly, ruled in favour of the federal government's right, so in actual practice, it seems that the federal government claims the right to regulate anything which it is even possible to transport.

The theoretical basis for democratic forms of government goes back the the 17th-18th century idea of "consent of the governed." This means not only that we should be free to vote as we wish, but that, if the government fails to conduct itself as it ought, the people may vote with their feet and leave. If no other reasonable option be available, it is expected that the people will go into revolt.

I would argue that the rights of a state or province are in many ways analogous to those of the individual, and that a just and democratic federation also requires the consent of the governed. And yet, when states wished to vote with their feet, it was judged to be an act of treason and an act of war. Because of this, Americans have lost what is arguably their most useful check against tyranny of the federal government. If they don't like the way things are being run, all they can do is flee the country en masse, or take arms against it. Considering what modern military technology is like, the latter course is not a realistic option, so the only choice for dissatisfied Americans is to leave -- unless the government decides one day to close the borders, in which case they will have no options at all.

The fact that Quebec, or even Scotland, can still openly and freely discuss the possibility of leaving their union shows how much autonomy they really have as compared to a US state, where advocating secession could be considered an act of treason and a capital offense.

   

I agree, however free speech doesn't imply a monetary value to it. So I don't get what you mean.



Not necessarily, you banned the Howard Stern show and can only get it now on satellite. A paid service.



So showing wobbling balls and tits constitute "more" freedom of speech when they are free instead of paid? Nothing to do with preventing young children from viewing it then?



They probably wouldn't. The FCC has a bug up their ass, and I agree, it's controversial here in the states.

But I fail to see where you mock the US version of freedom of speech?

   

Nobody, anywhere, has been able to hear Howard Stern for free since January 1, he bolted to satellite radio to escape from the FCC.

   

The FCC wasn't the reason Stern went to Sirius. Sterns show had been on the air (free) for 20 years and had been fined mulitple times. The $500 million dollar deal plus another $200 million bonus, I would guess was the reason.

   

If you fail to see it then there's little that I can do to help you... but basically it kind of goes along with the very first bit. You say free speech doesn't imply a monetary value to it, except that to indulge in certain verbal priviledges, sometimes Americans do have to pay.

Mr. Canada -- The American Top 40 is a perfect example of American radio.

And yes the FCC sucks. Glad Canadians are less restricted, is all I'm saying.

My point was basically that I don't get americans who boast of their 'freedom of speech' priviledges while being blind to the fact that they're not the only ones who have freedom of speech & in fact have fewer freedoms than their neighbors right above them for example.

   

The question of whether or not a State can secede was resolved by the Civil War.

So talk about it all you want, that isn't treason. But if you take up arms to break up the country, well, that is.

On the other hand, a US Commonwealth - like Puerto Rico or the North Marianas - can hold an election and choose to apply for Statehood or they can choose independence or they can choose to remain a Commonwealth.

The only US State that simultaneously retains Commonwealth status is Massachussetts. Virginia's Commonwealth status was lost with the Civil War and although they invoke it from time to time it is in name only.

Massachussetts, as a Commonwealth, maintains its own State Militia that is NOT the National Guard (which the President can order around at will) and the US Supreme Court upheld the independent status of the Mass. Militia when Nixon tried to place them under the Guard and send them to Vietnam.

So, unlike any Province in Canada, we have one State that has its own standing Army (small, but it's the principle of the thing) that does not answer to the Federal government in any way.

   

I disagree. The Civil War was illegal in so many ways. The steps Lincoln took to make sure he could prosecute the war have nothing to do with the rule of law. The legislation that came as a result, are dubious and for the most part taken under duress. Of course, I'm glad that slaves were freed. I support this part of the outcome and do not wish to revisit slavery. However, that doesn't meen that I don't want the crimes rectified and the freedoms of the original constitution replaced. Replacing the repubulic with runaway nationalism was a slight of hand that I don't accept. States have the responsibility to protect their citizens from encroachment by the federal government. States have been unecessarily defeatest in shurking their responsibilities to protect their citizens.

   

Don't be a simpleton. We have more coal than any other country on earth. We also have more oil than you, but we also have environazis that successfully keep us from drilling, and for your sake we buy lots of oil from you. We also have plenty of wood. And yes we have a better military which probably keeps you free. But we like you anyway.

   

Twice the reserves and five times the consumers.... Nice to know you still think of Joe up North.

   

With all due respect, I don't think calling the person a "simpleton" is necessary and this thread is not about who has more of what but the pros and cons of each nation. Oh, and you don't have more oil or keep us free but we like you anyways and also that you buy our energy.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next