babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » US Canada Bashing Highest Ever

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: US Canada Bashing Highest Ever
lonewolf2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10589

posted 19 December 2005 11:31 PM      Profile for lonewolf2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the wake of US AMbassador to Canada David Wilkins' complaint about Paul Martin criticizing the USA on its dismal environmantal record, news tidbits are mounting up showing the US to be more than a little paranoid and angry at Canada.

quote:
Washington — Canada has been described lately by a conservative U.S. television host as “a stalker” and a “retarded cousin.”

Another pundit recently asked if Canadians weren't getting “a little too big for their britches.”

“Anybody with any ambition at all, or intelligence, has left Canada and is now living in New York,” he said.

“Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he's nice but you don't take him seriously. That's Canada.”



U.S. pundits bash Canada - Globe and Mail

There have also been stories about how the US is seriously considering a WALL along the border between the US and Canada

quote:
The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday (Dec 15) to consider erecting "physical barriers" along the American border with Canada.

It's the firmest step yet toward building the kinds of fences now in place on the Mexican frontier to stop the northward flow of illegal aliens and smuggled goods.


National Post - 'Berlin Wall' of North America?

Does this bother anyone? Should we be scared? Do we need to elect Canada's answer to George Bush (Harper) to stave off invasion?

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 19 December 2005 11:33 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A wall they say? And they're willing to pay for it? Excellent news.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 December 2005 11:35 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A wall?

Bring it on!


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
lonewolf2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10589

posted 19 December 2005 11:40 PM      Profile for lonewolf2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And just 2 hours ago this story:

quote:
Martin offers 'necessary measures' in Arctic
Canadian Press

CAMBRIDGE, Ont. — Prime Minister Paul Martin says the federal government will take the "necessary measures'' to stop American submarines from passing through Canada's Arctic waters.

He offered no specifics but cast a wary glance at reports that at least one U.S. military submarine had recently patrolled the Arctic and likely passed through Canadian waters.

The prime minister has repeatedly drawn attention to his differences with the United States as part of a re-election strategy designed to benefit his Liberal party. But he chose his words carefully when asked whether Canada would accept U.S. subs under its coastal waters.

"No,'' Martin replied.

"Arctic waters are Canadian waters, and Canadian waters are sovereign waters. Canada will defend its sovereignty.''

He used stronger language -- but offered no additional details -- when asked in French how Canada would stop such incursions: "We will take the necessary measures,'' he replied.

The comments came after news an American nuclear submarine, the USS Charlotte, visited the North Pole last month, and likely passed through Canadian waters in the process.


CTV news

.... this is starting to read like a Tom Clancy book!

(Wonder what we'll use to repel US subs.... baby seals? )

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
TeamNeedles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8126

posted 19 December 2005 11:44 PM      Profile for TeamNeedles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let's be hoenst... Bush bashing is probably going to help your vote totals if you're Paul Martin.

So, I can see why he did it...

And the rest? I'm not too worried about a bunch of crazy Fox News pundits spouting their usual crap.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: TeamNeedles ]


From: Waterloo, Ontario | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 December 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does this mean if we stop trucking our lumber down there that they'll stop sending us toilet paper finished products ?.

Does this mean if we shut off the gas and oil, then they'll stop being our friends ?.

Does it mean if we stop sending megawatts of hydro-electric, coal-fired and nuclear power their way that they won't miss it ?.

They've really do have our pinheads in Ottawa and Calgary over a barrel.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 20 December 2005 12:00 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
A wall they say? And they're willing to pay for it? Excellent news.

It reminds me of that joke about a new arrival being shown around heaven and seeing a walled-in area.

"That's where we keep the born-agains. They think they're the only ones here."


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 20 December 2005 12:10 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I heard about Carlson's remarks. I'm a little more bothered by the derogatory reference to mentally challenged people than an attack on Canada. These pundits have shown their true character again, why let their snide remarks about Canada bother us?

Didn't Jon Stewart say something to Carlson on live TV a while back?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 20 December 2005 12:11 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A wall you say? To keep out us nasty Canadians. Where are they going to get the lumber to build it?
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
lonewolf2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10589

posted 20 December 2005 12:13 AM      Profile for lonewolf2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A wall you say? To keep out us nasty Canadians. Where are they going to get the lumber to build it?

hee hee Good One...


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 20 December 2005 02:16 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Their very own "gated community". How... typically American.

However, walls are not built only to keep things out... If I were an American, this would worry me a great deal.

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 20 December 2005 03:15 AM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do think we should be aware that in attacking us, and they have been for a while, they are making us into an enemy. This is a change, when I lived there Canada was rarely mentioned. I don't know how concerned we should be given the mentality of those making these kinds of statements but given the Monroe Doctrine I don't think we can ignore them.

For me, there is already a wall there but if they want an actual wall I would prefer that to deep integration.


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 20 December 2005 04:56 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The problem with US walls is they are only one way.

Now, if the wall would keep them in...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 20 December 2005 09:21 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So are we anti-American or just Anti-Bush? I think that distinction should be made. I sense we are anti-Bush.
From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 December 2005 09:37 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's what the right wants. They want to conflate Bush and the U.S. so that they are one in the same. Even in the best of times there is justifiable resentment of some U.S. policies. But Bush and company have taken it to a level never seen before.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 20 December 2005 12:41 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stupendousgirlie:
So are we anti-American or just Anti-Bush?

Neither. We are anti bad policy, wherever it comes from.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 20 December 2005 01:09 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
I do think we should be aware that in attacking us, and they have been for a while, they are making us into an enemy. This is a change, when I lived there Canada was rarely mentioned. I don't know how concerned we should be given the mentality of those making these kinds of statements but given the Monroe Doctrine I don't think we can ignore them.


How is the Monroe Doctrine pertinent to the current situation under discussion? That doctrine is concerned with protecting the Americas from the
intervention of "foreign systems".

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: white rabbit ]


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 December 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Because the USA has interpreted the Monroe Doctrine to mean that it is the imperial power in the Americas, rather than just the protective power.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 20 December 2005 01:14 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We are pro acting to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to preserve the environment; the Bush administration and its hangers on in Canada are anti this.

We are anti warmongering, war crimes, and torture; the Bush administration is a pack of war-mongers, war criminals and torturers with its hangerson in Canada making excuses for the inexcusable.

We are pro democracy and the public good; the Bush administration and its hangers on in Canada are anti these.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 20 December 2005 02:22 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Because the USA has interpreted the Monroe Doctrine to mean that it is the imperial power in the Americas, rather than just the protective power.

You are correct in that the US is the self-appointed overseer/protector of the Americas; the doctrine, however explicitly gives the US the obligation to expel foreign interlopers who are intent on creating a different system in this hemisphere. Hence, the anti-communist operations during the Cold War. How can the Bush administration's current antipathy toward Canada be construed as a manifestation of the doctrine?


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 20 December 2005 02:29 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm Wasnt it the monroe doctrine used to justify the invasion of panama and grenada?

No foreign invaders there, just Cubans in grenada and panamanians in panama


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609

posted 20 December 2005 02:30 PM      Profile for Deep Dish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
John Diefenbaker was quite fond of saying that American foriegn policy always assumes hegemony in the Americas and I've yet to see him proven wronng.

I am wondering when we are seeing lots of dirty wars fought over this "socialist revival" in Latin America.


From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 20 December 2005 02:44 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Deep Dish:
John Diefenbaker was quite fond of saying that American foriegn policy always assumes hegemony in the Americas and I've yet to see him proven wronng.

I am wondering when we are seeing lots of dirty wars fought over this "socialist revival" in Latin America.


The US could very well intervene if the elected socialists in Latin America start tinkering with land reform. But they won't be able to make the case that foreign entities are behind the recent shift to the left (as was the case when the USSR was deemed the foreign bogeyman propping up Cuba, Chile, etc). Instead, they will be forced to argue
something akin to the pretext that these governments are harbouring, or sympathetic to, foreign terrorists.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 20 December 2005 02:57 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Narco-terrorism as they've tried to label Morales.

However, the US because of its hubris is in a weakened position in this hemisphere (how ironic, as they've moved their operations to the middle east). Bush is in fact unravelling the very foundations of American hegemony and fabric of American society. I'd be thankful if it wasn't for the incredible destruction he is exacting as the price for the decline of the American Empire.

The Martin government is like that of Chile's that is pro-free trade but socially liberal. The NDP would approximate Lula, while we still have yet to see our Chavez. Harper would be like Uribe in Colombia, but even he has criticized the US of late, as Chavez moves rapidly to improve relations. It's actually remarkable the speed which new alliances are being built in the region.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anti-Totalitarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5438

posted 20 December 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for Anti-Totalitarian        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Douglas MacKinnon, a press secretary to former Republican senator Bob Dole, also recently accused Canada of harbouring terrorists.

"Can Canada really be considered our friend anymore?" he asked in a recent commentary in the right-wing Washington Times newspaper.

"What other question can be asked when the Canadian government not only willingly allows Islamic terrorists into their country but does nothing to stop them from entering our nation?"

I find it curious that the U.S. expects us to guard their borders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Canada's responsibility solely to defend our own borders?

Also, has anyone checked out the rantings of Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun? He should be on Fox along with Cavuto et al.
See link:
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2005/12/20/1361127.html

Edited for formatting.

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: Anti-Totalitarian ]


From: somewhere in subspace | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9457

posted 20 December 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for Phred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would surely hope the US would collapse on itself (like the Roman empire) long before plans to invade Canada are drawn.

As a side note.... lets say that the US would decide to invade us.... do you think other countries would stand up beside us and back us up?

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: Phred ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 20 December 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They are more likely to burrow from within; in return for our invading actors and comedians, they send us bloggers to whine about anti-Americanism on the rightwing websites.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 20 December 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Phred:
As a side note.... lets say that the US would decide to invade us.... do you think other countries would stand up beside us and back us up?

No. The Anschluss would hapen so fast that no one would be able to do anything other than protest. Of course, we have so many Canadians who like the idea of Anschluss in Canada that it might not even be noticed.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 20 December 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Harper would be like Uribe in Colombia, but even he has criticized the US of late, as Chavez moves rapidly to improve relations.

I understand Fidel Castro has acted as an interloper between Uribe and Chavez in helping them to improve relations.

IMHO the American Empire has over-stretched itself with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its been a common problem for empires throughout the centuries.

That imperial overstretch has allowed some independent political currents to develop in Latin America.

quote:
A wall they say? And they're willing to pay for it? Excellent news.

It'll help keep the American guns off the streets of our cities. OTOH I wonder if the geniuses in Washington have figured out how to build a wall through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River?

Also there are a few homes and businesses along the Quebec/Vermont border where the border runs straight through them..."Sorry Junior...you need to have that big guy in a uniform over there check your passport before you can watch TV"

On second thought...maybe we could just welcome the state of Vermont into Canada. Home of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream...and independent socialist congressman Bernie Sanders.

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 20 December 2005 03:34 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe we should put out an invitation to selected states to join Canada before the wall goes up.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 20 December 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
The problem with US walls is they are only one way.

Now, if the wall would keep them in...



On BBC World at lunch I heard that
Fifty-five per cent of Americans believe God created humans as we know them today. I also see 65% of Americans want creationism to be taught along with evolution; 37% would want it to be taught instead of evolution.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 December 2005 05:30 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yanqui crazoids bashing Canada on CNN

quote:
Conservatives, as a general matter, take the position that you should not punish your friends and reward your enemies. And Canada has become trouble recently.

It's -- I suppose it's always, I might add, the worst Americans who end up going there. The Tories after the Revolutionary War, the Vietnam draft dodgers after Vietnam. And now after this election, you have the blue-state people moving up there.


Here's more!


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
glacier76
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7686

posted 20 December 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for glacier76     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Didn't Jon Stewart say something to Carlson on live TV a while back?

He called him a "dick." Although I think that's a total insult of dicks everywhere...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
JPG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10478

posted 20 December 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for JPG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
COULTER: We like the English-speaking Canadians.

Too bad English speaking Canadians hate her fucking guts.

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: JPG ]


From: Toronto/Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 20 December 2005 07:54 PM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
White Rabbit you asked, "How is the Monroe Doctrine pertinent to the current situation under discussion? That doctrine is concerned with protecting the Americas from the intervention of "foreign systems".

I'm glad to see there was a response and will just add the following quote:

“The bilateral statement proposed by the British thereby became a unilateral declaration by the United States. As Monroe stated: "The American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers." Monroe outlined two separate spheres of influence: the Americas and Europe. The independent lands of the Western Hemisphere would be solely the United States' domain. In exchange, the United States pledged to avoid involvement in the political affairs of Europe, such as the ongoing Greek struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire, and not to interfere in the existing European colonies already in the Americas.

By the mid-1800s, Monroe's declaration, combined with ideas of Manifest Destiny, provided precedent and support for U.S. expansion on the American continent. In the late 1800s, U.S. economic and military power enabled it to enforce the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine's greatest extension came with Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary, which inverted the original meaning of the doctrine and came to justify unilateral U.S. broadened in Latin America."

Monroe Doctrine

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 December 2005 09:07 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Maybe we should put out an invitation to selected states to join Canada before the wall goes up.

Can we rename California to "Californ-eye-eh" and wear speedos at Big Sur in February ?.

I wish-they-all-could be Californeyeh giiiirrrls ?


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 20 December 2005 10:53 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Their very own "gated community". How... typically American.

However, walls are not built only to keep things out... If I were an American, this would worry me a great deal.

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


I am profoundly sad this evening after everything I've heard and read today.

We are losing our minds and our freedoms. I fear this is truly the beginning of the end of the American experiment.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 20 December 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
I am profoundly sad this evening after everything I've heard and read today.

We are losing our minds and our freedoms. I fear this is truly the beginning of the end of the American experiment.


Don't worry, AE. We said the same thing during the Vietnam years. When Martin Luther King got shot, I thought the whole country would erupt. These messes come and go.

I do think that Bush has created far too many enemies, which will come to haunt the US. It will take many years for America to recover from the damage.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 21 December 2005 02:06 AM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
COULTER: We like the English-speaking Canadians.

[singsong voice] Ah-ahahah-AH, Coulter likes you and doesn't like us... Ann Coulter and English-speaking Canadians sittin' in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G[/singsong voice]


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 December 2005 02:11 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ooooooooh! That's it!

Just wait 'til I git my hands on you...


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phred
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9457

posted 21 December 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for Phred     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So back to my original question... if the US invaded and took us over... NO ONE would do anything? Granted they could do it quick enough so that no one else could get here in time to stop it... but I wonder if anyone would help with the liberation?
From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 21 December 2005 12:27 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Phred:
... but I wonder if anyone would help with the liberation?

I doubt if there would be a liberation. Think Anschluss. Look up the word and history of it. Anschluss implies a fair bit of voluntary cooperation, particularly at the business and government level. The US could have their troops into and back out of Canada faster than anyone could react and all of our decisions would be made in Washington, while we would continue to believe that we were independent. Hey, has it already happened?


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 21 December 2005 12:47 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A wall! What a great idea. Of course, let's be sure to keep all of our oil and water walled off too.

Unfortunately, the US cannot even build a wall to keep the ocean out of NO, so I highly doubt they could build one here.


From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 21 December 2005 01:35 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:

[singsong voice] Ah-ahahah-AH, Coulter likes you and doesn't like us... Ann Coulter and English-speaking Canadians sittin' in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G[/singsong voice]


eeeew. cooties.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 21 December 2005 04:08 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't be bummed out AE...after all, we've now got you saying "arse" instead of ass and we've almost got you believing "eh" is a valuable addition to the language written and spoken...

there's a hairy hoary old joke from Vancouver Island, it made the rounds when I was a teen-ager (and God knows that was a long time ago)..."there's a thin line between genius and insanity; and Canadians call it the 49th parallel"

Build a wall. Save us the time, trouble, and expense.

I wrote a letter to PMPM asking him to tell the USA they could keep the billions they've stolen in the softwood lumber dispute; keep it as the only payment they're going to get for the nationalization of all Canadian assetts currently owned by Americans. Then I asked him to cancel NAFTA.

Now, if he'll do that and they'll build the wall, eh. We can dance in the streets and sing Everything is beautiful...in it's own way, eh.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 21 December 2005 08:03 PM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As long as A.E. and other friends are on this side of the wall.
From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
lonewolf2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10589

posted 21 December 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for lonewolf2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So back to my original question... if the US invaded and took us over... NO ONE would do anything?

Time to have another viewing of the video made by Michael Moore in 1995 starring our own John Candy called:

Canadian Bacon (Surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto!)

details, trailer etc

Brief plot: The US economy is in a rut, and so is the president's approval rating. What we need is a good war, but the Russians aren't interested. Hey -- how about that big polite country to the north? Niagara Fall Sheriff Bud B. Boomer takes this all a bit too seriously, though.

another viewer's comments...

quote:
As a Canadian, I laughed my head off for the first 2/3 of this movie and after that I stopped but only because it started to fall apart NOT because any material in it was offensive. The jabs at BOTH countries was excellent. I also live near the Falls and got a blast out of the "plungers" into the river. Funniest parts: -Jim Belushi announcing that Canada has massed 90% of its population along the border in obvious preparation for an attack. -Boomer and Honey and everyone insulting Canadian beer at a hockey game and causing a riot. -Stephen Wright as an RCMP officer in parade dress getting punched and stating, "That was totally unnecessary." -argument about Toronto or Ottawa being the capital of Canada -the deployment of Omega Force in spite of Rip Torn's mentioning of its strict prohibition against Caucasians according to the Helms Amendment -the "Summit Thingy" between Alan Alda and the Russians and their obsession with MTV and "what's that other one? VH-1!" -the "Canada Desk" at the CIA.

Also, at the hospital, Honey getting a get-well card from Gordon Lightfoot and looking out the window, seeing a blizzard and dog-sleds and muttering, "Ottawa." under her breath. Moore SCORES!!! ALL the clichés and satires are perfect on both sides of the border.



From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sandy47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10648

posted 22 December 2005 11:54 AM      Profile for Sandy47     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And now, the 9/11 myths are being recycled by people who should know better...
__________________________________________
U.S. senator revives 9/11 myth about Canada
Embassy demands he retract claim terrorists came from here; U.S. TV hosts calls us 'retarded'

Sheldon Alberts
The Ottawa Citizen; with files from Citizen News Services

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Canada-U.S. relations are at a low ebb, with (Senator Conrad Burns) calling the border a gateway for criminals entering the U.S. and MSNBC host Tucker Carlson likening Canada to a 'retarded' family member that you patronize at family functions.

WASHINGTON - Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna demanded an apology and retraction from a United States senator who claimed yesterday that the terrorists who struck the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, entered the country from Canada.

Montana Senator Conrad Burns, a Republican, made the charge during a news conference at which he said the "porous" stretch of border between Montana and Alberta is a prime route for drug runners and criminals travelling south from Calgary.

more...
______________________________________________
I find it interesting that when these types complain about "porous borders" enabling criminal traffic, that 'criminal' element is only travelling one way. There's never any credence given to our problems with US miscreants.

I need to learn to sp.el

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: Sandy47 ]


From: Southwest of Niagara - 43.0° N 81.2° W | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 22 December 2005 11:58 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Burns said he "misspoke."

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051220/w122094.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 22 December 2005 12:13 PM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They don't mind retracting, they know people do not pay attention to that, they keep saying it because they want to stir up animosity in the USian people for Canada. They are the HATE team, c'mon boys and girls, let's hate scary, stupid Canada, blah, blah, blah.

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 22 December 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
They are the HATE team, c'mon boys and girls, let's hate scary, stupid Canada, blah, blah, blah.

"c'mon boys and girls, let's hate scary, stupid [fill in the blank]." Yes, these haters need scapegoats, lots of them. I'm really surprised that they aren't going after Jews; they seem to have it in for everybody else; why not the classical scapegoat? The big disappointment is that the general population doesn't shut these bigots down.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 22 December 2005 01:58 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, they're not (mostly) scapegoating the Jews because they want Israel to beat up on the Arabs for them. But that doesn't mean they're totally cool with Jews; they've surfaced some in Fox's valiant defense of Christmas against all those vicious attackers:
quote:
Fox’s John Gibson: “The wagers of this war on Christmas are a cabal of secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists, and liberal, guilt-wracked Christians — not just Jewish people

(Italics mine)


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 22 December 2005 03:33 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The hate mongers shouldn't even have an audience, but these days they seem to be getting lots of applause. It's truely scary. The road to Auschvitz is short.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 22 December 2005 08:16 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On the CBC radio noon phone-in this week, a woman who had fled Europe to Canada after the Second World War put it best - America has become unrecognizable she said, compared to the America she had always known. She quoted the title of Jane Jacob's book "Dark Times Ahead." I think it's good to locate the dicussion of Canadian-US relations in the larger picture of American foreign relations generally. In that light, there are some very encouraging signs of the dimunition of American influence in the world, especially in Latin America.

And another thought on the topic - Tucker Carlson reveals a great deal about himself when he describes how he treats a "retarded" cousin at a family gathering.

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: looney ]


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 22 December 2005 08:45 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by looney:
I think it's good to locate the dicussion of Canadian-US relations in the larger picture of American foreign relations generally.

I agree with you there. America's traditional allies are beginning to distance themselves. It's time Canada did the same.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609

posted 23 December 2005 12:37 AM      Profile for Deep Dish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

I agree with you there. America's traditional allies are beginning to distance themselves. It's time Canada did the same.

I heard an American pundit trying to explain this phenomenon, he bascially stated when WW2 ended the US was a part of NATO in the cold war -but since the enemy of the US has shifted, they will require a new set of allies.

The pundit singled out Canada, Germany, and South Korea as the examples of allies who are growing increasingly nervous about the direction of the US.

In one sense, the pundit wasn't wrong (I don't remember the source, but this was recent) but with all due respect does the US think that the war on terror allies (Italy, Poland, Georgia the Ukraine) are on the level of Canada, Germany and Korea (who are suprisingly in Iraq)?


From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Harrenys Targaryen
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11766

posted 16 January 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for Harrenys Targaryen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Maybe we should put out an invitation to selected states to join Canada before the wall goes up.

Perhaps something such as the following template might work?

http://photobucket.com/albums/b88/Matarys/?action=view¤t=TheUPC.jpg

I would also petition for the following cities to join the following provinces:

Reno to British Columbia (A gambling zone would be nice.)

Tucson to British Columbia (The nation needs more geographical wonders.)

St. Louis to Manitoba (Time to restore it to its former glory.)

Toledo to Ontario (They've treated their Muslims well.)

Cleveland to Ontario (It's Kucinich's turf - need I say more?)


From: Chicago(waste)land | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca