I am Canadian - Does the US own me?

[Nono]

gela, save your breath. Chancellor has this mantra that goes "The-Queen-of-England-is-the-head-of-your-country" ad nauseum. That's all he wishes to know.

And these American chauvinists are never interested in facts like the one about the human development index. The more you tell them, the more they won't listen. They live in the Greatest Country on the Planet, and doan y'all fergitt it. And it's a country that God "blesses". Well, God's always on their side you may have noticed.

It's all a matter of fevered tribalism. Facts don't enter into it.

[nerdvincent]

I'm Canadian, I can tell.
-The purpose of Mrs Queen is having her face stamped on the back of our money for historical purpose. We hardly think about her and we do much more trading with the USA than GB, even if we're part of the commonwealth.
-And this is the problem. USA got far too much control over Canada's economy.
-Canada joining the USA? What did he smoke? We've got free health care, you've got nothing. You love guns, we don't. We don't want to hear a crap about war and your friggin' imperialism. You want us to sing your national anthem before classes? Good luck. But you must realise that half of us pee on your flag every morning and spit on it before going to bed.
-We (Quebecker) speak French, and we can hardly protect our little bit of culture from the 20,000,000 other english spoken people in Canada. What about adding 300 millions other dummies?

[Derach]

I haven't read every post, but browsed most of the sensible looking ones ... sorry if I'm repeating.

I don't think it would benefit Canada to limit US access to it's oil for several reasons. First of all, neither country can afford a trade war ... especially Canada. (if the US stopped trading food goods to Canada, it would trigger huge ramifications). Secondly, much of the oil sent to the US winds up benefitting Canada indirectly through tourism or freight companies using oil to bring products, tourists and money back into Canada. Thirdly, I don't think Canada has the infrastructure to independantly find and exploit oil reserves without international (mostly US) aid in terms of investment $ and technology.

The global energy crisis we currently face is a problem better solved by cooperation than by nationalism.

[Nono]

Quote by: Derach The global energy crisis we currently face is a problem better solved by cooperation than by nationalism.

This is a two-dimensional truism, and therefore of little practical value.
All of everybody's problems are best solved thus. So?

These days, the US defines cooperation as follows: My way or the highway. The US is happy to uhh.. cooperate with any country that wishes to do exactly as the US wishes. Otherwise it's nut-cutting time.

Neither country can afford a trade war ... especially Canada.

Depends what you mean by "afford". Few countries are in a better position than Canada to opt out of the whole free-trade rat-race to the bottom.

Much of the oil sent to the US winds up benefitting Canada indirectly through tourism or freight companies using oil to bring products, tourists and money back into Canada.

Beyond the actual price of the oil (much of which goes to inflate oil-company profits) what percentage d'you think? Perhaps 0.00000000001%?

I don't think Canada has the infrastructure to independantly find and exploit oil reserves without international (mostly US) aid in terms of investment $ and technology.

Any sources for this eyebow-raising view? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

[Derach]

Quote by: Nono Any sources for this eyebow-raising view? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

The best evidence is reality. This thread states that the US controls Canadian oil ... presumably by investment ... and presumably not exclusively by US dollars. All I can offer for evidence is that this thread is about closing the door to US access to Canadian oil ... If there was indeed a way for Canada to do it (get the oil, refine it, sell it, and distribute it) all by themselves, they would.

Quote by: Nono These days, the US defines cooperation as follows: My way or the highway. The US is happy to uhh.. cooperate with any country that wishes to do exactly as the US wishes. Otherwise it's nut-cutting time.

Ah hogwash .... the US has made all kinds of concessions historically (and recently) to benefit trade relations with Canada, Mexico and others. Quick examples ... very easy for US businesses to work in Canada and vice-versa ... very easy to buy canadian products in US ... very easy to exchange $$ and banking information. Don't superimpose the ineptitude of this current administration (11 mos. left and counting) with a generalization (a wrong one at that) that the US negotiates at gunpoint. They might do it dangling a carrot made of capitalism and profit, but don't misinterpret GWB's obsession w/ becoming the next King of Arabia w/ the intent of the US or the American businesses to enjoy mutually beneficial trade relations with any interested country.

So the canadians would be best suited to seek a more equitable cooperative relationship with the US ... it would also benefit the US ... as oppossed to the premise that Canada should shut off US oil supply to somehow (wrongly) benefit them. It won't.

Quote by: Nono Depends what you mean by "afford". Few countries are in a better position than Canada to opt out of the whole free-trade rat-race to the bottom.

One example of Canada not being able to start a trade war w/ the US is that Canada imports 60% of it's agri-food from the US. Canada cannot afford to feed it's population without those crops. Besides, why would Canada want to risk forfeiting 6B$ worth of current trade surplus it enjoys w/ the US ... you think they can afford 6B to fizzle out of the economy overnight?

Quote by: Nono Beyond the actual price of the oil (much of which goes to inflate oil-company profits) what percentage d'you think? Perhaps 0.00000000001%?

No, I think it's substantially higher than that. Not many of the 6B dollars earned in Canada from US investment doesn't somehow attribute a share of that money to oil costs. Either through production, distribution, or technology, the stable price of oil to the US is critical in Canada's ability to maintain that economic surplus. The percentage of money spent on energy (oil) costs for the average Canadian consumer is much higher than 1%.

Your also not taking into account the chaos that redistributing the oil exports from Canada to other nations would have on the Canadian economy. Prices for the oil they already sell would fall, distribution costs would rise ... it's not as cut and dry as poking a finger in the eye of the big bad neighbor .. it has far reaching impact on Canada even without US retaliation (economic or otherwise).

[Nono]

Quote by: Derach Ah hogwash ....

Ah bullshit. Canadians don't see it that way. Ask them about softwood lumber, for example. The US views NAFTA exactly the way it views the Geneva Conventions: Well, fellas, we'll interpret any ol' way we please.

As for GWB, if Americans felt he didn't represent them, presumably they would have done something about it by now. They haven't. If you can't take the attitude of the White House as representing that of the country at large, what can you do?

Canada imports 60% of it's agri-food from the US.

Which is totally insane, especially as much of it comes from very far away indeed (California and Florida, for example).
My view is that it would be worth the sacrifices involved for Canada to stand on its own feet.

Your also not taking into account the chaos that redistributing the oil exports from Canada to other nations would have on the Canadian economy. Prices for the oil they already sell would fall, distribution costs would rise ...

In the extremely unlikely event that oil prices fall, the Alberta source will dry up anyway, since oil mixed in with all that stuff just isn't worth it at a lower price.

[BenLindow]

You make a very excellent point. I am not completely up to date on the relation status between our two countries but I can tell you that I do not think Canada would be to blame for anything. A country is formed so that it can look after it's people. If your leaders decide to hold more oil, then so be it, the United States can voice it's opinion about it but to actually scale a war on it would only expose a major flaw in the American government.

You mentioned the WMDs, which is a very good point. Still to this day America has yet to seize Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. This is a very popular conspiracy theory amongst a lot of people. Which, as days progress, seems more and more realistic. If America were to go to war with Canada over oil, they would have to either make up an extremely smart excuse (a lie) or tell the truth. Either way the American people, as well as the whole world, will see straight through this reason. This would be the main factor keeping America at bay with Canada. Besides, (not to be a conceded countryman - I am speaking clearly out of our governments actions) America would most likely find some other country to nibble off of because Canada is too close to home.

[BenLindow]

I hope that you pee and spit on our flag only from our governments actions, and not the American people's actions. It is true that most American's are ignorant and greedy, but it is mainly the government that has done some really stupid things.

I, as an American in a small town, feel no hate towards any country which includes Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, or even Canada. Also, I feel that this is a common view with a lot of Americans which is why we are so put off (confused) with other countries hating us.

In conclusion, I hate my government just as much as the next guy. They are always giving the wrong people money, extended rights, and making some really bad choices. But hey, give it nine months and maybe a new leader will change the reputation of America (fingers crossed).

[nerdvincent]

Of course, I'm talking about their government and the ol' chauvinists thinking they own the world. Here on Volconvo, most of my friends are americans.

[ruksak]

Quote by: BenLindow It is true that most American's are ignorant and greedy

At least you don't speak in absolutes. Jesus Cripes that was a horrible generalization.





Did you know that most Oregonians are serial rapists? Its true because I said so..

[not fooled]

ref: queens role in canada.
To whom it may concern.
There was a time in my past when I was grabbed by the shoulder and confronted by a member of the the R.A.F as to why there was a picture of his queen on the wall of a
Canadian Armed Forces junior ranks mess.
In my state,at that moment, I responded ;
"Idunno,if ya want the b1charley,taker.
The ensuing activities involved thirty or so men,and left me with three broken fingers two black eyes,one broken knee cap and no doubt that the british think more of their queen than I do.
I am Canadian.

[BenLindow]

Quote by: ruksak At least you don't speak in absolutes. Jesus Cripes that was a horrible generalization. Did you know that most Oregonians are serial rapists? Its true because I said so..

Most Oregonians? I am having a hard time believing that 1.8 million serial rapists live in Oregon.

[Nono]

It would make for an interesting place.

Ben, ruksak's point is that you shouldn't make such declarations without citing sources.

I also tend to believe that Americans are a pretty ignorant bunch, though there are many exceptions thank God. That's personal observation, but it has also been well documented. Here's one wee example: CNN.com - Global goofs: U.S. youth can't find Iraq - Nov. 22, 2002

As for greed, many Americans I know are personally generous. The problem is that the populace is steeped in a culture that worships greed.

[ruksak]

Quote by: NONO Here's one wee example: CNN.com - Global goofs: U.S. youth can't find Iraq - Nov. 22, 2002

I betcha the 4,000 American youths that have died in Iraq since 2003 could point it out right fast.

Quote by: NONO As for greed, many Americans I know are personally generous. The problem is that the populace is steeped in a culture that worships greed.

AFP > Research & Statistics | Fundraising research > Fundraising Competition Increases as U.S. Charities Number 800,000

there are now nearly 800,000 charitable organizations in the United States,

America is the most charitable nation on planet Earth, yet we wear this false badge of greed. We get slammed for education statistics, even though, in my opinion, a vast amount of the undereducated students in America are immigrant minorities from uneducated nations (Mexico namely).

Quote by: NONO Ben, ruksak's point is that you shouldn't make such declarations without citing sources.

He's just following the "Hate America" fad that is sweeping the world.

Kids love fads.

[Nono]

From ruksak's source "The Association of Fundraising Professionals" (the name says it all, LOL):

"Charities can look forward to additional fundraising competition as the Internal Revenue Service reports that there are now nearly 800,000 charitable organizations in the United States, double the number that existed in 1990."

Let's see, that's about one tax-deductable organization for every 400 Americans. What a racket! Many of them are very-very far from what I would call a charity, but tax-deductable they are.
So gimme an effin' break, sak.

... the "Hate America" fad that is sweeping the world.

Now why d'you suppose that would be happening?
No wait -- I know: Because they hate our freedom.

[gela]

Ruksak, I seem to remember you claiming in another thread that all steriotypes were true?

Here's one wee example: CNN.com - Global goofs: U.S. youth can't find Iraq - Nov. 22, 2002

What does that say about their understanding the people that they are at war against and the war in general?
Ignorance leads to unfounded hatred.

[ruksak]

Quote by: gela Ruksak, I seem to remember you claiming in another thread that all stereotypes were true?

To be exact; "The worst thing about stereotypes is that they are most often true".

A hotly combated statement I made. Now that it suites toward your argument, you wish to support me as correct with that statement? How absurdly convenient.

I would qualify the ignorant anti-American rhetoric more as a sweeping generalization, than a base stereotype.

Quote by: gela Here's one wee example: CNN.com - Global goofs: U.S. youth can't find Iraq - Nov. 22, 2002 What does that say about their understanding the people that they are at war against and the war in general?

Allow me to sh*tcan your retort.

A few things about that link;

#1: This "study" was done in 2002. One year before we went to war with Iraq.

#2:

The survey asked 56 geographic and current events questions of young people in nine countries and scored the results with traditional grades.

The surveyed Americans got a "D," with an average of 23 correct answers. Mexico ranked last with an average score of 21,

This supports my contention that dumbass Mexicans lower our curve dramatically. As we have MILLIONS of ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants, educated in Mexico, in our nation, in our schools.

Topping the scoring was Sweden, with an average of 40, followed by Germany and Italy, each with 38. None of the countries got an "A," which required average scores of 42 correct answers or better on the 56 questions.

HAHAHAHAHA.....the whole world is stupid, apparently.

So in closing on that matter, your study is flawed, biased and skewed beyond repair. Ultimately capable of saying nothing definitive about the overall intelligence of Americans.

I'd like to add that gauging an entire nations "ignorance" based on the ability to find one nation within a massive cluster of nations is ridiculous. Akin to saying that I don't know how to do math because I can't do advanced calculus.

Nor do I need to be able to find Iraq on a map to know that Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant.

Quote by: NONO Let's see, that's about one tax-deductible organization for every 400 Americans. What a racket! Many of them are very-very far from what I would call a charity, but tax-deductible they are. So gimme an effin' break, sak.

800,000+ NOT FOR PROFIT charities that both receive tax breaks, as a means of encouraging charitable organizations to exist, and tax breaks offered to Americans that donate. Tax breaks offered as part of a structure meant to encourage giving.

So what you're saying is that because Americans might stand to earn back 5 cents on the dollar in tax write-offs, that somehow this displays a greedy motivation? What you're saying is that because our government, founded by the people, provides charities tax breaks to alleviate many of the financial burdens, this displays a greedy motivation?

You are aware that it takes money to run a charity? You are aware that it costs money to purchase storerooms, delivery vehicles, utilities etc etc etc? Aren't you? You are aware of these things of which I speak, aren't you?

Y'all best to try a bit harder if you wish to win this argument.

[Nono]

Quote by: ruksak HAHAHAHAHA.....the whole world is stupid, apparently.

Perhaps, but some stupider than others. You know who you are.

So in closing on that matter, your study is flawed, biased and skewed beyond repair. Ultimately capable of saying nothing definitive about the overall intelligence of Americans.

Unfortunately, sak, it don't "close on" nothing. The study seems perfectly fair to me.
A lot of Americans are powerfully ignorant about a whole shitload of things.
Nobody questioned their native intelligence, so kindly lay off the red herring.

As for the "charities", I'm just saying that a lot of them are no such thing. Lots of politically motivated "foundations" and whatnot are "501(c)(3)" uhh.. charities. There's a lot of hanky-panky rolled up into your figures.

You are aware that it takes money to run a charity? You are aware that it costs money to purchase storerooms, delivery vehicles, utilities etc etc etc? Aren't you? You are aware of these things of which I speak, aren't you?

If only you knew, sak. I can quote chapter and verse.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Nono Perhaps, but some stupider than others. You know who you are.

That study is anecdotal at best.

Unfortunately, sak, it don't "close on" nothing. The study seems perfectly fair to me.

Because it suites your opinion?

A lot of Americans are powerfully ignorant about a whole shitload of things.

A lot of Americans aren't Americans at all, for one. And alot of Europeans are pretty darn stupid as well. Somehow, the worlds dumbest nation is the worlds only reigning superpower. How could this be?

So far the only evidence you have provided is this flimsy study that pretty much stated that the entire world is somewhat ignorant enough to not be able to find Iraq on a map.

Nobody questioned their native intelligence, so kindly lay off the red herring.

You accuse me of dirty pool when you lean your entire argument upon one flimsy study that didn't even bother to cite the demographics of the subjects, other than to state the age range.

You are going to have to show me much more if you wish to convince me that Americans are disproportionately dumber than other nations.

As for the "charities", I'm just saying that a lot of them are no such thing. Lots of politically motivated "foundations" and whatnot are "501(c)(3)" uhh.. charities. There's a lot of hanky-panky rolled up into your figures.

More often than not, American world charities show up with truck loads of food and supplies in foreign countries that are in need. Supplies donated by Americans. It's just not fair to paint us as this greedy, ignorant lot. We do our part.

If only you knew, sak. I can quote chapter and verse.

You failed to address most of my post. For good reason. The logic is solid and you can't refute it. You danced around quite a bit of my post.

You think a pre-Iraq war study citing that some Americans can't find Iraq on a map somehow shows unequivocally that Americans are ignorant on a broad scale.

Everybody hates numba 1. That is my impression. Jealous.....

[gela]

To be exact; "The worst thing about stereotypes is that they are most often true". A hotly combated statement I made. Now that it suites toward your argument, you wish to support me as correct with that statement? How absurdly convenient. I would qualify the ignorant anti-American rhetoric more as a sweeping generalization, than a base stereotype.

Hey, I never said I believed or supported the steriotype. Nor was I making any sort of argument against Americans. Im just pointing out, that you said steriotypes are mostly true, and now that we are talking about your steriotype your very ready to disprove it.
Take it from someone whos not from America, it is a steriotype. Look up stereotypical american in you tube and see what you find.

You also quoted that study as if I was the one who posted it.

About weather the steriotype is true or not. I don't know, unlike nono, I live on the other side of the world. Im in no position to talk about Americans - I've never even met one in person.

But I did find this video wich raises some interesting points:

YouTube - AMERICA THE STUPID