Canadian Identity: un-American

[SirJosephPorter]

Again, ironsides, you haven’t showed that anything I said in my post was wrong.

The liberal's are running scared as usual, play a nice ame of peek a boo. Academia snob is another good definition for some of you. You don't have a strangle hold on education up there.

That is always the conservative party line, ironsides. Liberals are always running scared. Conservatives claimed that in 2008, Obama was running scared of Joan of Arc, Democrats were running scared of Republicans etc. Democrats were running scared of Republicans in 2006 and 2008, no doubt.

Even now, Republican propaganda is that all the Democrats are deathly scared of Joan of Arc, that she is a shoe in to win in 2012. Well, we will see how it plays out. But as to your assertion that liberals are running scared, that is the conservative party line, it doesn’t really mean anything.

And Ronnie was right? About what? About the skyrocketing deficit? About the more than 10% unemployment? About his claim that trees cause pollution? About his claim that ketchup is a vegetable (when he made deep cuts to school lunches for the poor kids, he told the schools to count ketchup as a vegetable, in order to save money). What exactly was he right about?

 

[wulfie68]

"Canada was born July 1,1867 when a Confederation was created. Was it just a coincidence that a confederation was created right after the U.S. went thru a Civil War, defeating the "Confederate States of America" (a confederation also)? When the Civil War ended April 9, 1865, thousands of disgruntled Confederate/American citizens moved North and South, out of the U.S. This same migration also happened after the American Revolution.. Just another angle to consider, not argue about. These were mainly people of English and Irish heritage. I think we have a lot more in common than most realize."

An old boss of mine used to espouse the viewpoint (not his but I can't recall the name of the book he got it from, possibly "the Continental Divide", but I won't swear on that... been years since I read that book) that the American Revolution created two nations not one, but the second wasn't really formalized until almost 100 years later. I kind of agree with that. Some of the politics that drove the Revolution defined some of what the nations became but I don't think as greatly as many people think. The French population in Lower Canada (Quebec) had a lot of influence on Canada's early politics and cultural development. Later on I think Canada's experiences in the Boer and both World Wars, as a member of the British Empire, in large part because of the number of Canadian casualties in terms of percentage of total population, played a significant role as well.

Sorry those of you espousing the whole native thing, but they had a minimal impact on me and mine: my Dad's family were from a line of Prussian farmers who came to Alberta 100 years ago and my Mother's tree is English, Scottish and Flemish Belgian. Native culture has virtually no impact on Canada's political traditions and very little on most people's day to day lives, even where I grew up, where the population was about 40% Cree and metis. We studied a bit about native cultures in school but in the end the biggest thing was they were just the ones who could get away with hunting cow moose and does out of season. They also weren't unique to one country or another, just different tribes dwelt in different areas.

Back to the Canada-US thing, in terms of the actual differences, I also think the differences aren't just north-south but east-west as well: Ontario and Quebec are as, if not more foreign to Albertans than many parts of the US, especially once you get away from the Eastern Seaboard. I was a life-long Albertan until I moved to Pennsylvania at the end of June and I honestly find very little difference between the Americans I deal with now and people "back home". There's some differences in the political mechanics but not issues (I still have no use for hand guns and many of the people here are afraid of a government run medical system but these are issues in both countries). The only true difference is patriotism here is a little more overt and the Armed Forces aren't the red-headed step children they are in Canadian politics.

 

[ironsides]

Again, ironsides, you haven’t showed that anything I said in my post was wrong.


That is always the conservative party line, ironsides. Liberals are always running scared. Conservatives claimed that in 2008, Obama was running scared of Joan of Arc, Democrats were running scared of Republicans etc. Democrats were running scared of Republicans in 2006 and 2008, no doubt.

Even now, Republican propaganda is that all the Democrats are deathly scared of Joan of Arc, that she is a shoe in to win in 2012. Well, we will see how it plays out. But as to your assertion that liberals are running scared, that is the conservative party line, it doesn’t really mean anything.

And Ronnie was right? About what? About the skyrocketing deficit? About the more than 10% unemployment? About his claim that trees cause pollution? About his claim that ketchup is a vegetable (when he made deep cuts to school lunches for the poor kids, he told the schools to count ketchup as a vegetable, in order to save money). What exactly was he right about?

Of course it is, but truth is truth no matter who says it. What is wrong with restricting porn., I personally do not care who or what side puts restrictions on it, are you in favor of putting it on the Disney Channel? How did porn get to be a topic about Canadian Identity: un-American, is it unrestricted up there?

As for Palin, unless something is brewing in the Republican party we don't know about, I don't think you have to fear her anymore. I would worry about Michael Steele for now, just check out Republican party history.

As for Reagan: "Then as now, local school districts could receive reimbursement for each lunch served provided it met minimum standards. In mid-1981, only a few months after Reagan took office, Congress cut $1 billion from child-nutrition funding and gave the USDA 90 days--the blink of an eye, for the federal bureaucracy--to come up with new standards that would enable school districts to economize, in theory without compromising nutrition.
The USDA convened a panel of nutritionists and food service directors to ponder what to do. One option on the table--no one later would admit to putting it there--was to "accept catsup as a fruit/vegetable when used as an ingredient." Some panel members seized on this as an opportunity to discuss whether to count ketchup even if used as a condiment. From what I can tell, the motive wasn't so much penuriousness as trying to face facts about what kids would actually eat. USDA standards at the time required that a reimbursable lunch consist of five items: meat, milk, bread, and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Many kids refused to eat the veggies and the stuff wound up as "plate waste." Would-be realists on the panel reasoned that if they could count ketchup as a vegetable they could meet federal standards without having to throw away so many lima beans, thereby saving money while having no impact on the kids. Looked at in a certain light, it made sense. Ketchup wasn't the only newly permissible substitute: pickle relish and conceivably other condiments could also count as vegetables (precise interpretation was left to state officials); protein sources like tofu or cottage cheese could replace meat; and corn chips, pretzels, and other snacks could replace bread. Minimum portion sizes were also reduced, purportedly another effort to reduce waste."

There is the story, the catsup conspiracy was first proposed during the Carter admin., but not approved by any President.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Of course it is, but truth is truth no matter who says it. What is wrong with restricting porn., I personally do not care who or what side puts restrictions on it, are you in favor of putting it on the Disney Channel? How did porn get to be a topic about Canadian Identity: un-American, is it unrestricted up there?

Well, I am opposed to restricting porn; it is a question of freedom of speech. And in spite of some Feminists being opposed to porn (on the grounds of exploitation of women), most Feminists are not opposed to it, they take the view that women should have choices (yes, even the choice to participate in porn). Even some women produce porn (although they call it erotica).

As to who restricts porn, that is mostly the domain of conservatives. I am opposed to restricting adult porn (child porn is a different matter).

As for Palin, unless something is brewing in the Republican party we don't know about, I don't think you have to fear her anymore. I would worry about Michael Steele for now, just check out Republican party history.

Republican Party has a problem with Palin. She is wildly popular with the base, but her chances of getting elected are questionable at best. So if she chooses to run, there is a good chance that she may win the nomination, especially if she can sufficiently fire up the base.

As for Reagan: "Then as now, local school districts could receive reimbursement for each lunch served provided it met minimum standards. In mid-1981, only a few months after Reagan took office, Congress cut $1 billion from child-nutrition funding and gave the USDA 90 days--the blink of an eye, for the federal bureaucracy--to come up with new standards that would enable school districts to economize, in theory without compromising nutrition.
The USDA convened a panel of nutritionists and food service directors to ponder what to do. One option on the table--no one later would admit to putting it there--was to "accept catsup as a fruit/vegetable when used as an ingredient." Some panel members seized on this as an opportunity to discuss whether to count ketchup even if used as a condiment. From what I can tell, the motive wasn't so much penuriousness as trying to face facts about what kids would actually eat. USDA standards at the time required that a reimbursable lunch consist of five items: meat, milk, bread, and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Many kids refused to eat the veggies and the stuff wound up as "plate waste." Would-be realists on the panel reasoned that if they could count ketchup as a vegetable they could meet federal standards without having to throw away so many lima beans, thereby saving money while having no impact on the kids. Looked at in a certain light, it made sense. Ketchup wasn't the only newly permissible substitute: pickle relish and conceivably other condiments could also count as vegetables (precise interpretation was left to state officials); protein sources like tofu or cottage cheese could replace meat; and corn chips, pretzels, and other snacks could replace bread. Minimum portion sizes were also reduced, purportedly another effort to reduce waste."

There is the story, the catsup conspiracy was first proposed during the Carter admin., but not approved by any President.

I am aware of the history, but the optics looked vary bad for Reagan. I remember many humanitarians held a (public) mock lunch of cheese and ketchup, to protest the fact that ketchup was being counted as a vegetable.

 

[ironsides]

Lets not forget mustard and relish as well. The whole catsup thing started before Reagan, just like blaming Bush or Obama for the economic collapse, responsibility happened way before them, we can trace the start back 45-50 years. Lots of Presidents and world officials can share the blame.


Now porn becomes a women's right?? Civilization requires boundaries, there has to be limits on just about everything we do in order to protect individuals and prevent crime. :roll:

 

[TenPenny]

And in spite of some Feminists being opposed to porn (on the grounds of exploitation of women), most Feminists are not opposed to it, they take the view that women should have choices (yes, even the choice to participate in porn). Even some women produce porn (although they call it erotica).

I really think you don't know many feminists, or you haven't done much in the way of research. The majority of feminists are, from what I have seen, opposed to porn.

 

[AnnaG]

The majority of feminists are, from what I have seen, opposed to porn.

Pretty much. Pompa,, ooops, Joke is posting from ignorance.
There are a few feminists in favor of erotica, but I don't really expect men to understand the difference between what women call erotica and what men define as pornography. Most men are stimulated by visuals. Most women are stimulated more by impressions and ideas.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I really think you don't know many feminists, or you haven't done much in the way of research. The majority of feminists are, from what I have seen, opposed to porn.

I don’t think so. Do you see Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer etc. or any of the Democratic female leaders (most of whom are Feminists) speak out against porn? Have they tried to restrict porn in any way? It doesn’t happen.

Most Feminists fall firmly in the liberal camp, they are not oppsod to pornography, mainly for first amendment reasons. There is a small group of conservative Feminists who are opposed to pornography or abortion, but they are a tiny minority.

I have seen very few Feminist leaders speak out against pornography (it is mostly conservative women who rant and rave against pornography, mainly from Biblical point of view). I have however, seen them support mostly liberals who have no problem with pornography. Thus people like Hugh Hefner, Larry Flint are great supporters of first amendment and of women’s rights. Hefner, Flint and Feminists are in the same camp, politically.

Indeed, if Feminists were monolithically opposed to porn as you claim, it may have been a good way for Democratic female politicians to try to get conservative votes. But it doesn’t happen. Most Feminists totally supported Clinton when he was being trashed by the Republicans for having sex with his intern (Gingrich was doing the same thing at the same time, but that is a different story).

Most of the Feminists tend to be liberal, not conservative. Liberal position is to oppose any restrictions on pornography.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Lets not forget mustard and relish as well. The whole catsup thing started before Reagan, just like blaming Bush or Obama for the economic collapse, responsibility happened way before them, we can trace the start back 45-50 years. Lots of Presidents and world officials can share the blame.


Now porn becomes a women's right?? Civilization requires boundaries, there has to be limits on just about everything we do in order to protect individuals and prevent crime. :roll:

In a sense it is a women’s rights issue, ironsides. It is the question of women being allowed to make the choices they want, even if it is in sex business. You will see most Feminists support the right of women to choose to become prostitutes, porn actors etc. While one could argue if these are wise choices, Feminists argue that women must have the freedom to make those choices.

Same as most Feminists would argue that a woman must have the choice to leave the job market and become a housewife if she so chooses.

Freedom does not mean freedom to make only the right choices.

 

[TenPenny]

I don’t think so. Do you see Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer etc. or any of the Democratic female leaders (most of whom are Feminists) speak out against porn? Have they tried to restrict porn in any way? It doesn’t happen.

So your position is that feminists are in favour of porn, is that right?

 

[AnnaG]

Pompa,,, sorry, Joke is out of touch with the realities of women. There are a few women who tolerate porn as the right to expression, but most are of the opinion that porn objectifies women. Joke can post stuff to support his claim if he like.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/pornog.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bf...resnum=3&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The simple fact is that most women view pornography as exploitative and most of the proponents of feminisim are women.


Women just aren't into porn nearly as much as men in the first place.

"The porn industry hasn't marketed to women. There aren't a lot of sites out there specifically for women," said O'Neill, citing a well-known example.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1999/11/32327

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So your position is that feminists are in favour of porn, is that right?

It is more nuanced than that, TenPenny. Feminists don’t care one way or the other about porn. When it comes to porn, most Feminists probably are not consumers. However, most of them are opposed to placing restrictions on porn.

Again, I pose the question, have you ever seen a Feminist politician trying to restrict porn? The reason is that it is the conservatives, the religious right who want to restrict porn. Feminists are (rightly) afraid that if they support restrictions on porn, the religious right will come after the Feminists next and there won’t be anybody to support them.

In USA conservatives try to restrict porn, when was the last time you saw Feminists support them?

Feminist support choices for women. Whether that choice is to become a doctor, a lawyer, a senator, a prostitute, a porn actor, a housewife, it doesn’t matter. Feminists will oppose any attempts to restrict a woman’s right to be a porn actor as vigorously as they will oppose any attempts to restrict a woman’s’ right to be a doctor, a lawyer or a politician.

 

[AnnaG]

It is more nuanced than that, TenPenny. Feminists don’t care one way or the other about porn. When it comes to porn, most Feminists probably are not consumers. However, most of them are opposed to placing restrictions on porn.

Again, I pose the question, have you ever seen a Feminist politician trying to restrict porn? The reason is that it is the conservatives, the religious right who want to restrict porn. Feminists are (rightly) afraid that if they support restrictions on porn, the religious right will come after the Feminists next and there won’t be anybody to support them.

In USA conservatives try to restrict porn, when was the last time you saw Feminists support them?

Feminist support choices for women. Whether that choice is to become a doctor, a lawyer, a senator, a prostitute, a porn actor, a housewife, it doesn’t matter. Feminists will oppose any attempts to restrict a woman’s right to be a porn actor as vigorously as they will oppose any attempts to restrict a woman’s’ right to be a doctor, a lawyer or a politician.

Prove it then, bigmouth. Post stuff to support your claim.

 

[TenPenny]

Indeed, if Feminists were monolithically opposed to porn as you claim...

Maybe, for Christmas, someone can buy you the ability to read.
I never claimed feminists were monolithically opposed to porn. I did suggest that, as far as I knew, the majority were.

It's one thing for you to change what you claim that YOU mean by your posts; it's quite another to try to twist the meaning of others.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I remember, the last time there was any attempt to restrict porn in Canada was during the Mulroney era. Mulroney had brought a bill before the Parliament.

The supporters were the usual culprits, religious right, Catholic Church (I remember there were some Catholic conservative women, who enthusiastically supported the bill). Feminists were adamantly opposed to it. Finally the bill died on papers, the session of the parliament ended and there was not enough time to pass the bill. I think shortly after that we had the election.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Maybe, for Christmas, someone can buy you the ability to read.
I never claimed feminists were monolithically opposed to porn. I did suggest that, as far as I knew, the majority were.

It's one thing for you to change what you claim that YOU mean by your posts; it's quite another to try to twist the meaning of others.

Really? Do you have an opinion poll or something to show that majority of Feminists support restrictions on porn? If that were the case, Feminists would be a natural constituency for the Republican Party. Nobody wants to restrict porn as much as Republicans do.

 

[TenPenny]

Really? Do you have an opinion poll or something to show that majority of Feminists support restrictions on porn? If that were the case, Feminists would be a natural constituency for the Republican Party. Nobody wants to restrict porn as much as Republicans do.

Were you an inspiration for Jethro Tull?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Were you an inspiration for Jethro Tull?

I see you could not answer my question. You nevertheless gave me the answer. Thank you.

 

[TenPenny]

Anti-porn feminism is to social conservatism



as green is to purple (crossover) 9% (4 votes)


as a fuzzy hat is to a cardboard box (no relation) 28% (13 votes)


as the US was to the USSR in World War II (it's complicated) 50% (23 votes)


They're both Nazis! (the same) 9% (4 votes)


This is a silly poll (maybe )/ None of the above 4% (2 votes)


Total Votes: 46

 

[TenPenny]

I see you could not answer my question. You nevertheless gave me the answer. Thank you.

Quite so, old boy. Tata, pip pip. You can find answers where you do not look, because you have the ability to see words that are not written.

Have some more tea, old chap.