Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

US vs. Canadian English (ultimately US English will prevail in the entire world)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

jim_...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to
Here's my solution to the Canadian problem: we'll absorb it into the US
in a gradual process, in the way the EU is built upon. Now that Europe
is heading in the direction towards a monetary union plus a political
union (Amsterdam treaty) - we can suggest the same manner be applied
here in North America. Roughly 50 years ago no-one would've thought
this might work out in Europe. The US and Canada share much more in
common than France and Germany do: We're integrated culturally,
religiously, linguistically, and so on. Many Canucks tune into US tv
channels, radio stations, cable companies and Internet Services
Providers. It implies to most pro-sports either (except for NFL) and I
dont see any reason why not in Football. The strike in GM plants in
Flynt, Michigan, had its implications in Canada as well, especially in
Windsor,ONT. It ranges from tv stations to churches. Take heed, for
example to the "Union of North American Baptist Churches" both here and
in Canada. So we can expand NAFTA to eventually gain political
integration. Quebec will be independent, and some areas in Northern
Canada will be rendered as Indian state within the union (what Oklahoma
was thought and intended to be).Canada today is an artificial
creation by the Brits who had wanted to exploit the country thus united
Ontario with French speaking Quebec.
The US-Canada border is indeed a virtual one since many Canucks have
cross-border friends and relatives. Now it's time all the English
speaking Canadians become American since they're already 80% today.
Canada and Puerto Rico will be our "new frontier", our last states to
join and we'll run a country ranging from Alaska to Florida. Canada's
manifest destiny will be more or less that of Alaska and Hawaii. The
Natives will eventually gain their own state in which English,
Cherokee,Athabaskan and Navajo will be recognized as official
labguages, while PR will become an English and Spanish speaking state.

I've already emailed some Senators about it:
sen...@cochran.senate.gov,
senat...@lott.senate.gov,senator...@mccain.senate.gov

Jim Foss,
Oconomowoc, WI 53066
jimh...@execpc.com, jim_...@my-deja.com
dairyland state
"Go cheeseheads, go, bring back the Superbowl


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Canuckman

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to
I don't want to become American just to save our local hockey teams
<jim_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:855eq2$6et$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

Bill Hendrick

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to

Didn't you post this same message word for word about a year ago?


Stash

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to

Bill Hendrick wrote:
>
> Didn't you post this same message word for word about a year ago?

Yeah, he did, and this group decided that the Canadians were going to
absorb the US.

mani...@home.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 19:29:27 GMT, jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:

>Here's my solution to the Canadian problem: we'll absorb it into the US

<snip>

What "Canadian problem" is that to which you are referring. I'm a
Canadian living in Canada and don't consider that to be a problem.
Even goofy American red necks aren't a problem, just a pain in the
ass...


Manou

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
In article <H9sd4.2431$Fy3.1...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,

"Canuckman" <tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want to become American just to save our local hockey teams


they are lost anyway... oo how americans can screw things everywhere!

-- Manou

Freddo

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
In article <387688ec.241658684@news>, mani...@home.com says...

> What "Canadian problem" is that to which you are referring. I'm a
> Canadian living in Canada and don't consider that to be a problem.
> Even goofy American red necks aren't a problem, just a pain in the
> ass...


There IS a Canadian problem! She's called Sheila Copps!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fre...@home.com
ICQ uin 1562286
http://members.home.net/beltfred
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

m...@aussi.net

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
mani...@home.com says...

>> What "Canadian problem" is that to which you are referring. I'm a
>> Canadian living in Canada and don't consider that to be a problem.
>> Even goofy American red necks aren't a problem, just a pain in the
>> ass...
>

Freddo <fre...@home.com> wrote:
>There IS a Canadian problem! She's called Sheila Copps!


Sheila is "Father Jean's" problem, Jean is the taxpayer's problem...

John Amero

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
So we are going to become Canamericans LOL
John

--
JOHN AMERO, Parksville, B. C. Canada E-Mail to:-
johnaNO§P...@island.net
**NOTE: REMOVE the_ NO§PAM _in the email address for
reply.**
Check out my Web Site at- http://www.island.net/~johna/ ICQ
UIN 2166985
... or JOHN AMERO'S Business at:- Email to:-
John...@singaporerental.com
& Web Site:- http://singaporerental.com/

John Amero

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
Well there is one thing for sure, seeing this IS ONLY
can.talk.guns, we both need a better government who does not
think they are a dictatorship to take away ones possessions.
Cheers,
John

jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Here's my solution to the Canadian problem: we'll absorb it into the US

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

--

mred

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to

John Amero <" johnaNO§PAM"@island.net> wrote in message
news:387734E9...@island.net...

> So we are going to become Canamericans LOL


Better that, than Japanese, who own 25 % of all Kanadian Government bonds.


Whom would you rather live beside? the States or some third world European
or African. or Asian country.?

Not much of a choice is there?

ed/ontario.kanada


Alex Cunningham

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to

--

"Freddo" <fre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.12e099fcee617c41989691@news...
> In article <387688ec.241658684@news>, mani...@home.com says...


>
> > What "Canadian problem" is that to which you are referring. I'm a
> > Canadian living in Canada and don't consider that to be a problem.
> > Even goofy American red necks aren't a problem, just a pain in the
> > ass...
>
>

> There IS a Canadian problem! She's called Sheila Copps!
>

Make that three. the other two especially for legal owners of firearms.
Messrs Rock and McClellan.

--
Cheers.
Alex C.

There are 12,000,000. Sheep in Ontario.
Problem is 9,000,000 of them think they are people.

Stash

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to

If Canada could be moved to the Mexican side of the US.
we wouldn't have to put up with $&*^%#$( winter!
>
> ed/ontario.kanada

Freddo

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
In article <38770a7a...@news.telusplanet.net>, m...@aussi.net
says...

> mani...@home.com says...
>
> >> What "Canadian problem" is that to which you are referring. I'm a
> >> Canadian living in Canada and don't consider that to be a problem.
> >> Even goofy American red necks aren't a problem, just a pain in the
> >> ass...
> >
>
> Freddo <fre...@home.com> wrote:
> >There IS a Canadian problem! She's called Sheila Copps!
>
>
> Sheila is "Father Jean's" problem, Jean is the taxpayer's problem...

I don't understand why the people of Hamilton keep electing her.
All because her old man was 'boss hog' for decades? She's a
national embarrasement.

Anyway, as for the content of the original post, our ancestors blew
it big time by staying local to the crown. Now we're paying for it.

Freddo

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
In article <UWKd4.11827$tT2....@quark.idirect.com>, ca...@idirect.com
says...

>
>
> --
>
> "Freddo" <fre...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.12e099fcee617c41989691@news...
> > In article <387688ec.241658684@news>, mani...@home.com says...

> >
> > > What "Canadian problem" is that to which you are referring. I'm a
> > > Canadian living in Canada and don't consider that to be a problem.
> > > Even goofy American red necks aren't a problem, just a pain in the
> > > ass...
> >
> >
> > There IS a Canadian problem! She's called Sheila Copps!
> >
> Make that three. the other two especially for legal owners of firearms.
> Messrs Rock and McClellan.

Most (not all) of the liEberals are a detriment to Canadians. There
were, remember, three liberals who voted against C68, so we have three
out of the entire caucus with enough guts to stand up to the dictator
Cretin. The rest are pansies. My own MP told me (in a face to face
meeting in his Hill office) that he could not vote against it because
he would be kicked from the party... even though he agreed that at BEST,
it would be a horrible waste of money.

Freddo

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
In article <85724q$a6c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, patriot...@my-deja.com
says...

> In article <H9sd4.2431$Fy3.1...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> "Canuckman" <tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't want to become American just to save our local hockey teams
>
>
> they are lost anyway... oo how americans can screw things everywhere!


Yeah, not like us Canucks, eh? We're perfect.

Take your head out of the sand.

Alex Cunningham

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to

--

"Freddo" <fre...@home.com> wrote in message >

> Most (not all) of the liEberals are a detriment to Canadians. There
> were, remember, three liberals who voted against C68, so we have three
> out of the entire caucus with enough guts to stand up to the dictator
> Cretin. The rest are pansies. My own MP told me (in a face to face
> meeting in his Hill office) that he could not vote against it because
> he would be kicked from the party... even though he agreed that at BEST,
> it would be a horrible waste of money.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I got the exact same response from my Lieberal MP during a lunch we arranged
so that he could sooth my anger towards the Lieberals shown by me in a
lengthy letter I wrote to him protesting C-68.
He also tried to convince me that he would possibly do more for firearms
owners if he stayed with the party and fought from within.
He had no response when I flat out told him he was talking stupid nonsense.
Anyone who is remotely familiar with the politics in Canada is fully aware
that individual MPs are nonentities.
Pierre Trudeau made no bones about it and declared as such in public.
At that time. of our lunch I did have a little respect for this guy
because he had opted out of the solid gold pension plan that the pols had
voted for themselves.

Since then he has opted back in and any respect I had for the double dealing
asshole is long gone.

mred

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
>

> Since then he has opted back in and any respect I had for the double
dealing
> asshole is long gone.
>
> --
> Cheers.
> Alex C.
>
> There are 12,000,000. Sheep in Ontario.
> Problem is 9,000,000 of them think they are people.


Careful what you say! A********* are useful,abetter term would be
haemorrhoid!

ed.ontario.kanada

mred

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to

> If Canada could be moved to the Mexican side of the US.
> we wouldn't have to put up with $&*^%#$( winter!
> >
> > ed/ontario.kanada

Cost of living is cheaper if you`re on pension and health insurance is only
$300.00 Can per year per person. For everything.

ed/ontario.kanada

mani...@home.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:36:11 -0500, "mred" <mr...@netrover.com> wrote:

>Careful what you say! A********* are useful,abetter term would be
>haemorrhoid!

Gawd if this is an example of Ontario education, no wonder they think
Harris is a fucking educated genius...


Alex Cunningham

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to


<mani...@home.com> wrote in message news:3877b124.317502059@news...

Who the fuck invited you? You crosposting lump of useless shit.

Stash

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to

Sigh, yeah but we'd have to bring the Liberals and the NDP along and it
would still climb to present levels within one term of office

> ed/ontario.kanada

John Amero

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
As you say, the shape Canada is in and even the way the US
is going, a Canada / US join would add strength to the
people and hopefully a better government all around. Here in
BC it is about 60% Asian owned!!
Cheers, John

mred wrote:
>
> John Amero <" johnaNO§PAM"@island.net> wrote in message
> news:387734E9...@island.net...
> > So we are going to become Canamericans LOL
>
> Better that, than Japanese, who own 25 % of all Kanadian Government bonds.
>
> Whom would you rather live beside? the States or some third world European
> or African. or Asian country.?
>
> Not much of a choice is there?
>

> ed/ontario.kanada

Ć arren

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to

jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Here's my solution to the Canadian problem: we'll absorb it into the US

Stop it there, back it up. Which problem might this be? The cross posting
problem? Or the fact that trolls like you go from group to group trying to
cause the same shit over and over?

> a monetary union plus a political union (Amsterdam treaty) - we can
> suggest the same manner be applied here in North America.

Fine, you now get every second paycheque in Toonies.

> The US and Canada share much more in common than France and Germany do:

We're the better looking, intelligent and non inter-breeding side of the
family.

> Many Canucks tune into US tv channels,

Like we have a choice.

> It implies to most pro-sports either (except for NFL) and I dont see any
> reason why not in Football.

Cuz American football is worse than useless. How can you play on those
thin, short fields, with a dinky little football, get an extra down and
still call yourselves men?

> So we can expand NAFTA to eventually gain political integration. Canada


> today is an artificial creation by the Brits who had wanted to exploit
> the country thus united
> Ontario with French speaking Quebec.

What time of day, exactly, do you pull your head from your ass?

> The US-Canada border is indeed a virtual one since many Canucks have
> cross-border friends and relatives. Now it's time all the English
> speaking Canadians become American since they're already 80% today.

Yah right. How bout English speaking Americans become Canadian since no-one
likes Americans anyway (with the possible exception of Bermudans).

> I've already emailed some Senators about it:
> sen...@cochran.senate.gov,
> senat...@lott.senate.gov,senator...@mccain.senate.gov

Who are they? anything like that Canadian senator living down in Mexico?

> Jim Foss,
> Oconomowoc, WI 53066
> jimh...@execpc.com, jim_...@my-deja.com
> dairyland state

I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce. Mange
le marde est creverre, tete de citrouille.


dmc

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to
Tell me again, why is it you need a gun?

m...@aussi.net

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to
Tell us please why folks do not need guns?

On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 20:29:38 -0800, dmc <insidece...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Alex Cunningham

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to


"dmc" <insidece...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38780EB2...@yahoo.com...


> Tell me again, why is it you need a gun?
>

> Alex C wrote


> > He also tried to convince me that he would possibly do more for
firearms
> > owners if he stayed with the party and fought from within.

I would, if you had the good manners to put your sig to your post.

Brave Sir Ronald

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to
jim_...@my-deja.com writes: > well... he writes a lot of shit but, these are the bits I've decided to pick on:

1: Many Canucks tune into US tv channels, radio stations,


cable companies and Internet Services Providers.

** Before the nineties, we didn't have much choice but, I assure you,
Canadian T.V. has come a long way... Just how many Americans watch
MUCH USA these days?

2: Canada today is an artificial creation by the Brits who had wanted


to exploit the country thus united Ontario with French speaking Quebec.

** Here's a thought: pull your head out of your ass and pick up a
book before spewing what you think is Canadian history.
Here's another thought: you may want to come up here to a Canadian
school before trying to read.

Canada was created because the American Revolution (which, by the way,
was won by the French) left the Brits a bit weak. They didn't have the
resources to protect Canada anymore so they made us an independant
Nation.


3: Now it's time all the English speaking Canadians become American


since they're already 80% today.

** Admittedly, we did have a crappy century this time around but, things
are picking up -- rapidly.

The CRTC is forcing (is it 40% or 60%?) Canadian content into our
radios & televisions which, IMHO is a good idea.

Our government is fighting to keep American magazines off our newsstands.

...and as I said in part 1, Canadian T.V. is doing much better,
you would do well to tune in to Space, Showcase or Discovery Canada.


4: I've already emailed some Senators about it:

** Thanks... as we all know, US senetors have ALL the say in such matters.


5: Go cheeseheads, go

** Cheesehead ain't the word for your kind, pal.

foamy

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to
In article <Lg2e4.3118$%O1.4...@sodalite.nbnet.nb.ca>

, Brave Sir Ronald <Brave_Si...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>4: I've already emailed some Senators about it:
>
>** Thanks... as we all know, US senetors have ALL the say in such matters.

In addition, we all know an e-mail to one of our Senators would be futile,
as they're either in a pre-death coma, or living in Mexico supposedly
for health reasons.

Jim

foamy

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to
In article <38789b7d....@news.telusplanet.net>,
m...@aussi.net wrote:

>Tell us please why folks do not need guns?

We got hockey sticks !

Jim

Brave Sir Ronald

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to
fo...@intouch.bc.ca (foamy) writes: > In article <38789b7d....@news.telusplanet.net>,

** and broken beer bottles.

m...@aussi.net

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to
m...@aussi.net wrote:
>
>>Tell us please why folks do not need guns?

fo...@intouch.bc.ca (foamy) wrote:
>We got hockey sticks !

Fat lot of good a hockey stick is when a coyote, wolf, or bear is
eating yer livestock, yer dog, or yer children...

Stash

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to

This happens regularly to you? Ever think of bustin' your butt
and buying a farm further south than Whitehorse?

There's been more schools shot up this year alone, than children
eaten by wolves in the last 100 years. Now take the Canucks newsgroup
off your list before I drill you with the 30-06!

foamy

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to

>Fat lot of good a hockey stick is when a coyote, wolf, or bear is
>eating yer livestock, yer dog, or yer children...


Eating my dog ? Now that's going too far !!

You've obviously never been speared. A good hockey
stick in the hands of a master like Bobby Clarke, and
you'd be having coyote steaks for dinner.

Jim

m...@aussi.net

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to
m...@aussi.net wrote:
>
>>Fat lot of good a hockey stick is when a coyote, wolf, or bear is
>>eating yer livestock, yer dog, or yer children...
>
fo...@intouch.bc.ca (foamy) wrote:
>Eating my dog ? Now that's going too far !!
>
>You've obviously never been speared. A good hockey
>stick in the hands of a master like Bobby Clarke, and
>you'd be having coyote steaks for dinner.

How would you like to tackle a bear with yer trusty hockey stick?
This could replace wrestling on television....

BTW: I wouldn't want to mess with anyone tough enough to eat a coyote
steak..

m...@aussi.net

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 20:33:05 GMT,

>
m...@aussi.net wrote:

>> >>Tell us please why folks do not need guns?


>> fo...@intouch.bc.ca (foamy) wrote:
>> >We got hockey sticks !

m...@aussi.net wrote:

>> Fat lot of good a hockey stick is when a coyote, wolf, or bear is
>> eating yer livestock, yer dog, or yer children...

Stash <st...@home.com> wrote:
>This happens regularly to you? Ever think of bustin' your butt
>and buying a farm further south than Whitehorse?

Ever have a bear between you and your automobile? My wife did and the
car was parked on our driveway less than ten metres from our door.
Ever worry about your children going to the school bus stop when there
is a mother bear with cubs eating fallen apples in the yard next to
the bus stop?

And yes when I lived on a farm with livestock, predation by wildlife
was a problem. It still is some years when there is an
overpopulation of predators and they happen to include pastures and
pig pens as part of their habitat and the livestock in them as food.


>There's been more schools shot up this year alone, than children
>eaten by wolves in the last 100 years. Now take the Canucks newsgroup
>off your list before I drill you with the 30-06!

I am totaly unaware of any wolf attacks in North America. Some years
we lose a couple of children to bears, mostly through folks who are
unaware bears are wild, unpredictable, and are oportunistic predators.

And we haven't had a school shooting in our community yet, even though
more than 39 percent of our homes have firearms in them
And the newsgroups have been trimmed as your wishes.

Ruskie

unread,
Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00
to
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 19:53:16 GMT, m...@aussi.net wrote:

> m...@aussi.net wrote:
>>
>>>Tell us please why folks do not need guns?
>
>fo...@intouch.bc.ca (foamy) wrote:
>>We got hockey sticks !
>

>Fat lot of good a hockey stick is when a coyote, wolf, or bear is
>eating yer livestock, yer dog, or yer children...

Muhawawa.... Canadian childern are all taught the ability to weld a
hockey stick with deadly force from the age of three. Why in "Ron
Hextal's Book of Divine Slashing" I was taught 31 seperate moves to
decapitate an opponent with my stick.

You've not experienced fear until you've witnessed a group of teenage
Canadian girls disarming (literally) an American tourist.
--
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case... coincidence?

DavidCo

unread,
Jan 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/10/00
to
>
>
> 2: Canada today is an artificial creation by the Brits who had wanted
> to exploit the country thus united Ontario with French speaking Quebec.
>
> ** Here's a thought: pull your head out of your ass and pick up a
> book before spewing what you think is Canadian history.
> Here's another thought: you may want to come up here to a Canadian
> school before trying to read.
>
> Canada was created because the American Revolution (which, by the way,
> was won by the French) left the Brits a bit weak. They didn't have the
> resources to protect Canada anymore so they made us an independant
> Nation.

Canada was created because of the population explosion in Ontario and Britian needed the area properly adminstered.
Therfore Ontario was merged with Quebec and Canada was created in order to make adminstrating resources more
efficent, after all India was more important then North America at this point (the French were causing trouble
there). The British changed this position when Queen Victoria and the English parliment introduced responsible
governement drawn from Lord Durham, and which formed the basis of the British Commonwealth. Ontario and Quebec were
considered colonies until 1931.

>
>
> 3: Now it's time all the English speaking Canadians become American
> since they're already 80% today.
>
> ** Admittedly, we did have a crappy century this time around but, things
> are picking up -- rapidly.
>
> The CRTC is forcing (is it 40% or 60%?) Canadian content into our
> radios & televisions which, IMHO is a good idea.
>
> Our government is fighting to keep American magazines off our newsstands.
>
> ...and as I said in part 1, Canadian T.V. is doing much better,
> you would do well to tune in to Space, Showcase or Discovery Canada.
>

> 4: I've already emailed some Senators about it:
>
> ** Thanks... as we all know, US senetors have ALL the say in such matters.
>

Fred Davis

unread,
Jan 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/10/00
to
In article <3879E417...@AcmeInc.com>, DavidCo
<Dav...@AcmeInc.com> wrote:

> Canada was created because of the population explosion in Ontario and Britian
> needed the area properly adminstered.
> Therfore Ontario was merged with Quebec and Canada was created in order to
> make adminstrating resources more
> efficent, after all India was more important then North America at this point
> (the French were causing trouble
> there). The British changed this position when Queen Victoria and the
> English parliment introduced responsible
> governement drawn from Lord Durham, and which formed the basis of the British
> Commonwealth. Ontario and Quebec were
> considered colonies until 1931.


Oh? So the UK would have sent troops over in 1866 if the US
'big bad northern army' would have invaded (and taken) Canada?
Not bloody likely.

Quite a coincidence that Canadian 'self government' was granted
just after the US civil war, eh?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fred M. Davis
Nortel Networks
Nepean, ON
My opinions, etc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DavidCo

unread,
Jan 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/12/00
to

Fred Davis wrote:

> In article <3879E417...@AcmeInc.com>, DavidCo
> <Dav...@AcmeInc.com> wrote:
>
> > Canada was created because of the population explosion in Ontario and Britian
> > needed the area properly adminstered.
> > Therfore Ontario was merged with Quebec and Canada was created in order to
> > make adminstrating resources more
> > efficent, after all India was more important then North America at this point
> > (the French were causing trouble
> > there). The British changed this position when Queen Victoria and the
> > English parliment introduced responsible
> > governement drawn from Lord Durham, and which formed the basis of the British
> > Commonwealth. Ontario and Quebec were
> > considered colonies until 1931.
>
> Oh? So the UK would have sent troops over in 1866 if the US
> 'big bad northern army' would have invaded (and taken) Canada?
> Not bloody likely.

yes they would of. Europe was in the middle of 99 (well no world war stuff just
prussia sorting out affairs) years of peace and Britian had already settled out who
was gonna be the Colonial Superpower on the Indian sub-contentient. the French and
Spanish wouldn't have been involved in this war so peace would have been assured in
Europe. The French had problems with the german states and would have wanted
Britian as an ally, after all Britian didn't like Germany/Prussia either. and
remeber that France had that horrible invasion of mexico in the 1860's.

Remember too that Americans were considered Euro Trash by Britian and no-way would
they allow them to take away Canada which was considered a fine second jewel of the
empire.

Cyril Ma

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
Oh, is that right. Why don't the americans join us Canadians then, rather
then the other way round.

Da hell is wrong with these ppl

Carman

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
Newsgroups trimmed

Cyril Ma <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in message ...


>Oh, is that right. Why don't the americans join us Canadians then, rather
>then the other way round.
>
>Da hell is wrong with these ppl


As an American Citizen who has lived many years in Canada, I truly hope
the two countries never join. I believe such a marriage would be a union
made in hell, and utterly disastrous for both nations.

Canadians would rapidly be swamped in the rough and tumble of American
economic life. Marginalized and embittered, there would be no haven to which
Canadians could retreat. This would set the stage for a long standing social
discord much like that between the Northerners and the Southerners in the
US.

The influx of Canadian Socialist values would damage, perhaps fatally, the
last hope of Individualism in the US. Attempting to absorb approximately 30
million people, all born and bred for the Nanny State, would be like a draft
of poison for the US. It is not reasonable to expect Canadians would be able
or willing to change paradigms and adopt Individualist values. It is quite
unlikely they would even be able to conceive that such values might have
meaning. The US has quite enough of exactly this trouble as it is with
immigrants from Socialist/Totalitarian nations.

This analysis does not include how the US might go about dealing with such
long standing Canadian problems as the Maritime Welfare Provinces, and the
existence of Quebec. The problems might, indeed, be "solved", but I think
few Canadians appreciate how readily the Americans turn to the sword to
untangle other people's Gordian Knots.

The foregoing is all theoretical anyway. Canadians who want to join the US
simply do so. They go there and make their fortunes or fail and return home.
As for the Americans, I think they already own just about everything in
Canada they really want. Should they think of something else, (oil, water,
first-born children, your eternal souls, or what-have-you), I'm sure there
will be no shortage of Canadians willing to sell it to them cheap. It is a
kind of National Tradition after all.

Terry Flanagan

unread,
Feb 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/2/00
to
Poor self-hating Carman stands on his soap box once again. The question
that must be asked is: why does he live here if he has so much disdain for
Canada and Canadians? What's the point?

Canada is a country that is all about change. To call it a "Socialist
state" or a "nanny state" discounts the change in the mood of the people.
Outside of pockets of resistance in the Maritimes, Canada has turned into a
fiscally progressive (read conservative) country with citizens wanting less
reliance on a central government and more individual rights - still
protecting the fabric of the country.

Balanced budgets, paying down the debt, dismissing political parties like
the NDP as irrelevant doesn't sound like "Socialist Values" to me. For
Canada-haters like Carman however, facts be damned. As someone who does a
lot of busines in the US, I can tell you that Canadians are as capable and
competitive as Americans. We can and do compete on a daily basis - and have
done so successfully for a very long time. To suggest otherwise is
disengenuous.

Only a few sad and sorry gun-goofs on forums like this want us to join the
USA. They're the kind that would like to see us duplicate the hideous
levels of gun violence we see to our neighbours to the south. They want to
get rid of the metric system, have paper dollars once again and maybe see
fewer of them "ferrriners" they get so mad about.

It's not going to happen, so relax...

Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:IbJl4.14441$nh2.2...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca...

admin_N...@wpgmall.com

unread,
Feb 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/2/00
to
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 19:29:27 GMT, jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:

>Here's my solution to the Canadian problem: we'll absorb it into the US

This isn't a "solution". Why would we wish to be absorbed by a country
that feels that their constitution allows them to populate their
country with as much fire-power as there are people? That's just oneof
many problems with the US.

>union (Amsterdam treaty) - we can suggest the same manner be applied

>here in North America. Roughly 50 years ago no-one would've thought

Suggest as you wish. Although many US citizens may support this
concept, I'm sure you'll find the opposite here.

>common than France and Germany do: We're integrated culturally,
>religiously, linguistically, and so on. Many Canucks tune into US tv


>channels, radio stations, cable companies and Internet Services

>Providers. It implies to most pro-sports either (except for NFL) and I
>dont see any reason why not in Football. The strike in GM plants in
>Flynt, Michigan, had its implications in Canada as well, especially in
>Windsor,ONT. It ranges from tv stations to churches. Take heed, for

I notice you left out "intigrated intellectually". If you hadn't,
you'd be out-and-out lying. There is a vaste diference between the
education of the average Joe on the street in the US and in Canada.
The US doesn't come out favorably in this comparison.

As for sports, who really cares? If you look back through history, a
great interest in sports proceeded the fall of most great nations.
Don't you have a Super Bowl, Orange Bowl, or Toilet Bowl series to go
watch? Don't let us hold you back.

>example to the "Union of North American Baptist Churches" both here and
>in Canada. So we can expand NAFTA to eventually gain political

As if the US would pay any attention at all to what the religious
platform is doing.

>integration. Quebec will be independent, and some areas in Northern
>Canada will be rendered as Indian state within the union (what Oklahoma
>was thought and intended to be).Canada today is an artificial


>creation by the Brits who had wanted to exploit the country thus united
>Ontario with French speaking Quebec.

So what you are saying is that all you want is the revenue producing
parts of the country, as well as the meek and mild citizens? The rest
you would simply shove to the side, and hope to ignore? Would you
treat the Natives in the same fashion again? You already admit that
your nation failed in this the first time, what makes anyone think
you'd do better the second time around?

>The US-Canada border is indeed a virtual one since many Canucks have

>cross-border friends and relatives. Now it's time all the English

Wait. Virtual? I don't think so. It may not be a wall, but it's there.
Slap a handgun on your dash, and come visit us, using any major
highway into Canada.

>speaking Canadians become American since they're already 80% today.

This is simply wrong. Just because we share some similarities, doesn't
come close to meaning we're 80% "American". In fact, the largest
difference between us lies in the mind.

>Canada and Puerto Rico will be our "new frontier", our last states to
>join and we'll run a country ranging from Alaska to Florida. Canada's

Um...... You mean the US doesn't run a country ranging from Alaska to
Florida? From where we sit up here, it looks like you do. Although,
most of us feel that you don't run it well..... As for PR, last I
heard, they wanted to join the US, but the US didn't want them?

>manifest destiny will be more or less that of Alaska and Hawaii. The

Oh, goody! Tourism!

>Natives will eventually gain their own state in which English,
>Cherokee,Athabaskan and Navajo will be recognized as official
>labguages, while PR will become an English and Spanish speaking state.

It really won't be "their own" if you dictate what languages are
spoken there, will it? You are asking a lot of Natives to give up
their native tongue for this great dream of yours.

>I've already emailed some Senators about it:

I'm sure you have. Guess what? This is nothing new. You think you are
the first whacko politician to dream this one up?

As both a US and Canadian citizen, I have to say without doubt that I
am confident that such an amalgamation will never happen. Your first
sentance is why; "we'll absorb it into the US".

Canadians do not wish to be absorbed by anyone. Nor do I suspect that
feeling will change anytime soon. We'd still fight off such concepts,
much as we fought of those silly Americans who attempted to "liberate"
us from the Brits. I think we feel, for the most part, the Brits are
the lesser of the two evils.

>"Go cheeseheads, go, bring back the Superbowl

Read this. Then read it again. Keep reading it until you realise how
stupid this is.

Terry Flanagan

unread,
Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to

Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:4_4m4.14631$nh2.2...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca...
>
> Terry Flanagan wrote in message
> <9CXl4.1260$Go5....@news20.bellglobal.com>...

> >Poor self-hating Carman stands on his soap box once again. The question
> >that must be asked is: why does he live here if he has so much disdain
for
> >Canada and Canadians? What's the point?
>
>
> Ah, Mr Flanagan. So nice to hear from you. And it's not even a full
moon!
> Regarding your question, I ask myself that same question repeatedly. Why
did
> I come here? Why do I stay? You call me "self-hating", am I really just a
> masochist? Dare I aspire to so much? Is it the money? The prestige? The
> crass ego-satisfaction of Fame? Nope, none of the above. If I ever find
out,
> Mr Flanagan, I'll make a point of telling you first.

Carman, I suspect you will never know what draws you to hate our country,
just like a moth is
unaware of why it keeps flying into that damn flame...
>
> It's actually worse than it appears. There were several years there when
I
> actually lived, (if you can call it that), in Winnipeg! I eventually
> recovered though, and moved away for good.

Really sir, you should seek professional help in your self-examination.
Anyone who
is as unhappy as you clearly seem to be in your country of residence needs
to move - or re-evaluate.

> >Canada is a country that is all about change.
>

> And the change it is all about is pretty small change at that. In
> actuality, Canada is a country that abominates change, unless some other
> place, England or the US, has tried it out first. This is a deeply
> conservative, (not to say backward) nation where "no new is good new".
>
> The institutional fear of Individualism and "Democracy", dates to when the
> Tories began arriving in Canada fleeing the American Revolution. Two
> centuries of hatred and fear of American Chaotic Democracy.

Oh dear. The theory that "we are what are forefathers were" has been
debunked by so many,
so often, I am surprised you have the courage to trot this old chestnut out.
Because we are a small country
(in population) Canada has had to get on the band-wagon of change or be left
behind.
In 25 years we have progressed from the Trudeau era of tax and spend to the
current situation where
the citizenry demands tax cuts, debt repayment and less reliance on the
central government. A country
where free enterprise is paramount, where the private sector views the
current economic climate
as ideal and (unless you're a farmer) people are better employed and making
more money.


North America is and has been an integrated economic engine that is now
firing on all cylinders. Canada is in
the midst of changing from a resource based to a knowledge based economy -
an evolution stratling in its speed
but seemingly unkown to you. You need to get out more methinks...

That you constantly denigrate our country speaks volumes about you - not us.
I could easily make negative
comments about the country of my birth (the US), regarding crime rate,
infant mortality, education, health care, etc.
That would be disingenuous of me and besides, I LIKE the United States - I
have a lot of family who still live there.
I like it, but for me, Canada is a preferred civilization in which to live.

The United States is different than Canada, not better, not worse -
different. I
choose to embrace that difference and believe as a country we should
continue to emulate that which they do well
and reject that which they do not.


Individual rights and freedoms in Canada are as important as they are in the
US, they are
just reflected differently. In Canada that freedom is reflected in the
right to walk down the
street without feeling you need a firearm in your jacket to be safe. In my
opinion, that is freedom indeed...


Canada continues to try to find the right balance between individual and
societal right
(and let me quote Mr. Spock here) "the good of the many, outweighs the good
of the few - or the one".
Do we have it right yet? No, C-68 is an example. However, I do believe that
Canada can be a role model for the rest
of the world by embracing change, and conscripting the successes found in
other societies.
Canada and the US continue to have
a relationship that is unique in our world - a free flow of ideas, capital
and commerce.
For someone like yourself sir who is incapable of changing yourself to suit
your environment,
might I suggest you return to the US - we'd all be happier for it...

Flanagan


>
>

Carman

unread,
Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to

mani...@home.com wrote in message <3898ec17.203431946@news>...
>X-No-Archive: yes
>On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 14:58:13 GMT, "Terry Flanagan"
><te...@consultink.com> posted:

>
>>Only a few sad and sorry gun-goofs on forums like this want us to join the
>>USA. They're the kind that would like to see us duplicate the hideous
>>levels of gun violence we see to our neighbours to the south. They want
to
>>get rid of the metric system, have paper dollars once again and maybe see
>>fewer of them "ferrriners" they get so mad about.
>
>Gun-goofs? You mean like these....
>
>This is a transcript of an actual radio conversation between the US
>and the Canadians off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995.
>
>
>US SHIP: "Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the South to avoid
>a collision."
>
>CANADIAN REPLY: "Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the
>South to avoid a collision."
>
>US SHIP: "This is the captain of the US Navy Ship. I say again, divert
>YOUR course."
>
>CANADIAN REPLY: "No, I say again, divert YOUR course!"
>
>US SHIP: "THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS NIMITZ. WE ARE A LARGE
>WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!!!"
>
>CANADIAN REPLY: "This is a lighthouse. Your call."
>
>
>I don't think you'll find too many Canucks running down to the border
>to sign up for membership in North America's biggest insane assylum...


Really funny, thanks for posting this. Oh, speaking of funny, whenever I
go by the US consulate in Toronto, around to the back there is this huge,
long line of visa applicants. Odd isn't it?

Carman

unread,
Feb 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/3/00
to

Terry Flanagan wrote in message ...

>
>Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote in message
>news:4_4m4.14631$nh2.2...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca...
>>
>> Terry Flanagan wrote in message
>> <9CXl4.1260$Go5....@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> >Poor self-hating Carman stands on his soap box once again. The
>> >question that must be asked is: why does he live here if he has so much
disdain for Canada and Canadians? What's the point?
>>
>>
>> Ah, Mr Flanagan. So nice to hear from you. And it's not even a full
>>moon! Regarding your question, I ask myself that same question
>>repeatedly. Why did I come here? Why do I stay? You call me "self-hating",
>>am I really just a masochist? Dare I aspire to so much? Is it the money?
>>The prestige? The crass ego-satisfaction of Fame? Nope, none of the
>>above. If I ever find out, Mr Flanagan, I'll make a point of telling you
first.
>
>Carman, I suspect you will never know what draws you to hate our country,
>just like a moth is unaware of why it keeps flying into that damn flame...


Yes, you're probably right. There are mysteries too deep for the mind of
mortal man...

>> It's actually worse than it appears. There were several years there
when
>>I actually lived, (if you can call it that), in Winnipeg! I eventually
>> recovered though, and moved away for good.
>
>Really sir, you should seek professional help in your self-examination.
>Anyone who is as unhappy as you clearly seem to be in your country of
>residence needs to move - or re-evaluate.


Oh, I've tried Mr Flanagan. The only "professional who doesn't throw me
out of her "office" is Madame Natasha. You wouldn't believe the prices! Even
she says there is no hope.

>> >Canada is a country that is all about change.
>>
>> And the change it is all about is pretty small change at that. In
>> actuality, Canada is a country that abominates change, unless some other
>> place, England or the US, has tried it out first. This is a deeply
>> conservative, (not to say backward) nation where "no new is good new".
>>
>> The institutional fear of Individualism and "Democracy", dates to when
the
>> Tories began arriving in Canada fleeing the American Revolution. Two
>> centuries of hatred and fear of American Chaotic Democracy.
>
>Oh dear. The theory that "we are what are forefathers were" has been
>debunked by so many, so often, I am surprised you have the courage to trot
>this old chestnut out.

Sorry Mr Flanagan, I didn't say that and didn't mean it either.

>Because we are a small country (in population) Canada has had to get on
>the band-wagon of change or be left behind. In 25 years we have >progressed
from the Trudeau era of tax and spend to the
>current situation where the citizenry demands tax cuts, debt repayment and
>less reliance on the central government. A country where free enterprise is
>paramount, where the private sector views the current economic climate as
>ideal and (unless you're a farmer) people are >better employed and making
>more money.


I suppose you (and your coach) probably try to believe this stuff. Really
to bad you fellows are contradicted in every issue of every daily newspaper
in the country. More laws piled on more regulations piled on less
accountability. This is the Socialist way.

>North America is and has been an integrated economic engine that is now
>firing on all cylinders. Canada is in the midst of changing from a resource

>based to a knowledge based economy -an evolution stratling in its speed


>but seemingly unkown to you. You need to get out more methinks...


Imagine that, and only fifteen years behind the Americans and he
Europeans. Marvelous.

>That you constantly denigrate our country speaks volumes about you - not

>us.I could easily make negative comments about the country of my birth (the


>US), regarding crime rate, infant mortality, education, health care, etc.
> That would be disingenuous of me and besides, I LIKE the United States - I
>have a lot of family who still live there. I like it, but for me, Canada is
a >preferred civilization in which to live.


That's wonderful Mr Flanagan, just wonderful. Brings tears to my eyes I'm
sure.

> The United States is different than Canada, not better, not worse -
>different. I choose to embrace that difference and believe as a country we
>should continue to emulate that which they do well and reject that which
they >do not.

If you'll trouble to look back, I've posted many of these same sentiments
only to meet with your angry derision. It would be nice to have a real
conversation with you on the subject of firearms and the law pertaining to
them. If you would rather keep attacking me on a personal level, you are
entirely welcome to continue doing so. I'm big enough to accept just about
any kind of attack and laugh it off.


>Individual rights and freedoms in Canada are as important as they are in
the
>US, they are just reflected differently. In Canada that freedom is
reflected in >the right to walk down the street without feeling you need a
firearm in your >jacket to be safe. In my opinion, that is freedom indeed...


Open any issue of any paper published in Canada and have a look at the
criminal problem. Gun control hasn't made a dent in it. Here is the issue.
Would you like to debate it?

>Canada continues to try to find the right balance between individual and
>societal right (and let me quote Mr. Spock here) "the good of the many,
>outweighs the good of the few - or the one".

Fine sentiments Mr Flanagan, fine Socialist sentiments. But when the
individual has no security from the intrusions of the State, The State will
find itself lacking all security as well. In every example I know of the
Socialist State has turned savagely on it's own population in it's endless
and futile quest for security from the people.

>Do we have it right yet? No, C-68 is an example.

Do you have reservations about C-68. Interesting! Like what?

>However, I do believe that Canada can be a role model for the rest of the
>world by embracing change, and conscripting the successes found in other
>societies. Canada and the US continue to have a relationship that is unique
>in our world - a free flow of ideas, capital and commerce.

I can yet hope you are wrong. This "role model" idea is as smugly
sickening as Stephen Jenuth's vile cant about "We are building a better
world". If you ever stopped congratulating yourselves quite so much you
might be able to look around and notice not all is rosy and nice.

>For someone like yourself sir who is incapable of changing yourself to suit
>your environment, might I suggest you return to the US - we'd all be
happier for it...
>Flanagan

This certainly is a good description of me. The best one yet! I am as I
am, (ugly thought), regardless of where I am. Characteristic of human
beings, I make my environment adapt to me. I've got the scars to prove it
too.


I'll certainly give it some thought Mr Flanagan. I really like making
people happy. On the other hand I'd still have no trouble posting from Texas
or Vermont, so it wouldn't be like I was "gone", or anything. In fact, I
think about it quite a bit. On the other hand, I've spent many years getting
where I am,and I'm having so much darn FUN with it all that I'm loath to
give it up.

Then too, there is still hope that Canada may "see the light", and turn
it's back on Socialism. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, but I have
hope that the spirit of Individualism is not dead.

I've been reading rather a lot of Havel of late. Now there is a man who
saw it turn around! I recommend him highly. Bye for now, Mr Flanagan. Write
more soon. Love to hear from you. At least somebody cares.

Terry Flanagan

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to

Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:ZTqm4.14809$nh2.3...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca...


Hmm, that's odd - since Canadians don't need visas to go to the US...
Perhaps you were mistaking the line up to buy a car at the nearby BMW lot...

m...@aussi.net

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to

>Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote:
>> Really funny, thanks for posting this. Oh, speaking of funny, whenever I
>> go by the US consulate in Toronto, around to the back there is this huge,
>> long line of visa applicants. Odd isn't it?
>

, "Terry Flanagan" <te...@consultink.com> wrote:
>Hmm, that's odd - since Canadians don't need visas to go to the US...
>Perhaps you were mistaking the line up to buy a car at the nearby BMW lot...

Maybe these were green card applicants, You do need a "resident
alien" green card to be legally employed in the United States.


Carman

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to

Terry Flanagan wrote in message ...
>
>> Really funny, thanks for posting this. Oh, speaking of funny, whenever
I
>> go by the US consulate in Toronto, around to the back there is this huge,
>> long line of visa applicants. Odd isn't it?
>
>
>Hmm, that's odd - since Canadians don't need visas to go to the US...
>Perhaps you were mistaking the line up to buy a car at the nearby BMW
lot...


By George! You're right. So I guess all those people are getting the
paperwork to actually immigrate. Not too surprising really.

Don

unread,
Feb 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/4/00
to
Terry Flanagan wrote:
>
> Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote in message
> news:4_4m4.14631$nh2.2...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca...

> >
> > Terry Flanagan wrote in message
> > <9CXl4.1260$Go5....@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > >Poor self-hating Carman stands on his soap box once again. The question
> > >that must be asked is: why does he live here if he has so much disdain
> for
> > >Canada and Canadians? What's the point?
> >
> >
> > Ah, Mr Flanagan. So nice to hear from you. And it's not even a full
> moon!
> > Regarding your question, I ask myself that same question repeatedly. Why
> did
> > I come here? Why do I stay? You call me "self-hating", am I really just a
> > masochist? Dare I aspire to so much? Is it the money? The prestige? The
> > crass ego-satisfaction of Fame? Nope, none of the above. If I ever find
> out,
> > Mr Flanagan, I'll make a point of telling you first.
>
> Carman, I suspect you will never know what draws you to hate our country,
> just like a moth is
> unaware of why it keeps flying into that damn flame...
> >
> > It's actually worse than it appears. There were several years there when
> I
> > actually lived, (if you can call it that), in Winnipeg! I eventually
> > recovered though, and moved away for good.
>
> Really sir, you should seek professional help in your self-examination.
> Anyone who
> is as unhappy as you clearly seem to be in your country of residence needs
> to move - or re-evaluate.
>
> > >Canada is a country that is all about change.
> >
> > And the change it is all about is pretty small change at that. In
> > actuality, Canada is a country that abominates change, unless some other
> > place, England or the US, has tried it out first. This is a deeply
> > conservative, (not to say backward) nation where "no new is good new".
> >
> > The institutional fear of Individualism and "Democracy", dates to when the
> > Tories began arriving in Canada fleeing the American Revolution. Two
> > centuries of hatred and fear of American Chaotic Democracy.
>
> Oh dear. The theory that "we are what are forefathers were" has been
> debunked by so many,
> so often, I am surprised you have the courage to trot this old chestnut out.
> Because we are a small country
> (in population) Canada has had to get on the band-wagon of change or be left
> behind.
> In 25 years we have progressed from the Trudeau era of tax and spend to the
> current situation where
> the citizenry demands tax cuts, debt repayment and less reliance on the
> central government. A country
> where free enterprise is paramount, where the private sector views the
> current economic climate
> as ideal and (unless you're a farmer) people are better employed and making
> more money.
>
> North America is and has been an integrated economic engine that is now
> firing on all cylinders. Canada is in
> the midst of changing from a resource based to a knowledge based economy -
> an evolution stratling in its speed
> but seemingly unkown to you. You need to get out more methinks...
>
> That you constantly denigrate our country speaks volumes about you - not us.
> I could easily make negative
> comments about the country of my birth (the US), regarding crime rate,
> infant mortality, education, health care, etc.
> That would be disingenuous of me and besides, I LIKE the United States - I
> have a lot of family who still live there.
> I like it, but for me, Canada is a preferred civilization in which to live.
>
> The United States is different than Canada, not better, not worse -
> different. I
> choose to embrace that difference and believe as a country we should
> continue to emulate that which they do well
> and reject that which they do not.
>
> Individual rights and freedoms in Canada are as important as they are in the
> US, they are
> just reflected differently. In Canada that freedom is reflected in the
> right to walk down the
> street without feeling you need a firearm in your jacket to be safe. In my
> opinion, that is freedom indeed...
>
> Canada continues to try to find the right balance between individual and
> societal right
> (and let me quote Mr. Spock here) "the good of the many, outweighs the good
> of the few - or the one".
> Do we have it right yet? No, C-68 is an example. However, I do believe that

> Canada can be a role model for the rest
> of the world by embracing change, and conscripting the successes found in
> other societies.
> Canada and the US continue to have
> a relationship that is unique in our world - a free flow of ideas, capital
> and commerce.
> For someone like yourself sir who is incapable of changing yourself to suit
> your environment,
> might I suggest you return to the US - we'd all be happier for it...
>
> Flanagan

Here's a novel idea for you, and one I've been trying to promote for
some time: Let Canada absorb the US.

You know of course what would happen. Could you make any predictions? d

--
"Tender-handed stroke the nettle, And it stings you for your pains;
Grasp it like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains." Aaron Hill,
1685-1750

Carman

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to

Don wrote in message <389BB392...@nettlepatch.net>...

>Terry Flanagan wrote:
>>
>> Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote in message
>> news:4_4m4.14631$nh2.2...@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca...
>> >
>> > Terry Flanagan wrote in message
>> > <9CXl4.1260$Go5....@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> > >Poor self-hating Carman stands on his soap box once again. The
>> > >question that must be asked is: why does he live here if he has so
>> > > much disdain for Canada and Canadians? What's the point?

>> >
>> > Ah, Mr Flanagan. So nice to hear from you. And it's not even a full
>> >moon! Regarding your question, I ask myself that same question
>> >repeatedly. Why did I come here? Why do I stay? You call me "self-
>> >hating", am I really just a masochist? Dare I aspire to so much? Is it
the
>> >money? The prestige? The crass ego-satisfaction of Fame? Nope, none
>> >of the above. If I ever find out, Mr Flanagan, I'll make a point of
telling you
>> >first.
>>
>> Carman, I suspect you will never know what draws you to hate our country,
>> just like a moth is unaware of why it keeps flying into that damn
flame...


In thinking about this I realize now that you are mistaking criticism for
hate. These two words really do mean vastly different things. Look up the
definitions, discuss it with the coach, and see if you can understand.

>> > It's actually worse than it appears. There were several years there
when

>> >I actually lived, (if you can call it that), in Winnipeg! I'd go away
for months >> >at a time, years even! then I'd go back. Oh Mr Flanagan! It
was terrible. >> >"The horror. The horror." I eventually recovered though,


and moved away >> >for good.
>>
>> Really sir, you should seek professional help in your self-examination.
>> Anyone who is as unhappy as you clearly seem to be in your country of
>>residence needs to move - or re-evaluate.


How odd. I think you may be the only person in the world who actually
cares where I live! I've lived in so many places that no place is "home",
save where I hang my hat. I find myself strangely touched that my country of
residence should matter to you.

You are quite mistaken in your conclusion that I am unhappy. I'm actually
having more fun right now than at any previous point in my life. Much of
this has to do with the solution to past economic problems of course.

William S Burroughs said something similar in his book MY EDUCATION: A
Book of Dreams. He said that he thought people expected that he would be a
gloomy and depressed man, They seemed to almost demand it of him! But he
asserted that basically he was a happy man!

>> > >Canada is a country that is all about change.


>> > And the change it is all about is pretty small change at that. In
>> > actuality, Canada is a country that abominates change, unless some
>> >other place, England or the US, has tried it out first. This is a deeply
>> > conservative, (not to say backward) nation where "no new is good new".
>> > The institutional fear of Individualism and "Democracy", dates to when
>> >the Tories began arriving in Canada fleeing the American Revolution.
>> >Two centuries of hatred and fear of American Chaotic Democracy.

>> Oh dear. The theory that "we are what are forefathers were" has been
>> debunked by so many, so often, I am surprised you have the courage to
>>trot this old chestnut out.

This is not what I said. The Canadian "forefathers", were bourgeois
Oligarchs. Many were Canada's answer to the English Aristocrat. This is on
the way out. Unfortunately, Canada still seems chained in lockstep to the
UK.The Oligarchy is being replaced by Socialism. This is, flatly, a
disaster.

>> Because we are a small country (in population) Canada has had to get on
>>the band-wagon of change or be left behind.

And the bandwagon chosen was Socialism. It looked safe. It looked stable.
It looked like a refuge from unplanned social change. It is actually a cage.

>> In 25 years we have progressed from the Trudeau era of tax and spend to
>>the current situation where the citizenry demands tax cuts, debt repayment
>>and less reliance on the central government.

Please explain this to the Harris government. The previous government was
all about "decentralization for service", the PCs are into "recentralization
for economy". The old shell game. "Shut up! We'll tell you what you want and
when you want it!"

>>A country where free enterprise is paramount, where the private sector
>>views the current economic climate as ideal and (unless you're a farmer)
>>people are better employed and making more money.


Wishful thinking Mr Flanagan! This, and $1.75 will get you a coffee at
Starbucks.

>> North America is and has been an integrated economic engine that is >>now
firing on all cylinders. Canada is in the midst of changing from a
>>resource based to a knowledge based economy -
>> an evolution stratling in its speed but seemingly unkown to you. You
need >>to get out more methinks...

You can keep on saying it if it pleases you. Maybe, if you say it enough
you'll even begin to believe it. As government takes controls off from
industry and business, (a laudable effort), it reasserts controls on the
individual until the individual cannot make a single move without checking
in with government.

Watch the proliferation of laws. It has reached, and passed, the point
where everyone is guilty of something. The legal system seems to be
straining for that moral vanishing point where every single human action can
be second guessed in the court. I know this doesn't matter to you. You are
too enthralled with the vision that you've been sold. Kind of sickening
really.

>> That you constantly denigrate our country speaks volumes about you - not
us.

What you take as "denigration" is genuine criticism. Learn the difference.
It will make your life easier.

>>I could easily make negative comments about the country of my birth (the

>>US), regarding crime rate,infant mortality, education, health care, etc.

You are so certain my comments are negative. I know that nothing I can say
will disabuse you of this notion so I'll stop trying. One question though.
How long have you lived here? I've been living in Canada for most of the
last 30 years. I've seen it coast to coast, and from Peele Island to the
Arctic. Come back when you've been here that long and seen that much. Then
you can tell me all about Canada.

>> That would be disingenuous of me and besides, I LIKE the United States

>>I have a lot of family who still live there. I like it, but for me, Canada
is a >>preferred civilization in which to live.


A good many people actually like living in Socialist countries. They do
until the process is complete at least. Of course, once it is complete it no
longer matters what they like. Canada is about 20 years or so behind the UK
in Socialist development. Any really serious socio-economic upheaval could
narrow that gap very quickly.

>> The United States is different than Canada, not better, not worse -
>> different.

Do you recall what you said to me when I wrote of the historical reasons
for some of those differences Mr Flanagan? Oddly enough, again speaking of
some of those differences in this thread, you characterized my comments as
"...this old chestnut...". Is it you can speak of differences but I cannot?

>>I choose to embrace that difference and believe as a country we should
>> continue to emulate that which they do well and reject that which they do
>>not.


Yet I am not to be allowed to speak of what I see Canada doing wrong? Or
if I dare to speak, my comments are called hatred?

>> Individual rights and freedoms in Canada are as important as they are in
>>the US,

This is not true. Read the Canadian Constitution, Mr Flanagan. Look for
Unalienable Rights. They are not there. Look at the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Is it the law of the land? No. It can be set aside any
time the Parliament or a Provincial Legislature desires to do so. Do you
know why the Notwithstanding Clause exists, Mr Flanagan? Do you know why
there is no protection for private property written into the Canadian
Constitution, Mr Flanagan?

>>they are just reflected differently. In Canada that freedom is reflected
in the
>> right to walk down the street without feeling you need a firearm in your
>>jacket to be safe. In my opinion, that is freedom indeed...


I read that post too, Mr Flanagan. From the Australian who believed peace
and safety were better than freedom. Both he, and you, have lost your
freedom already. You walk into the cage and pull the door closed after you.
How you will groan when you realize that with your freedom you lost your
peace your safety and any security you might have made for yourself. Truly
pitiful.

>>Canada continues to try to find the right balance between individual and
>>societal right (and let me quote Mr. Spock here) "the good of the many,
>>outweighs the good of the few - or the one".

A fine sentiment, Sir. A fine Socialist sentiment. Leaving Star Trek, the
source statement is, "The Greatest Good, for the Greatest Number". Whenever
you read of Socialism you will find this phrase glaring back at you.

Sounds harmless enough, doesn't it? Sort of like Democracy when you
consider it. Only, who decides what constitutes this "Greatest Good"? All
the Socialists seem to be in agreement on this point. "The People are too
ignorant, too emotional, too greedy, too acquisitive, too immoral, and too
downright stupid to know what's good for themselves". This will sound
familiar to anyone who reads a lot of the anti-gun rhetoric. If "The
People", can't be trusted to decide matters for themselves, why, then, it is
the Socialists who must lead. Quite a coincidence isn't it?

>> Do we have it right yet? No, C-68 is an example. However, I do believe
>>that Canada can be a role model for the rest of the world by embracing
>>change, and conscripting the successes found in other societies.

You can say this. It is even possible you can believe you are speaking the
truth, yet challenge your preconceptions, ask the root questions about the
premises that go unmentioned, and you fly into a rage and attack the
questioner with bitter anger. This is not the behavior of a reasonable
adult, Mr Flanagan. This is the pique of a spoiled, frustrated and secretly
frightened child. Time to grow up.

>>Canada and the US continue to have a relationship that is unique in our
>>world - a free flow of ideas, capital and commerce.

Yet throughout this discussion you have placed strict limits on the ideas
you are willing to rationally discuss. How is this characterized as a "free
flow of ideas". You have decided the ideas you can call acceptable in
advance!

>> For someone like yourself sir who is incapable of changing yourself to
suit
>> your environment, might I suggest you return to the US - we'd all be
happier for it...


You seem to have forgotten, Mr Flanagan, we are members of the species
that does NOT adapt to the environment. We adapt the environment to us!
There is a lesson in this.

In the time and place when I was growing up, the social mores were all
about conformity. The pressure to act like, think like, smell like, and BE
like everyone else was enormous. That was middle America in the '50s.

It has long been my conclusion that it was that unthinking conformity that
led the US to the places it has gone subsequently. The carcinoma growth of
the Federal Authority has stunted and deformed what might have been very
fine indeed. I go there often, it is sad to see what might have been.

I do understand your suggestion that I get out of "your" country is not
intended kindly. Indeed, it may become necessary for me to depart. But one
thing I promise you Mr Flanagan. Where ever I go, The US, Venezuela, Spain,
Italy, Switzerland or Israel, I will continue to use my eyes and my mind. I
will continue to speak of what I see and what I believe. I have been
silenced a time or two, but not by any living human being.

Isn't the internet a wonderful thing Mr Flanagan? Where ever I am, where
ever I go, I will be able to continue our conversation. I can post from
Rankin Inlet, Hay River, Singapore or Bloody Guatemala and still get my
latest thoughts down in can.talk.guns.

By the way, this last post of yours was quite an improvement from the
first ones we shared. I feel some quiet pride in this, I think I have been
some help to you despite our little differences. I trained as a teacher once
and never quite lost the joy of helping someone learn. Hope to hear more
from you soon, keep up the good work!

>Here's a novel idea for you, and one I've been trying to promote for
>some time: Let Canada absorb the US.
>
>You know of course what would happen. Could you make any predictions?

I am violently opposed to any such idea of a North American Union. I am
very happy with the separation of North America into four countries. I hope
it stays just like that.

The cultures of the four nations are as different as can be found among
any neighbors anywhere on the planet. It is my firm belief they should be
allowed to proceed and develop each it it's own way.

mred

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to
>
> Here's a novel idea for you, and one I've been trying to promote for
> some time: Let Canada absorb the US.
>
> You know of course what would happen. Could you make any predictions>

We could declare war on the States, lose and let them rebuild us, Best thing
to happen to this country.
And as for moving to the States? Talk to University students and ask them
where they`re headed on graduation.BY special invitation of Cretin.

ed/ontario/kanada

Carman

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to

mred wrote in message ...

>>
>> Here's a novel idea for you, and one I've been trying to promote for
>> some time: Let Canada absorb the US.
>>
>> You know of course what would happen. Could you make any predictions
>
>We could declare war on the States, lose and let them rebuild us, Best
thing
>to happen to this country.
>And as for moving to the States? Talk to University students and ask them
>where they`re headed on graduation.BY special invitation of Cretin.
>
>ed/ontario/kanada

Right ON mred! The Americans could rewrite the Canadian Constitution,
(like they did for Germany and Japan), and in 20 years Canada could be an
economic powerhouse like those two nations became after WW2.

This could be really great. The Americans might be so upset they'd hang
all the Socialists! They'd probably screw up a few times and hang some
people who aren't Socialists too. In fact, they'd probably hang me. I
wouldn't like that at all, but it would probably please some people quite a
bit.

I see a couple of small problems though. First, the America of the year
2000 is not the same country as the America of 1945. For better or worse it
is a Successor State in the same place and with the same name as the Old
USA.

My point is there is no predicting the present US would respond with a
whole new Marshall Plan for Canada. The present nation might get very
annoyed at the half dozen mortar rounds fired across the Niagara River,
(from Queenston Heights! God I love the old traditions!).

They could slap us with a bill for Reparations that would have us owing
them
so much money that we'd be all be working day and night for centuries
just to pay the vig! They could herd us all into camps where we could do
useful labor. Canadian content in the oil industry! Home heating oil for the
US Northeast that contains Real Canadians. They might make us watch American
Daytime Television as "re-education".

But what the Hell? "Who dares, wins!" At this point it's probably worth a
shot. Lead on mred! (as in "after you, Alphonse")!

Regarding your second comment mred, the students heading for the US after
graduation, isn't that the point? What better way can you think of to weed
out all those nasty, greedy, discontented over-achievers who actually want
to make money (!) after all those years of educational poverty.

Think of it! Some of those over-talented young people actually want to be
Medical Doctors! In Ontario! You know, fight disease, alleviate suffering
and pain, make a nice living at the same time without having to take a
second job or send the spouse out to work. The IDEA! Not in Ontario, thank
you very much.

Carman

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to

m...@aussi.net wrote in message <389ad8b2...@news.telusplanet.net>...

>
>>Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote:
>>> Really funny, thanks for posting this. Oh, speaking of funny, whenever
I
>>> go by the US consulate in Toronto, around to the back there is this
huge,
>>> long line of visa applicants. Odd isn't it?
>>
>
>, "Terry Flanagan" <te...@consultink.com> wrote:
>>Hmm, that's odd - since Canadians don't need visas to go to the US...
>>Perhaps you were mistaking the line up to buy a car at the nearby BMW
lot...
>
>Maybe these were green card applicants, You do need a "resident
>alien" green card to be legally employed in the United States.


You don't suppose...! I mean, are you really suggesting those people might
be planning to go down to "that place" and actually try to live there? Oh my
goodness, what next?

Carman

unread,
Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00
to

Rick Lowe wrote in message <389924c9....@news.direct.ca>...

>On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 14:58:13 GMT, "Terry Flanagan" <te...@consultink.com>
wrote:

>
>> Canada-haters like Carman however, facts be damned. As someone who >>does
a lot of busines in the US, I can tell you that Canadians are as >>capable
and competitive as Americans. We can and do compete on a >>daily basis -
and have done so successfully for a very long time. To >>suggest otherwise
is disengenuous.

>We sure do! Just look at our economy versus theirs... and the value of our
>dollar versus theirs!

>We do a lot of business in the US as well, exporting Canadian made >paints.
Why do we do so well? Because we are capable and competitive? >Well, I
like to think we are, but that's not it. The big reason for our success?

>Our dollar is worth only about $.65 US (depending on the day), so we are
>dramatically underpriced compared to our US competitors. Of course, if we
>were importers, the shoe would be on the other foot. Our cheap dollar is
the >key to our success, not any particular capability or competitiveness
that we >have.

>> Only a few sad and sorry gun-goofs on forums like this want us to join
the USA.

I have a question here. How many posts in this forum have you seen where
ANYONE who lives in Canada suggests that Canada and the US merge? I have not
seen ANY. Perhaps you have, Mr Flanagan. If so please point them out so it
can be judged from which side of the gun debate, (remember the gun debate?
There used to be a newsgroup about guns), such suggestions originate.

>Ah yes... "If you don't agree with me, then you must be a sad and sorry
goof".The argument of an idiot.

>Hmmm... I wonder if their are more Canadians immigrating to the US - or
>more Americans immigrating to Canada?

>> USA. They're the kind that would like to see us duplicate the hideous
>> levels of gun violence we see to our neighbours to the south. They want
to

>Of course, the presumption that firearms are the causes of violence in our
>neighbors to the south. How shallow... and doesn't begin to explain our
>sexual assault and common assault rates, amongst other things.

Oh dear! I should tell you Mr Lowe, Mr Flanagan really doesn't like it
when people disagree with him, especially when they make sense. Try to be
patient with him if you can, he really has improved quite a bit. Should you
doubt me have a look in DejaNews or some other archive. Really a vast
improvement.

mred

unread,
Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00
to

<mani...@home.com> wrote in message news:389ca215.91897282@news...
> X-No-Archive: yes
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2000 16:51:05 -0500, "Carman" <jo...@istar.ca> posted:
>
> <massive snipage of unread stuff>

>
> > I have a question here. How many posts in this forum have you seen
where
> >ANYONE who lives in Canada suggests that Canada and the US merge?
>
> Merge? Hell we'll just wait until the red necked rightoid roosters run
> the place into the ground and buy it at fire sale prices.
>
> Not that there's anything really worthwhile, but hell, salvage value
> is salvage value and there's always a buck to be made...

Of course if we get our "Kanadian" heads out of the sand,we will realise
that 25% of Canadian government bonds are owned by the Japanese, and the
rest by the US and European nations.
so , since they already own the production of Kanada and it`s assets,for the
unforseen future it`s only a matter of choice to see if we want Japan or the
US to actually take sovereign ownership of this country.

Note that most of the bonds held by foreign countries ,MUST be paid in US
dollars.(denominated therein)

As for NAFTA, well,how many Kanadians did it put out of work? and how many
companies flew south?
Sure it has brought almost record employment to Kanadians,(at minimum
wage?)since we export about 90% of our goods to the States, BUT when the
States` economy slows down, who do you think will be hurt the most?

ed.ontario.kanada

m...@aussi.net

unread,
Feb 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/9/00
to
m...@aussi.net wrote in message
<389ad8b2...@news.telusplanet.net>...
>>
>>>Carman <jo...@istar.ca> wrote:
>>>> Really funny, thanks for posting this. Oh, speaking of funny, whenever
>I
>>>> go by the US consulate in Toronto, around to the back there is this
>huge,
>>>> long line of visa applicants. Odd isn't it?
>>>
>>
>>, "Terry Flanagan" <te...@consultink.com> wrote:
>>>Hmm, that's odd - since Canadians don't need visas to go to the US...
>>>Perhaps you were mistaking the line up to buy a car at the nearby BMW
>lot...
>>
>>Maybe these were green card applicants, You do need a "resident
>>alien" green card to be legally employed in the United States.
>

"Carman" <jo...@istar.ca> wrote:
> You don't suppose...! I mean, are you really suggesting those people might
>be planning to go down to "that place" and actually try to live there? Oh my
>goodness, what next?

I know of Canadian contract employees who work a 32 hour week for
Intel and have a higher net income than the average Canadian G.P.
working more hours...

Don Granger

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to
You Americans really are dumb

jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Here's my solution to the Canadian problem: we'll absorb it into the US

> in a gradual process, in the way the EU is built upon. Now that Europe
> is heading in the direction towards a monetary union plus a political


> union (Amsterdam treaty) - we can suggest the same manner be applied
> here in North America. Roughly 50 years ago no-one would've thought

> this might work out in Europe. The US and Canada share much more in


> common than France and Germany do: We're integrated culturally,
> religiously, linguistically, and so on. Many Canucks tune into US tv
> channels, radio stations, cable companies and Internet Services
> Providers. It implies to most pro-sports either (except for NFL) and I
> dont see any reason why not in Football. The strike in GM plants in
> Flynt, Michigan, had its implications in Canada as well, especially in
> Windsor,ONT. It ranges from tv stations to churches. Take heed, for

> example to the "Union of North American Baptist Churches" both here and
> in Canada. So we can expand NAFTA to eventually gain political

> integration. Quebec will be independent, and some areas in Northern
> Canada will be rendered as Indian state within the union (what Oklahoma
> was thought and intended to be).Canada today is an artificial
> creation by the Brits who had wanted to exploit the country thus united
> Ontario with French speaking Quebec.

> The US-Canada border is indeed a virtual one since many Canucks have
> cross-border friends and relatives. Now it's time all the English

> speaking Canadians become American since they're already 80% today.

> Canada and Puerto Rico will be our "new frontier", our last states to
> join and we'll run a country ranging from Alaska to Florida. Canada's

> manifest destiny will be more or less that of Alaska and Hawaii. The

> Natives will eventually gain their own state in which English,
> Cherokee,Athabaskan and Navajo will be recognized as official
> labguages, while PR will become an English and Spanish speaking state.
>

> I've already emailed some Senators about it:

> sen...@cochran.senate.gov,
> senat...@lott.senate.gov,senator...@mccain.senate.gov
>
> Jim Foss,
> Oconomowoc, WI 53066
> jimh...@execpc.com, jim_...@my-deja.com
> dairyland state


> "Go cheeseheads, go, bring back the Superbowl
>

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.


Ć arren

unread,
Mar 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/5/00
to

Don Granger wrote:

> You Americans really are dumb

Awwwww jeezus H. cheeeerisst! Not this tired old flamer baiting thing?
This thing showed up in alt.canadian.beaver about a year and a half
ago...word for word.
The original poster must be whooping it up somewhere as he/she/it reads all
the responses.
I mean look at the groups it's targeted, can there be anything more radical
and unstable than a gun-toting Winnipeg politician who's also a Canuck fan?
That's jest axin fer trubble!
Please, don't respond to this lame-ass troll who has to use the same material
over and over, year after year, newsgroup after newsgroup....
Let's give this bullshit a quick death.
Cheers


0 new messages