|
Ripping on Americans. A message to Canadians (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| swilly |
| quote: | Originally posted by karim
Those who do watch the news, simply choose CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS news over the CBC, Global News, or other Canadian based news channels. There may be an oversaturation of American news, and sure, alot of American news is important on a world scale, but choosing not to hear about Canadian news is a ing shame.
Note: nothing on this board triggered my rant. I was actually overhearing some people yesterday bashing americans and they were completely clueless.
:)
Karim |
why the would people watch american news? I dont get it. We never watched any american news in my family and never will. CBC and then BBC for the past 25 years.
My parents thought that alot of the american news didint relate to what happened to us in canada so we never watched.
good thing too i think i grew up with alot less propaganda.
cheers
swilly |
|
|
| karim |
You my friend, are one of very few. A rare breed.
:)
Karim |
|
|
| stuntman |
we all know it..
HAH...just joking ;) |
|
|
| zookeeper |
| Actually Puerto Rico is our 51st state, but no one really cares, 50 is a nice round number. Even though Hawaii is like little Toyko...If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. |
|
|
| Ziggy |
We are so informed we need to be meminded on TV where we are from.
 |
|
|
| zookeeper |
| Do Canadians take responsiblity for Peter Jennings? |
|
|
| yankeeBaby |
| quote: | Originally posted by zookeeper
I'm heading to NYC, in late April with my wife, to hook up with some friends from UK (they've never been to NYC;) ) I'll see if I find anything new.
The University should have a very good housefinder service, or there are many apartment finder services...find a couple of good roommates though...possibly online.
If you plan to visit, pick up a "Grey Line" Pass, It's a bus that you can hop on and off as you explore NYC.
...and after looking at your picture, get a can of pepper spray for yourself:nervous: |
haha Don't worry I have two cans of pepper spray already! :D :D I also go to the gym 4 days a week, have taken karate, and 4 years of kickboxing and "regular" boxing....I don't mess around...I have lived in the suburbs of NYC before!!!:cool: ;)
Thanks for all your help btw....craigslist.org is a great place to go as well for anyone else who wants to move to an American city!!
Shadow: Hoboken!!! :stongue: hahahahahah very funny.... |
|
|
| zookeeper |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by yankeeBaby
haha Don't worry I have two cans of pepper spray already! :D :D I also go to the gym 4 days a week, have taken karate, and 4 years of kickboxing and "regular" boxing....I don't mess around
You are in inspiration to my daughters...take care;) |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
why the would people watch american news? I dont get it. We never watched any american news in my family and never will. CBC and then BBC for the past 25 years.
My parents thought that alot of the american news didint relate to what happened to us in canada so we never watched.
good thing too i think i grew up with alot less propaganda.
cheers
swilly |
Actually the moment we came to Canada, we also stopped watching US News channels and started watching CBC, The National and other shows like The 5th Estate and W5. Now a days, I include BBC Canada in there too. Makes for a good eye opener sometimes.
Karim who are your friends...and why do you think that Canadians aren't in touch with Cdn current events(news). I think your mistaken. Everyone I know is always informed. Maybe it's time to change the cirlce of friends you hang around with. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
Canada's Free Ride
North Korea and Iran represent the most obvious threats to global peace and stability because the nuclear programs of those "rogue" states constitute a direct threat to the security of the United States, the state upon which global peace and stability depends.
As such, the recent refusal of the Canadian government to participate in our missile defense program designed to blunt those threats constitutes one of the more feckless diplomatic decisions in recent decades.
Yes, the project that Ronald Reagan first proclaimed under the rubric of the Strategic Defense Initiative more than 20 years ago has been beset by controversy, cost overruns and technical foul-ups. And yes, the Bush administration has consistently mishandled discussions with Canada regarding that program, in large part by asking for an open-ended commitment on their part without specifics or time line.
But missile defense is a concept whose time has come if for no reason other than that a few nuclear warheads launched from North Korea and landing in the vicinity of San Francisco and Los Angeles could easily kill more Americans than have been killed in all of the wars in our nation’s history. Given such stakes, and the fact that deployment of such a shield would cost less than what the United States spends every year on farm subsidies or prescription drug benefits, a failure to move forward as quickly as feasible would be criminally negligent.
Ballistic missile defense of even the most effective kind — and it would, over time, become increasingly effective in its capabilities in tandem with improvements in technology — won’t solve all the problems emanating from the confluence of rogue states, nuclear proliferation and terrorism, but it is a necessary first step in any broader effort to do so. The logic of such a commitment is so obvious that no American administration, whether headed by John Kerry or George W. Bush, would think of doing otherwise.
Despite such harsh realities, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin decided to play to the vulgar anti-Bush, anti-American sentiments of the Canadian left when declining the offer of joint development on behalf of the shared interest in North American security.
The key to understanding Martin’s decision is that it is all the more shameful for being so obviously cost-free; Canada will be protected by virtue of its geographical proximity and logistical imperatives by whatever missile defense shield the United States eventually deploys anyway. In a classic case of the "free rider," Canada obtains security from America without cost or risk and with the added bonus of appeasing domestic constituencies whose satisfaction so often depends upon poking their southern neighbor in the eye.
Canadians are now free to indulge in anti-missile defense and broader anti-Bush rhetoric and to keep their prissy hands clean regarding any "militarization of space" while still knowing that the object of their contempt (and those future weapons in space) will keep them safe.
Precisely because most Canadians know that most Americans view Canada as an extension of Minnesota, the most powerful urge on the part of any Canadian government always will be to demonstrate Canada’s independence from America.
But the irony of the current Canadian government’s assertion of its independence and sovereignty on the question of missile defense stems from more than the fact that Canada will be defended by such a defense in any event.
By refusing to participate in the project, Canada actually cedes the opportunity to have any influence over its evolution and deployment.
Because of its choice, Canada now will have no input in future decisions regarding missile defense, not even the decision on whether to use such a deployed defense to knock down incoming missiles that might be aimed at Toronto or Montreal.
No, the government of the United States will be making those decisions, presumably to the benefit of Canadians, but at the expense of the same sovereignty and independence they now seek to proclaim.
Indeed, the concept of Canadian sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States will become meaningless when considering the kinds of decisions our leaders would have to make in those tense moments when they have been alerted to a possible nuclear attack.
The great part of riding free is that it brings benefits without costs, except for the cost of having no influence over where you’re going.
http://www.ardemgaz.com/_NewAuthLog...di
torial |
|
|
| zookeeper |
I'm not quite sure why you posted on this thread, political forum might be more productive, but I will give my take on this...
I think that a ballistic missle shield is like lighting a candle with a flame thrower. To my knowledge, the shield is still a cold war strategy with enough interceptors to thwart a massive inbound attack with MIRV, a Soviet scenario. I believe dealing agressively with the threat of long range missles from N. Korea or even from China is a little premature, just look what bad intel has done for us already.
A missle shield is a worthwhile idea, but the cost of implementing a national system to deal with a limited exchange is just staggering, and my taxes are high enough.
...and it's possible that the new interceptors would just pull a "Patriot missle" and just bump the inbounds off course like the SCUDS in Iraq to impact in Vancouver,...oh well no great loss:rolleyes: |
|
|
| karim |
| quote: | Originally posted by zookeeper
look what bad intel has done for us already.
|
I strongly believe the US never had bad intel, and is still working at their original agenda of securing iraq's resources.
:)
Karim |
|
|
|
|
