Why do canadians hate americans.
- Thread starter americancitizen
- Start date
But do they do speak for our universities,
you will find those types dominating in the political science and sociology departments. Most of them are usually Yanks from the East Coast who find their militant atheism less tolerated down south and they come here preaching to the choir, only to find that there are hardly any militant atheists (as oppose to the United States) in Canada and the overall mood is indifference.
Regardless I don't dislike America in a board sense. We don't have a "North South" (America - Canada) culture but rather a West - East Culture.
I have more in common with those in the Pacific North West and American Midwest than I do with Ontarians, Quebecers and New Yorkers (New Yorkers and the Rural South to me are the epitome of American Culture and "Hollywood" is just this illusionary thing we see on television)
Re: Why do I see you canadians talking trash about the U.S.
Geez Unf, if you're going to post people's songs, at least post properly attributed songs. This isn't AW. This is Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.
Geez Unf, if you're going to post people's songs, at least post properly attributed songs. This isn't AW. This is Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.
Re: Why do I see you canadians talking trash about the U.S.
Worst song in the history of the world. Oh and thanks for all you people who gave me info on canada culture for my bcr. I got a 100% An it so thanks alot.
Worst song in the history of the world. Oh and thanks for all you people who gave me info on canada culture for my bcr. I got a 100% An it so thanks alot.
[FONT=Arial Black, sans-serif]United States[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] [/FONT]VS [FONT=Arial Black, sans-serif]Canada[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial Black, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The United States and Canada are both alike and different in many ways. The U.S. And Canada both have the same three branches of government. Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. The U.S. is a republic while Canada is a democracy. Both countries have English as one of their primary languages but in Canada, french is dominant in most regions while in the U.S. English dominates. Canada and the U.S use the 100 cents = 1 dollar for currency (The Canadian Dollar and the U.S. Dollar). 15.7% of Americans live in poverty while in Canada 14% live in poverty. The majority of people in both countries are christian but in Canada there are more catholics and in the U.S. There are more protestants. Both Countries have a thanksgiving and both countries have a day in which they celebrate independence. Though in Canada they have a Queen Victoria day while in th U.S. There is a Presidents day. In Canada, there Arts and Literature are primarily based on a french influence while in America english plays the major role. Both countries are very diverse and contain people from many different heritages and races. While the United States is divided up into 50 States, Canada is divided up into 10 provinces and 3 territories.Those are some of the many similarities between the U.S. And Canada based on the 7 aspects of culture.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A Special Thanks To the People on CanadianContent[/FONT]
It wasn't really an essay just a short BCR.
Oh and I accidently put french as dominant but my teacher says it was right so i had to.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The United States and Canada are both alike and different in many ways. The U.S. And Canada both have the same three branches of government. Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. The U.S. is a republic while Canada is a democracy. Both countries have English as one of their primary languages but in Canada, french is dominant in most regions while in the U.S. English dominates. Canada and the U.S use the 100 cents = 1 dollar for currency (The Canadian Dollar and the U.S. Dollar). 15.7% of Americans live in poverty while in Canada 14% live in poverty. The majority of people in both countries are christian but in Canada there are more catholics and in the U.S. There are more protestants. Both Countries have a thanksgiving and both countries have a day in which they celebrate independence. Though in Canada they have a Queen Victoria day while in th U.S. There is a Presidents day. In Canada, there Arts and Literature are primarily based on a french influence while in America english plays the major role. Both countries are very diverse and contain people from many different heritages and races. While the United States is divided up into 50 States, Canada is divided up into 10 provinces and 3 territories.Those are some of the many similarities between the U.S. And Canada based on the 7 aspects of culture.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A Special Thanks To the People on CanadianContent[/FONT]
It wasn't really an essay just a short BCR.
Oh and I accidently put french as dominant but my teacher says it was right so i had to.
American Citizen... you need to learn what to capitalize. French, Catholics, Protestants, etc.
I'm not knocking you kiddo, just trying to help.
Heck no you don't have to! He's wrong and tell him so and prove it to him.
I'm not knocking you kiddo, just trying to help.
Heck no you don't have to! He's wrong and tell him so and prove it to him.
I made a few corrections:
I'd give you about a 7 out of 15. Too many spelling and grammar mistakes, as well as factual errors. Good first effort for someone in Grad 3, though.
I'd give you about a 7 out of 15. Too many spelling and grammar mistakes, as well as factual errors. Good first effort for someone in Grad 3, though.
I have to leave at 3:30 to build a fort in the woods with my friends and play lacrosse. I'll be back on at about 6:00 so I'll see ya then.
TTYL
TTYL
HOPEFULLY Mrs. N will see that you didn't capitalize words properly. She's a teacher! Don't just brush grammar off Citizen, it IS important.
And its social studies guys.Not language arts. You guys are really picky on grammar. Social Studies is my favorite besides gym.
Brutally honest.
Would a 12 year old be considered "Grad 3". Is that the equivalent to Grade 7?
We are not picky. What is right is right. If you are just posting here we aren't so much but you showed us your paper. Why wouldn't you want it done right?
I think he pretty much nailed it - more alike than different.... Grammar may not be the English most of us know - but it's understandable (and not text or MSNese)
Kudos!
I don't have as much time as you do so I am going to cut to the chase. Bush can be considered a war criminal. Now we're going to talk about Obama. Obama is a war criminal. Check it out: UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Philip Alston: Record AfPak Drone Attacks Under Obama May Violate International Law
Here is something I wrote awhile back on another forum:
In January 2009 the Smoker in Chief inherited Bush's Afghan adventure. At that time there were about 50,000 US soldiers, marines and airmen in Afghanistan.
In March of 2009 the Smoker in Chief made his first escalation of that war by ordering an additional 17,000 troops into the Afghan meatgrinder (plus an additional 3,000 added almost immediately thereafter). I remember Hillary Clinton standing at the Smoker's right hand and Bob Gates standing at his left hand as the Smoker announced the escalation.
At that moment it became Obama's War. At that moment it became Obama's grand adventure in the Hindu Kush. At that moment all subsequent American deaths, woundings and maimings became solely the responsibility of the Smoker in Chief.
At about the same time Obama named his own man as the commander in Afghanistan. McChrystal. It was this commander who advocated sending even more troops into the meatgrinder and adopting a counterinsurgency policy instead of a counterterrorism approach.
In his speech at West Point last December the Smoker in Chief announced adoption of the McChrystal approach. Obama announced a doubling down escalation...30,000 more troops into the mouth of the meatgrinder while a counterinsurgency policy would be pursued.
Since you are so experienced in combat can you tell me what the consequences will be for American troops in Afghanistan with the adoption of new rules of engagement as part of the counterinsurgency policy? What new rules? The new rules which, among other things, won't permit US combat forces to shoot at the Taliban, or call in air strikes, if civilians are in proximity? It means more American deaths for nothing. More blood on Obama's hands. More blood on your hands in your capacity as his votary.
Americans have nothing to gain by victory, and much to unnecessarily lose by defeat.
Obama also announced at the West Point speech that as these troops marched in they would soon turn around and start marching out pursuant to the timetable for withdrawal that you mention in the portion of your post quoted above.
If you are the person I suspect you may be, you are aware that a counterinsurgency policy takes ten to twelve years in order to succeed. So tell me how the Smoker's commitment to this counterinsurgency policy can possibly be consistent with some amorphous timetable for withdrawal.
The Smoker's timetable for withdrawal is illusory. It depends on the Smoker's allies in Afghanistan. But the Smoker only has one ally in Afghanistan. The ally's name is Hamid Karzai...the guy who threatened to join the Taliban ten days ago...the guy who's brother is a major drug dealer. This will not turn out well and you know it.
This timetable for withdrawal is a sop to the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement is silent now because it is composed solely of partisan hypocrites who would be demonstrating if they weren't partisan hypocrites.
Here is something else I once wrote about Obama:
The concept you face is called Lawfare. The left has successfully used Lawfare. In doing so it established a precedent that is now available to conservatives for use against leftist governance when the left pursues military actions in ambiguous circumstances. Let me give you an example of Lawfare.
Language that is specific cannot be reasonably contested. By contrast, language that is general is subject to differing interpretations. Language that is subject to differing interpretations is called ambiguous. Ambiguity cannot be the basis for ongoing military operations in the current Byzantine legalistic era of Western Civilization. Why? Ambiguity invites legalistic attack which may be successful given the state of American and Western jurisprudence.
The Authorization to which you refer is specifc on Afghanistan, but not about operations anywhere else. That means operations on a more than incidental basis anywhere outside of Afghanistan do not have specific authorization.
In the absence of specific authorization, repeated or ongoing military operations outside of Afghanistan depend on an interpretation of ambiguous language contained in the Authorization. Ambiguous language is usually subject to multiple, and often competing, interpretations of what is lawful and what is not.
Which interpretation is correct can only be known after a panel of judges rule. Actions taken in the absence of specific legal authoriztion carry a heavy risk to the commander called on to act.
If his or her action is subsequently deemed to be unlawful, or ill advised, he or she will be disciplined or otherwise sanctioned. The same thing holds true for leaders who fall into the hands of the international judiciary after they leave office. A future prosecution of Bush would establish a wonderful precedent for the appropriate treatment of Obama. May they swing together.
Since the Authorization didn't specifically mention Iraq, Bush felt it necessary to obtain the explicit permission of Congress before he invaded Iraq. He did so in order to remove the legal ambiguity that comes with ambiguous language that is not specific. For our purposes it doesn't matter whether Bush lied. It only matters that Congress specifically authorized his actions in Iraq.
However, Bush didn't obtain specific authorization for continuing ongoing military operations in Pakistan. Perhaps that's why Bush used robot warfare against the villages of both Waziristans sparingly.
The Smoker in Chief has doubled down and significantly expanded a campaign of death by drone against the civilians of Pakistan. Obama's robot war is not incidental. It is continuous and ongoing. It has expanded to Baluchistan. The impact on many Pakistani villagers is analogous to the impact of Israeli actions on the residents of the West Bank.
Since there is no specific legal authorization containing language that in no uncertain terms permits Obama's military operations on Pakistani territory against Pakistani nationals a basis exists for competing interpretations of legality.
Is Bush or Obama a war criminal? Many would say yes. However, their opinions are subjective and nonbinding. We will only know if Bush or Obama is a war criminal when a duly constituted tribunal obtains jurisdiction and reaches a determination. Only then will we have an objective determination of culpability.
But until judgment is reached Obama, and to a lesser extent Bush, is at risk from the tenets of Lawfare.