What the heck is this crap?

[notyoueither]

Hold the presses! Jimmy has one more, greater than anything else bit of wisdom to impart to us poor, dumb, Canucks...

the highest increase in military spending since Korea

Well, fit me to be tied. Here I thought we only had about six battalions of infantry to spread around the second largest nation on Earth, and then to uphold our foreign commitments. You know, like going to places where people are shooting at each other and using soothing language to make them stop. I guess with the increase in spending we might be able to use harsh language and people might listen to us.

I guess I was misled when it was reported that the Navy had bought three rust buckets from Britain instead of investing some real money in a sub that could go under the ice.

I sure will sleep well tonight knowing that the Canadian Armed Forces have benefitted from 'the highest increase in military spending since Korea'.

[Wezil]

I still want to know why I need to feel bad for the penguins....?

[Ben Kenobi]

The British tradition is to discuss these things amongst ourselves and settle them peacefully when they are finally settled.

Arms against the Crown or the state are severely frowned upon.

As it happens it took just 90 more years for us to gain our statehood, but we did it peacefully and maintained relations with the mother country. Australia, New Zealand, and others then followed our example.

We Canucks today up here do not begrudge you Yanks the road you took. Our ancestors simply disagreed about the methods used to get there. We have all arrived at the same place.

Indeed, as I got to say yesterday, Canadians still have a Queen, since we never rebelled against her. Another thing many Americans forget are the loyalists who left the US to be part of Canada, after the American revolution.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Thats a good thing. I'm not claiming that nothing has been done to raise awareness, I'm just arguing that not all has been done and that in fact more can be done.

Thats kind of a bullcrap argument isn't it. Its not possible to ever say that ALL has been done. No matter how much is done, its always possible to do more on stuff like this.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hold the presses! Jimmy has one more, greater than anything else bit of wisdom to impart to us poor, dumb, Canucks...

the highest increase in military spending since Korea

Well, fit me to be tied. Here I thought we only had about six battalions of infantry to spread around the second largest nation on Earth, and then to uphold our foreign commitments. You know, like going to places where people are shooting at each other and using soothing language to make them stop. I guess with the increase in spending we might be able to use harsh language and people might listen to us.

I guess I was misled when it was reported that the Navy had bought three rust buckets from Britain instead of investing some real money in a sub that could go under the ice.

I sure will sleep well tonight knowing that the Canadian Armed Forces have benefitted from 'the highest increase in military spending since Korea'.

Ya that one got me too -- Canada has had pathetic levels of military spending for years so an increase was long overdue if Canada actually wishes to have an armed forces with adequate equipment

[Flubber]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn



If guilty is how you're feeling then clearly guilt isn't a strong enough emotion for what I want. I want the discussion to move beyond "ouch!, that sucked... now lets celebrate that we're at least not as bad as Nazi Germany". Thats complacent crap.

Let's get specific here. What exactly would satisfy you? Seriously . . . what level would be a level where all that needs to be done has been done?

Plus . . . how far back do you go ?? My background is largely Irish so I could come up with some serious beefs against the English.

[Grandpa Troll]

I have to say I have KrazyHorse on top of JimmyCracksCorn by a nose or if not then KH is just simply having a ball with him..

seems as though JimmyCracksCorn is mumbling something..seems..he..wants..to..go on..

OK Jimmy have at it

[JimmyCracksCorn]

NYE:

When I said pick apart my opening post it was under the assumption that it was clear I didn't intend for a couple minutes worth of projectile vomiting without anything substantial to back it up - and after you had the audacity to call me a relativist as well. I even left early to sleep, giving you the opportunity for the last word, and you still failed to produce any meaningful argument and instead resorted to unfounded and illegitimate attacks on my character and place of birth. Shame on you.

Now sit back and get comfortable, because I'm about to pwn you one post at a time and expose your complacent, xenophobic, bigoted, ill-read points of view for what they are.

Now lets begin. I'll start with the good news.

First off, the humiliation started in 1885 when the government imposed a $50 head tax. It was raised in 1903 to $500, not 1923.

What happened in 1923 was an Exclusion Act, which barred entry altogether, no matter the price paid.

How are we doing so far on being clueless about humiliation? Are you following?

Thanks for pointing out my typo. I hadn't noticed it until now. This is, however, the only mark you get on this pathetic failure of an examination of analytical reasoning. But on with the substance...

I should have said that in 1903 (not 1923) the head tax was raised to levels which indicate systemic racism, and then got ahead of myself in mentioning the baring of all Chinese from Canada in 1923. There were still three classes under which Chinese could immigrate to Canada, including one for "special circumstances" - which was the class GG Adrienne Clarkson's family used to arrive.

Regardless, the point still stands that on July 1st, Chinese Canadians celebrate Humiliation Day instead of Canada Day and barely a whisper of this is heard in the national mainstream media during Canada Day festivities.

The Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion Act

As soon as the CPR was completed, the Federal Government moved to restrict the immigration of Chinese to Canada. The first federal anti-Chinese bill was
passed in 1885. It took the form of a Head tax of $50 imposed, with few exceptions, upon every person of Chinese origin entering the country. No other group was targeted in this way.

The Head Tax was increased to $100 in 1900 and to $500 in 1903. $500 was equivalent to two years wages of a Chinese labour at the time. Meanwhile, Chinese were denied Canadian citizenship. In all, the Federal Government collected $23 million from the Chinese through the Head Tax.

Despite the Head Tax, Chinese immigrants continued to come to Canada. In 1923, the Canadian Parliament passed the Chinese Immigration Act excluding all but a few Chinese immigrants from entering Canada. Between 1923 and 1947 when the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed, less than 50 Chinese were allowed to come to Canada. Passed on July 1, 1923, Dominion Day, this law was perceived by the Chinese Canadian community as the ultimate form of humiliation. The Chinese Canadian community called this "Humiliation Day" and refused to celebrate Dominion Day for years to come.

http://www.ccnc.ca/redress/history.html

More:

http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-3-19/27169.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/china/chinese_immigration.html

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/yulelog/2005/04/22

But thanks for pointing out an obvious typo and then using it as your tour de force argument against me, even though the point I made still stands as a point of fact. That takes class (but not the learnin' kind of class, so don't worry).

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
I have to say I have KrazyHorse on top of JimmyCracksCorn by a nose or if not then KH is just simply having a ball with him..

seems as though JimmyCracksCorn is mumbling something..seems..he..wants..to..go on..

OK Jimmy have at it

Good timing.

Edit: And don't be silly. NYE is the usual suspect here.

KH knows he's in love with me

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Uhmmm, these weren't the same people, you know? The originial CPR workers were Chinese who came from California. Must have been a real hoot for them there to want to come to Canada to build a railroad with their blood and bones.

Are you tracking now?

Do you have the first clue as to what happened to whom and when it happened?

Do you have the first clue how to follow the course of an argument without getting all discombobulated?

Over 700 Chinese workers died during the construction of the CPR, which is where simple math comes in calculate an average of 1 death per kilometre. These deaths are a point of fact:

In 1885, the Canadian government imposed a $50 head tax, shortly after Chinese laborers were no longer required to toil on the transcontinental
Canadian Pacific Railway, where 700 Chinese men died.

http://www.chinatownsydney.com/politics.cfm?id=36

And it makes not one difference if they came to Canada from China via California or directly. How they were treated and used as slave labour once they
arrived to build one of this country's founding achievments towards building the confederacy is the only relavent point here. This point is also reiterated in KH's brilliant "Heritage Moment" anecdote.

Again, you're bringing in new data to counter my claims when in fact all it does is solidify them. It doesn't work.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

All I can say, and I think I can say this on behalf of most of the people of Canada, is go shoot what you think we should do up yer butt. We're not
your whipping people to take out the frustrations of your own inadequacies back home.

Ok, lets stop for a moment of sanity. You constantly refer to me as if I'm some tourist here on holiday, and yet you really know nothing of where I come from. I came to Canada when I was barely 17 for an undergrad program in Ottawa that I found intriguing, as well as to collect a hefty scholarship I had been offered. That was many years ago. Upon completion of my undergrad degree, like so many other foreign students in Canada, I stayed to pursue further education, a job and to maintain the many personal and professional networks I had built here. In fact, not only have I spent every moment of my adult life in this country, I'm about 50% a product of Canadian public education. So you should know that any further attempts to paint me as an ign'unt 'Merican just will not float.

So unless your white robe and cap are obscuring the message you're trying to send out, I take it you don't believe naturalized Canadians ought to be able to express their views on this country - a position I understand as being largely anti-immigrant in nature.

Know that when I speak of Canadians I speak with myself included, not as an outsider.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Oh. So now an entire newspaper is the Canadian equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

I knew what I was walking into, but again, I was hoping the blatherer would be induced by a sense of dignity to call it quits after he had his shorts pulled over his head the first time, but NOOOOOOO....

Jimmy comes back for more. What a champ!

To bring up the likes of Ann Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reily as being unique to the United States is to ignore the pundits who exist quid pro quo in this country to their US counterparts - and remember, ignore is the root word of ignorance. Its also a slap in the face to the recipients of the kind of right wing-ism that columnists such as David Warren. A principle difference is that in the US these pundits have a bigger soap box to stand on. In fact, if you compare point for point the views of people like Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reily with their Canadian counterparts you will arive at remarkable (if not identical) parallels. Although this would require relying on more than one source of news and doing some reading, so I won't hold you to that.

To recap, the point Chuckman was trying to make is that in the US load-mouthed right wingers abound while in Canada they are absent. This sentiment was also seen in full force when Fox News/CRTC debate was raging last summer - and much of it was aimed at keeping specifically Bill O'Reily off Canadian ariwaves, while in the meantime his clones already exist. Do a google news search (http://news.google.com) to see what I mean, in case you don't remember.

In other words, right wing media is alive and well in Canada, as are a plethora of hate groups. They US is not the sole proprieter of these sorts of things - the point of my commentary in the article.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

What about Haiti and Afghanistan?

In the second case we were treaty bound to lend assistance to an ally attacked, just like the rest of NATO, and then we are bound to stay and clean up the
mess. What have we done wrong now?

As for Haiti, just what do you have against Canadian military units being used to prevent the disintegration of civil order in a poor country? Is it that they are black? You think we should leave them to stew in their juices? I know! Maybe we should let them get a good Rwanda going. That way we could feel more guilt!

WTF are you talking about when you say 'what about Haiti and Afghanistan, *******?'???

We're really puzzled.

The royal "we" just doesn't suit you.

Anyways, the point I was making (and have been making) is that while Canada is not directly involved in Iraq - as pointed out and extolled in the article and many other news sources - it is in fact an active participant in military adventurism, as evidenced by their involvement in almost every theatre of every US-involved war in the 20th and 21st centuries minus a paltry two. So to remain in denial that Canada is nothing but a peace loving, peacekeeping little care bear of a country is just falacious. Canada is in fact a very militaristic country, as are most countries in the West. But you already know this, so I don't understand where your argument is coming from. Canada has an active military and uses it - just like the United States. Whether or not these two involvements are juste doesn't enter into the discussion, the point being that Canada actively uses its military and national security forces for offensive, defensive and pre-emptive purposes. This is a point of fact. Any argument to the contrary (as insinutated by the article and other sources) is complacent rubbish and a slap in the face.

As for murdering Hatians? Here:

http://dominionpaper.ca/canadian_news/2004/08/25/canadian_m.html

About arresting Muslims? Here:

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

The Security Certificate Five? Here:

http://www.ecawar.org/resources/deportations.php

and

http://montreal.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=qc-cherfi20050602

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Yes. Yes, you need to go on. You need to explain how anyone right of Mao on the Canadian political landscape (that would be everyone, Jimmy) is
eqivalent to you as Delay and Rumsfeld are to a very bitter, and very disaffected American.

Please, show us the light, Jimmy!

The point is, those people are not genuinely dangerous public figures in the sense that the author means it. They are a hinderance to ordinary Canadian andAmerican lives and are the ****bags that are fought tooth and nail that I mentioned in the OP. But why do I call them ****bags? Lets start at the top:

President George W Bush's personal and business ties to known terrorists:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html (you must have seen this documentary)

Prime Minister Paul Martine's personal and business ties to a known terrorist and dictator:

http://www.insideindonesia.org/digest/dig60.htm

http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_671.html

Now gee, why might I think having people such as these in the highest positions of power is a bit dangerous and more than a bit inappropriate?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Well, fit me to be tied. Here I thought we only had about six battalions of infantry to spread around the second largest nation on Earth, and then to
uphold our foreign commitments. You know, like going to places where people are shooting at each other and using soothing language to make them stop. I guess
with the increase in spending we might be able to use harsh language and people might listen to us.

I guess I was misled when it was reported that the Navy had bought three rust buckets from Britain instead of investing some real money in a sub that could
go under the ice.

I sure will sleep well tonight knowing that the Canadian Armed Forces have benefitted from 'the highest increase in military spending since Korea'.

This is a simple point of fact. This is the highest increase in military spending in a very long time. In fact, dollar for dollar, Canada is the 6th largest
military spender in NATO - as of Feb 2004, not inlcuding recent increases which have been massive.

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/stopwar_feb_04.html

And look at these graphs which also don't include recent increases. You can see the trend, and its hardly one thats contrary to the United States:

And, personally, what you think about these increases (good or bad) is none of my concern, nor is it relavent to any point I've made.

Source: http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/W...PERS/wp031.pdf