Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The average American penis is roughly two and a half times larger than the average Canadian penis. These studies have all been conducted by Canadian males, since they're into checking out other men's wangs. Also, your mom helped.

burn

At 9/21/07 03:12 PM, JoS wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong though you started the war in 1775, before you declared independence. And besides, its not independence untill someone recognizes you as your own country.

Except that we didn't have the Articles of Confederation until 1777 (and it wasn't finalized until 1781).

And until then, we (and even during the articles), we did not have an actual US military and the States weren't obligated to pay taxes to the government to fund one. So they decided that each state have a militia to fund themselves so then they could come to the common defense of one another.

It wasn't until the Articles were established that we were capable of war making and negotiations. The Revolutionary War didn't end until the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

So it's not like we had anything readily available to fight the British up in Canadian territory at that time.

See people like cellardoor6 and other Americans here with attitudes towards Canada like he does, would likely be the ones making jokes about Canada's dollar 5 years ago. I don't know how many times I've heard Americans joked about our dollar back then saying stupid things like "that's $5 American what is that in Canadian, $50000 dollars? Haha". Basically likening our money to monopoly money. Now that our dollar is worth exactly the same for the first time since 1976, suddenly these same types of Americans say it doesn't matter or that it's going to be good for the U.S. What happened to all those Americans making fun of our dollar? Did they suddenly crawl into a hole and hide or did they just switch their position? I'd say the latter because it really is hard to eat crow, so its easier to just make the current situation sound more palatable than admit their dollar, that they've bragged about for so long, just got pwned.

That's what this thread is really about is the aftermath of decades of Americans bashing Canada's dollar. Now for the first time we can finally laugh and say that the joke is now on you.

At 9/21/07 03:12 PM, JoS wrote:

At 9/21/07 02:53 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 9/21/07 01:06 PM, JoS wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong though you started the war in 1775, before you declared independence. And besides, its not independence untill someone recognizes you as your own country.

First one I already talked about. The few minor battles that happened before hand were, in essence, skirmishes and yes were civil war action. But the thing is, that it could have been a Massachusett's Civil War, or a New England Civil War.

But not an American on. And no, you have your independence when you declare it from the country and go out to preserve that. Whether or not other countries recognize it is meaningless.

JoS, do your degrees indoctrinate you to be such a fucking dick to Americans or does this just come with the territory of just generally being an ass?

At 9/21/07 04:48 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: That's what this thread is really about is the aftermath of decades of Americans bashing Canada's dollar. Now for the first time we can finally laugh and say that the joke is now on you.

Indeed, a great and mature way to look at it. You take offense for what Americans have been doing to you for decades and now you turn around and do the same thing.

Indeed, you Canadians are nothing like us American nationalists. I mean, you NEVER take pride in our missteps or relish in your own good fortune.

Cheers you stupid fucking Canadians goons. And the goons know who they are and the non goons know who they are. CHEERS.

At 9/21/07 10:00 AM, morefngdbs wrote: That's a fact dude.

Yeah, thats ever gonna happen. If you see the light, come back to it. Its called the planet Earth and not the fantasy land you were in.

Alberta has oil reserves greater than the Arab states.

Not even more than Saudi Arabia, let alone the "Arab States."

Can you say that ?

The world's largest exporter of corn, soybeans and wheat, the United States ships its agricultural commodities across the globe, to friends and foes from Spain to Iraq to Sudan.
Yeah we can.

You've already maxed out & then some the South Western U.S.

You got a link from this our do I just have to take your word for it? And if its just your word I am sorry that I would have to say, from this post, it is pretty unreliable.

You'll keep importing from us.
You don't have any choice in the matter.

You act like Canada is the United States kingmaker. Get over yourself, you have no other choice other than to ship to us.

You think China wants any of this shit other than your natural resources?

China doesnt need your finished products. Stop pretending like there is a vast market out there for Canadian goods that isnt the United States, it frankly is a joke and a rather insulting one at that to insinuate that what we have is anything other than a symbiotic relationship. We sink, you can bet your ass you are not gonna ride a wave of Canadian market dominance. Bitch please.

Whats that critical chart for human life, 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food, your dead.

I have a new one, 1 week without American capitol and Canada is just as royally fucked as the United States. Get the fuck over yourself.

At 9/21/07 08:22 AM, poxpower wrote: Slopes are like 3rd year high school, anyone should know this shit.

Yes, I do.

Also, Cellar, you are a total retard for not grasping the basic algebra behind the statement.

POX: Do you see what you've done????????

;

At 9/20/07 10:31 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 9/20/07 06:46 PM, jAk88 wrote: Differing opinions don't make trolling.

No, but countering a point with 'Fuck you, you stupid little fucking faggot' and other pointless Ad Hominems does.

Hmmm, where did you hear THAT term?

=D

;

At 9/21/07 04:48 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote:

That's what this thread is really about is the aftermath of decades of Americans bashing Canada's dollar. Now for the first time we can finally laugh and say that the joke is now on you.

Pretty much.
WOOP!

At 9/21/07 06:22 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

Alberta has oil reserves greater than the Arab states.

Not even more than Saudi Arabia, let alone the "Arab States."

Well, those estimates are based on current technology and price. We need more science to get all the tar sand oil out.

There was actually work done recently at my university that's going to make tar sand oil extraction far more economical via a phase transfer reagent that interacts with different compounds based on the atmosphere the liquid is held in.

At 9/21/07 02:00 PM, JoS wrote: American Independence was a team effort, between the French and former British.

All of the Revolutionaries weren't British, there were people from other countries as well. For instance, on my mom's side of my family, Germans fought in the Revolutionary War on the American side.

I also think WW2 is a bit different then this, considering there was only one theater and only two battlefields (the Provinces of Canada and the US), and that without everyone pooling together (USSR, British, US and to a certain extent even Canada) it would have been a failure.

If you took out the British regulars and left just the Provincial regulars, militia and first natives (who despite being different units of different levels were all people born in the Provinces of Canada)

JoS, seriously, get a grip on reality. The native-born British in the Canadian TERRITORY (wasn't a country until 5 decades later) did almost nothing in the War of 1812

we still probably could have pulled it off.

You're fucking delusional JoS. Seriously, not only do you fabricate complete nonsense, but you keep claiming credit for something that British forces did, in a war between the British Empire and the US, several decades before your country existed.

Seriously, is your pride so baseless, are you so unable to find something justifiable to base your pride on, that you have to continually repeat myths and lie to yourself to feel better about your country?

The British navy was key, but as far as ground fighting goes they were not the most effective fighting forces due to the terrain of canada, although a few battles their style of fighting was advantageous.

In the Revolutionary War, engagements in the territory of Canada were not pivotal and were few and far between. In the War of 1812, the fighting was between British-born, British regulars and US forces. Not only did your country not even exist, but the fighting that people who were born in what is TODAY Canada, was insignificant. Not to mention the fact that the Capital of what you want to claim was your country, surrendered to the US, and therefore if you want to keep claiming credit for what British did before your country even existed, you're going to have to acknowledge that (in your logic) the US defeated your country.

At 9/21/07 01:06 PM, JoS wrote: Real incomes are falling, Alan Greenspan says you have a 1 in 3 chance of hitting a recession now, and the odds are actually up from January, not down.

JoS, you're so ignorant of everything you ever say it makes me laugh. Greenspan said that half a year ago, and was talking about a recession that it might be possible, because that is what the US economy tends to do after a period of GROWTH by getting so far AWAY from a recession for so long. Yet it hasn't happened.

A month before then, reports showed that the US economy was outperforming Canada's in grwoth.

Meanwhile, as of August, US growth (extrapolated to yearly growth) was 4%, which is huge (considering the markets).

Canada's growth for August (extrapolated to yearly growth): 2.3%

Some people predict that the recovery that the US has been going through since 2001 after that recession will come to an end in the next year or 2.

Actually they think that 2007 is the year it will dip (which it has) and 2008 it will recover again, meanwhile, even factoring in the dip in the US economy, it is still grwoing at a faster rate than Canada's economy.

Nearly every major currency is making gains on the greenback.

And as always, the US dollar will resurge.

Serioulsy, think about the implications if the world switches from the greenback to say the Euro.

Funny, if that happened, the negative impacts would hurt the entire world. Notice how everytime the US economy becomes the center of attention, and takes the slightest of dips, it rest of the world does even harder? Notice how everytime the US economy makes a change (such as the recent interest rate cut) world stocks bounce up again?

The Euro SHOULD be catching up the US considering the size of the EU. However, since the US dollar is so dominant, even though the EU GDP is about equal with the US GDP, as of 2006 65.7% of the worlds reserve holdings were US dollars, and only 25.3% were in Euros.

One thing is you are completely fucked with your debt as it is no longer in your own currency, which currently means your debt will never change based on exchange rates. you already shell out like $50 billion a year in interest alone. With an aging population and Social Security woes, can you afford to shell out ever more, and have to do so in foreign currency amounts, not your won. You would need to increase your trade and close your trade debt. And yes I realize that as our biggest trading partner we would also be fucked by an crisis in your economy like this. However I am fairly certain it would not hit us as hard

JoS, you ignored the part where I showed how the much more the Canadian economy depends on the US than vice versa in trade. But I guess I have to do it again:

- 85.6% of Canada's exports, and 76.3% of Canada's imports are with the US.
- 30% of total employment in Canada revolve around exports. (that's about 10 million people)
- Exports amount to 45% of Canada's GDP

Conversely...

- 20% of US exports go to Canada.
- Exports only account for 12% of the US GDP.
- Canada-related exports account for 2 million US jobs. (less than 1% of Employment)

Canada would be fucked over FAR worse from the crash that you hope happens to the US. You're so blinded by your idiocy, that you fail to realize that Canada's economy is only successful based on the success it has in its relationship with the US. Even though we all know you'd LOVE the day that the US economy takes a major hit, you're simultaneously hoping for something that will damage your country in the process, and damage it more severely.

A lot of our trade with you is out of convienance you are a stone throws away rather than shipping across a whole ocean.

JoS, that's absolutely delusional. The demand for products in the US is what buoys Canada's export business (and 30% of Canada's employment) which is almost half of Canada's entire economy. There is no demand like that in the rest of the world, and since so much investment from the US is required in Canada's economy outside of exporting, there is no way it would automatically be replaced by investment from around the world.

Your piss-idiotic desire for the country that dominates yours to fail, causes you to hope for something that will damage your own country to fail further.

Also regarding the War of 1812, many of the people who lived during the war became the first official Canadians when it became a country

Certainly not the people who fought in it (not only because the fighting was done by British regularls mostly) but also considering Canada didn't become a country until 50 years later, and life-spans back then weren't very high.

I will concede it to be you not fighting Canada if you concede that the American War of Independence was started by British fighting British (ie that George Washington and his followers were British soldiers, not Americans).

That's idiotic.

The Revolutionary War was AGAINST the British Empire, it doesn't matter if the people who did it were of British ancestry. They claimed independence, and fought under command that was independent and separate from any country, and fought against British under British command as allotted by the crown. The Continental congress that commanded the war against the British had exerted control over the military, and militia, it wasn't commanded by the British, therefore there is no connection other than their blood line.

In the war of 1812, British subjects, in a part of the British Empire, under British command, fought against Americans under American command. The majority of fighting was by British-born redcoats who were under the command of British-born generals.

Canada, the country you belong to now, didn't exist for several decades, and Canada didn't even become an independent country until 1931! That was more than 100 years after the war!!!!

There is no comparison.

I would also like to point out that it was the second time you invaded the Provinces of Canada, the first time was in 1775 during the War of Independence, you made two offenses into Canada, both which failed.

As part of a larger war, against the BRITISH EMPIRE you fool. I find it hilarious that you continually claim credit for British exploits.

Why don't you then claim credit for the Napoleonic wars in Europe by the British? Why then don't you claim credit for Canada for the negative things the British did in the crusades, or in India's war of independence?

Oh that's right, because you're trying to get the best of both worlds.

And since you asked I am a 4th year honours student doing a joint-major(double major) in Politics and International Political Economy.

I don't even believe that.

At 9/21/07 11:41 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Meanwhile, as of August, US growth (extrapolated to yearly growth) was 4%, which is huge (considering the markets).

Second paragraph in the article:

"Though the top-line growth number has changed, our conclusion has not -- the rate of growth seen during the second-quarter is clearly not sustainable, and was not even before the credit markets went wobbly on us," wrote Richard Moody, chief economist for Mission Residential.

Paragraph seven:

In the past year, the economy has grown 1.9% after adjusting for inflation, and has risen at a 2.3% pace so far this year.

Start reading your own articles, lolmg.

At 9/21/07 11:51 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 9/21/07 11:41 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Meanwhile, as of August, US growth (extrapolated to yearly growth) was 4%, which is huge (considering the markets).

Second paragraph in the article:

"Though the top-line growth number has changed, our conclusion has not -- the rate of growth seen during the second-quarter is clearly not sustainable, and was not even before the credit markets went wobbly on us," wrote Richard Moody, chief economist for Mission Residential.

Paragraph seven:

In the past year, the economy has grown 1.9% after adjusting for inflation, and has risen at a 2.3% pace so far this year.

Start reading your own articles, lolmg.

It in no way contradicts anything I said. It simply shows that in spite of the CHANGE of a recession, the US economy still grows. Pretending that a recession is going to going to happen is dumb considering the continued growth rate in the US, and the forecast of, in spite of what JoS said, the US economy picking up again in 2008, not getting worse.

At 9/21/07 11:59 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Pretending that a recession is going to going to happen is dumb

The Fed lowers the interest rate just for fun then?

At 9/22/07 12:08 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 9/21/07 11:59 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Pretending that a recession is going to going to happen is dumb

The Fed lowers the interest rate just for fun then?

They did that to alleviate certain aspects of the market, it doesn't mean that had they not done it, a recession would have taken place.

At 9/21/07 11:59 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It in no way contradicts anything I said. It simply shows that in spite of the CHANGE of a recession, the US economy still grows. Pretending that a recession is going to going to happen is dumb considering the continued growth rate in the US, and the forecast of, in spite of what JoS said, the US economy picking up again in 2008, not getting worse.

Meh, growth is always followed by a recession in every economy. It's not really indicative of overall economic strength anyway. It's a fairly cyclical thing.

So basically, trying to rag on the US economy by saying it might go into a recession is dumb before the argument even gets started, especially when it's not even true.

At 9/22/07 12:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: They did that to alleviate certain aspects of the market, it doesn't mean that had they not done it, a recession would have taken place.

The trend of job creation stops dead and inverts itself, your GDP grows lower than expected, recession was what it was in Bernanke (and everyone's) mind. The interest rate dropping to 4.75% was a consequence of that fear. Now the US economy may have to deal with inflation, or even worse, stagflation. But stagflation is rather improbable, you'll just have to cope with a little higher inflation rates.

At 9/22/07 12:30 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 9/21/07 11:59 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It in no way contradicts anything I said. It simply shows that in spite of the CHANGE of a recession, the US economy still grows. Pretending that a recession is going to going to happen is dumb considering the continued growth rate in the US, and the forecast of, in spite of what JoS said, the US economy picking up again in 2008, not getting worse.

Meh, growth is always followed by a recession in every economy.

Yes, but my point is that the recession people are talking about hasn't happened, and isn't going to happen any time soon in the first place, based on forecasts. Even if there was a quarterly recession, it doesn't mean that the yearly growth (or multi-yearly growth) of the US has stopped.

It's not really indicative of overall economic strength anyway. It's a fairly cyclical thing.

Yes I've said this before, but the reason I used that link was to show that even after Alan Greenspan stated there MIGHT be a recession, the most recent study of growth (at end of august) was pretty big when annualized, and the forecasts show sustained growth for 2007, not a recession even if it ends up being lower than the quarterly growth when annualized.

So basically, trying to rag on the US economy by saying it might go into a recession is dumb before the argument even gets started, especially when it's not even true.

Yes, and now you acknowledge this after nit-picking a single link I used and ignoring the broader context of it.

You know, you're like a fly, you buzz around the argument. You never take a solid stance and try to validate it within the argument or anything. You just dedicate your participation to periodically injecting yourself on the details.

And I KNOW you take joy in it, because it allows to have no stake in the argument. Since you don't try to prove a stance, you can avoid the event that the things you use to validate your stance could be scrutinized. Then, if you were to ever be asked to prove something you say, you could do what you've done before and say "that's your job".

Bah humbug.

At 9/22/07 12:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yes, and now you acknowledge this after nit-picking a single link I used and ignoring the broader context of it.

Eh, you were comparing it to the Canadian growth rate, which was a more consistent rate rather than a spike. That was my issue with it.

I figured that the position of the US as a fairly stable major economic world power was obvious, and didn't need explaining.

You know, you're like a fly, you buzz around the argument. You never take a solid stance and try to validate it within the argument or anything. You just dedicate your participation to periodically injecting yourself on the details.

That's because every time I take a solid stance, people fucking ignore it because they'd rather continue with the argument they're already in or go off on someone who's easier to discredit.

Example: Gun Control. I've posted my actual stances at least three times without a single response, because everyone who thinks there should be a gun ban wants to find "evidence" here and there that might somehow support their conclusion, even if the statistics are in support of logical pathways that aren't mutually coherent.

The people who I'm already involved in arguments with normally stop at that point, because I normally get into those topics over abuse of statistics by gun advocates.

At 9/22/07 01:07 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 9/22/07 12:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yes, and now you acknowledge this after nit-picking a single link I used and ignoring the broader context of it.

Eh, you were comparing it to the Canadian growth rate, which was a more consistent rate rather than a spike. That was my issue with it.

Meh, the US, as a trend over the years still has a higher growth rate though, even in the event of a dip.

I figured that the position of the US as a fairly stable major economic world power was obvious, and didn't need explaining.

Actually, since the US is the trading center of the world basically, hysteria will affect the US much quicker than a secondary economy like Canada where the world has less stake in.

That's because every time I take a solid stance, people fucking ignore it because they'd rather continue with the argument they're already in or go off on someone who's easier to discredit.

The only stances I've seen you take didn't include any links to back it up. I'm not saying what you said was dumb, but you conveniently base your arguments more on some grandiose rationale in your own views. Rather than something like "This stat means this, therefore this means your point in saying this is wrong." instead, you'll say something like "The major problem with this is this, because humans will always do this, and that, so that creates a problem".

Example: Gun Control. I've posted my actual stances at least three times without a single response, because everyone who thinks there should be a gun ban wants to find "evidence" here and there that might somehow support their conclusion, even if the statistics are in support of logical pathways that aren't mutually coherent.

But you didn't prove any facts for this, you'd always use your own rationale in the fundamentals of the issue as a whole. You'd give your opinions on the concept of gun control, rather than if it will work, if it should be enforced, if it does what is supposed to do etc..

The people who I'm already involved in arguments with normally stop at that point, because I normally get into those topics over abuse of statistics by gun advocates.

And yet, I've never seen you call an anti-gun person on their lies or completely idiotic nonsense. You tend to target people of a certain group, even when you know that the evidence in (at least that topic) was pro-gun as the argument evolved. In the gun control debate, the anti-gun people had their points beaten to a pulp up and down each thread and I think you are agree with that. Yet, you instead decided to attack individuals for their use of links you didn't like, rather than provide links yourself for one side of the argument or the other.

You buzzed around and interjected on minute details of the argument periodically, without taking a stance or a strong stake in the argument and providing proof for it. It put you in a state of not being vulnerable to scrutiny of the degree you applied to other people's points.

York was the capital of Upper Canada, not of the entire colony.

The British burned down the White House, flew the Union Jack over DC, burned the Capitol, LIbrary of Congress, US Treasurey, and occupied the city. Everyone fled the city, and the British occupied the city for 26 hours before leaving and met almost no resistance what so ever. So technically the United States were defeated by the British in 1814.

At 9/22/07 03:03 AM, JoS wrote: York was the capital of Upper Canada, not of the entire colony.

Meh, that's right.

The British burned down the White House

No they didn't. They razed it, it wasn't burned "down", it remained entirely standing.

flew the Union Jack over DC, burned the Capitol, LIbrary of Congress, US Treasurey

And yet the Capital didn't surrender, and the US government survived.

and occupied the city.

For 26 hours.... and then they retreated after gaining no victory, attaining no surrender from the US, after burning a few buildings only.

Everyone fled the city, and the British occupied the city for 26 hours before leaving and met almost no resistance what so ever. So technically the United States were defeated by the British in 1814.

Nope, because the United States wasn't destroyed, only some of the buildings in the capital were burned. The US government didn't surrender, the capital didn't surrender, it was burned by partially by the British who then retreated. Government of the US didn't cease.

But I'm glad you didn't try to pretend that "We, Canadians burned down the White House! lolz!" this time.

Flame thread... BAN INSTA LOL!

The News did a report of how times have changed from 1976 to 2007 31 years, when the Canadian dollar last equaled a US dollar. It said something like, disco and showed all these dudes disco dancing, especially this funny looking dude spinning around in circles, with his mouth opened, as if he was stoned on X, but X wasn't invented yet.

Also showed Margrate Treadau, and Pierre Tradau, a young Pierre Tradau, who looks somewhat like Putin, (except funner, Putin would be his evil twin!). I like on that 70s show where the boys got caught smuggling Beer and Fez, and one of the boys, mentions that he was here to screw Margrate Treadau....... Here's to Treadau mania! he's the reason why Canada fell into a 30 year slump! Weeeeeee!

At 9/21/07 06:22 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 9/21/07 10:00 AM, morefngdbs wrote: That's a fact dude.

Yeah, thats ever gonna happen. If you see the light, come back to it. Its called the planet Earth and not the fantasy land you were in.

Alberta has oil reserves greater than the Arab states.

Not even more than Saudi Arabia, let alone the "Arab States."

;
Read it & try to check more than 1 source. In what is recoverable with todays technology, Alberta has more.
brief overview

As shown in the link, there is a massive amount of reserves not currently available because of cost (oil is at over $80.00 a barrel today), makes it more feasible.
New Technology is being developed all the time, Saudia Arabia will be dry & Alberta will still be producing.

As to the U.S. sothwest not having water woes, how about this American Gov. link ?

www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/981113FO.
html

At 9/22/07 03:47 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The British burned down the White House

No they didn't. They razed it, it wasn't burned "down", it remained entirely standing.

The entire inside was gutted and the only thing salvageable was the South Wall, and nearly everything of value was taken..

flew the Union Jack over DC, burned the Capitol, LIbrary of Congress, US Treasurey

And yet the Capital didn't surrender, and the US government survived.

York didn't surrender, only a few buildings destroyed and houses plundered, and the governmetn of Upepr Canada remained. It never surrendered.

:: Nope, because the United States wasn't destroyed, only some of the buildings in the capital were burned. The US government didn't surrender, the capital didn't surrender, it was burned by partially by the British who then retreated. Government of the US didn't cease.

Most federal government buildings were burned down or partially destroyed. Everyone retreated from the city, the only resistance they met was a guy who decided to shoot at them and was killed and got his house burned down for his troubles. The US military, politicians, bodyguards all fled. The last person to leave was the first lady who refused to leave until the very end. You surrendered Washington to the British.

You can't claim you made Upper Canada surrender by burning York but deny you didnt surrender to the British when they took over your capital, occupied it, razed most governemnt buildings.

York which is today Toronto, was the capital of the colony and it surrendered to the US. Unless you're going to (as is likely) try and get the best of both worlds, you're going to have to realize that "Canada" was technically defeated, as a colony, because its capital surrendered

I would say abandoning your capital is surrendering it. Unless you have some flawed logic that entails a foriegn army controlling your capital, being able to raze most government buildings unopposed, pluder national treasure as nto having surrendered the capital.

Here's the way you guys achieved independence. From a Canadian Samantha Bee

Our style of revolution centered less on bloodshed and guerrilla warfare and more on the time tested strategy of not masking a fuss. For example at the same time you were declaring war (you being Americans) on the English monarchy we were enjoying privileges granted to us by King George in the Treaty of Versailles which gave us fishing rights off the coast of Newfoundland provided we not dry or cure fish on land. (and by the way we later got the right to cure and dry fish on land thank you very much) All I'm saying is there is more than one way to skin a cat. not that I am in any way saying I would like to harm a cat. Quite the contrary I like cats. Unless America wants Canada to skin a cat, in which case we will gladly do it. The point is we took our time waiting for The Canadian Moment to arrive rather than forcing it upon the world. We waiting in the cold watching the US most of Central and South America Africa and Asia throw off their colonial oppressors. I think it was us and Belize that held out. And our patience ultimately paid off for in the glorious year of 1982 we took the bold step of getting permission from England to amend our constitution so we could amend our constitution without getting permission from England. Let freedom ring! Now the only remnants of the tyrannical rule of Queen Elizabeth II are an appointed Governor General who represents her in Canadian governmental affairs. And the Queen is still officially our head of state. Plus shes on all our money. And when we take a goverment job we have to swear a loyalty pledge to her. All in all a small price to pay for an independence achieved without bloodshed, violence, glory, or independence.

I'm sorry if this in any way seems like I'm bragging.

ALL from the Mouth of a Canadian.

.... now

During the Revolution and again in the War of 1812. (US vs Britian) Americans sought to annex Canada. Damn sorry it didn't happen.

Enjoy your Canadian pride! You earned it! I guess! If you wait forever you did! I'll enjoy my EARNED through bloodshed and hard fighting independence!

At 9/22/07 01:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The only stances I've seen you take didn't include any links to back it up. I'm not saying what you said was dumb, but you conveniently base your arguments more on some grandiose rationale in your own views. Rather than something like "This stat means this, therefore this means your point in saying this is wrong."

I think the most recent example of me doing this was at the end of the last gun control topic I was involved in, when I looked through that big report you found for statistics that were undeniably relevant to the idea of a firearm ban. I found them, checked them for significance, and asked people on the anti-gun side why the amount of gun violence using actual firearms continued to rise after the firearm ban, i.e. why it was at best ineffective or at worst counterproductive.

I also provided a link showing that gangs in the UK were actively involved in the firearms trade, lending credence to my idea that the presence of gangs in the US would likely mean that criminals in any major urban centre would still be able to obtain firearms regardless of the ban.

Both of them received no replies from the anti-gun crowd, and the topic died shortly afterward and a new one sprang up.

The reason I haven't done it in this topic is because the entire argument is stupid to begin with. The new developments in the exchange rate is primarily a Canadian victory in the comedic sense rather than anything else. I try not to get involved into statistics debates as much now, because people have funny ideas of what "proof" and "significance" are, and it can get very frustrating trying to explain basic math to them.

I mean really, you'd think a person with a business technology degree who claimed to have a good understanding of statistics would know what a standard deviation is and how to find it.

At 9/20/07 10:06 AM, poxpower wrote: HAHAHA YES.
Suck on that!

Are you under the impression that that's good for Canada? It's good for Canadian citizens who want to buy stuff in other countries, but it's terrible for your businesses and manufacturers.

On one hand I can see understand why Canadian idiots gloat about this; they think that just because their currency is more valuable than the dollar now that they are more valuable than the US or something. Serious Canadians will realize that this actually sucks huge amounts of ass for them.

At 9/22/07 06:46 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: On one hand I can see understand why Canadian idiots gloat about this; they think that just because their currency is more valuable than the dollar now that they are more valuable than the US or something. Serious Canadians will realize that this actually sucks huge amounts of ass for them.

Meh, we can get lots of cheap shit from the US now. What's the worst that'll happen if we do that, the dollar will go down? Dang.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to having a more valuable dollar than the US.