Singing O Canada - More Policitally Correct BS

[rage2]

The Maple Leaf Forever is a MUCH better song than O Canada. I'm surprised they choose O Canada over that when MLF has been around and Unofficial for so long.

The inuktitut lyrics are pure bad ass. Mix the 2 together and you can seriously take down Star Spangled Banner!

edit - figured out why they didn't choose this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maple_Leaf_Forever


The song became quite popular in English Canada and for many years served as an unofficial national anthem. Because of its strongly British perspective it became unpopular amongst French Canadians, and this prevented it from ever becoming an official anthem, even though it was seriously considered for that role.
Dammit Frenchies!!!

edit #2 - Those aren't inuktitut lyrics. Those are the translation from the French lyrics. The French version of O Canada has those epic words of swords and cross. The english lyrics were just made up and completely unrelated (and boring).

[semograd]

Originally posted by rage2


edit #2 - Those aren't inuktitut lyrics. Those are the translation from the French lyrics. The French version of O Canada has those epic words of swords and cross. The english lyrics were just made up and completely unrelated (and boring).

just realized that, however they still are the Inuktitut lyrics. Why did the english speakers get the shaft?

I say mix the French/Inuktitut lyrics with the lyrics of Maple leaf forever, but replace the british shit with some canadian/inuit shit. Throw in how we kicked ass in WW1 and WW2 and that we burnt down the white house a few times and BAM, we would pretty much have the best National anthem in the world.

[rage2]

Originally posted by semograd
just realized that, however they still are the Inuktitut lyrics. Why did the english speakers get the shaft?

I say mix the French/Inuktitut lyrics with the lyrics of Maple leaf forever, but replace the british shit with some canadian/inuit shit. Throw in how we kicked ass in WW1 and WW2 and that we burnt down the white house a few times and BAM, we would pretty much have the best National anthem in the world.
We gotta add epic guitar riffs. :rofl:

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Didn't read the whole thread but..

I thought people moved to Canada for a better life, not a mini-version of their own country?

Honestly, I think if myself as a Canadian, not a "worldnadian" (I'm not good with words).

I still say Merry Christmas, and Happy Easter. I still say bless you when someone sneezes. And I fucking sing my anthem at hockey games.

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by LilDrunkenSmurf
Didn't read the whole thread but..

I thought people moved to Canada for a better life, not a mini-version of their own country?

Honestly, I think if myself as a Canadian, not a "worldnadian" (I'm not good with words).

I still say Merry Christmas, and Happy Easter. I still say bless you when someone sneezes. And I fucking sing my anthem at hockey games.

Seems to me that Canada is just a "mini-version" of England and France.

The white man did not respect the native people of Canada. Why should Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, or anyone else respect the white man's version of Canada? What makes you think you own this country??

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


Seems to me that Canada is just a "mini-version" of England and France.

The white man did not respect the native people of Canada. Why should Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, or anyone else respect the white man's version of Canada? What makes you think you own this country??

we won?:dunno:

[eljefe]

Originally posted by LilDrunkenSmurf
Didn't read the whole thread but..

I thought people moved to Canada for a better life, not a mini-version of their own country?


Perhaps you should read it then, it has absolutely nothing to do with people who have just moved to Canada........

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by Tomaz


we won?:dunno:

You "won" what? There was never any war in Canada between the natives and the white man. Yet another ignorant, uneducated Canadian. It amazes me that Canadians seem to believe that they are smarter than Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Canada is a multi-cultural country. People from all over the world have the right to move here and keep whatever language and customs they like. Why are descendants of English and French settlers considered any different?

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99




Canada is a multi-cultural country. People from all over the world have the right to move here and keep whatever language and customs they like. Why are descendants of English and French settlers considered any different?

People from all over the world do not have the "right" to move here. Nor are people who are afforded the "opportunity" to move here guaranteed the right to their customs. Yes in most cases they are, however, if their customs break any laws of Canada or in some cases endanger others then -NO- they do not arbitrarily have that right.

[canuckcarguy]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


You "won" what? There was never any war in Canada between the natives and the white man. Yet another ignorant, uneducated Canadian. It amazes me that Canadians seem to believe that they are smarter than Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Canada is a multi-cultural country. People from all over the world have the right to move here and keep whatever language and customs they like. Why are descendants of English and French settlers considered any different?

Nobody's denying that Canada's multi-cultural. It's been the official policy for years. But some posters here reject the very notion of multi-culturalism. That's their right.

And no, people from all over the world do not have the right to move here. It's up to Canada to decide which people to allow in. Immigrants are allowed to maintain their customs to some degree, and their language to some degree, but not endlessly. If they don't speak English or French, they don't have a right to their language in all circumstances - for example, it's not like Canada's hiring a translator if one of them gets involved in a court dispute, or has to deal with a government agency, etc. They can maintain their customs, but that doesn't mean that Sikh children can wear ceremonial daggers to school, or that Muslims are entitled to adjudicate their disputes with Sharia law, etc, etc.

Like it or not, our parliamentary democracy and our legal systems are modeled after British and French systems, which were, in fact, Christian. And you suggesting it isn't so doesn't change that reality.

In the much-maligned USA, people are still free to celebrate their ethnicity and speak their language, but they're also made aware that respect and love for their adopted nation is expected. I don't know why it's anathema in Canada to hope for the same.

[hampstor]

Originally posted by canuckcarguy

If they don't speak English or French, they don't have a right to their language in all circumstances - for example, it's not like Canada's hiring a translator if one of them gets involved in a court dispute, or has to deal with a government agency, etc.

I'm not knocking on your arguement, i won't comment on it - except for this part which isn't correct. If a witness or a defendant doesn't speak proper english, a translator is used.

It is horrible to think that a witness' testimony would be inadmissible simply because of poor english.

[method]

Originally posted by vengie


it goes MUCH deeper then the anthem, this country was founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs. I dont expect everyone that is in canada to be christian however they should at the very least respect OUR beliefs, and traditions.

and as for the identity, culture...
Our society has been warped severely by this influx of immigrants whining because we do things differently then their own culture.
and culture is a learned aspect, we are losing our culture because again our beliefs are being twisted and warped. Identity? again we are losing that as well...

Hello newsflash - this country is a secular society. SECULAR. You're free to practice your religion with your community, but religion isn't part of the public sphere.

Here's what I'm reading: Respect what we do, but not what you do because you're brown/muslim/atheist/etc.

So instead of actually answer the question and specifying what our identity is, you simply categorize 'our' identity as something that's being 'warped' by immigrants.

My identity isn't your identity, and it never will be.

You nationalist goons are still living in 1933. Makes me sick.

[canuckcarguy]

Originally posted by hampstor


I'm not knocking on your arguement, i won't comment on it - except for this part which isn't correct. If a witness or a defendant doesn't speak proper english, a translator is used.

It is horrible to think that a witness' testimony would be inadmissible simply because of poor english.

Sorry, I was more referring to civil court. You know, if a guy got sued, I don't think the court would pay to translate the proceedings to Italian, or whatever, that would be the immigrant's responsibility.

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

So wait, if a woman goes to the middle east (forgive me, I don't know which country) she's expected to cover up, and that has to be done, to respect local laws.

Yet we have people coming to our country, and CHANGING our laws to suit them.

I mean seriously, you can't listen to O CANADA without being offended? Then don't come to Canada... Isn't it required to sing that song to obtain citizenship?

I'm atheist, and I don't even get offended by the "God" part of the song.

[saywhaaaat]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


You "won" what? There was never any war in Canada between the natives and the white man. Yet another ignorant, uneducated Canadian. It amazes me that Canadians seem to believe that they are smarter than Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Canada is a multi-cultural country. People from all over the world have the right to move here and keep whatever language and customs they like. Why are descendants of English and French settlers considered any different?
Oh please. :rolleyes:

Where do I begin here? Should I talk about the parts that occurred during colonial times, when nations from Europe were rapidly expanding across the globe in an effort to secure land and resources while spreading their influence at the same time? Should I talk about how the events that took place over 100 years ago can't even be compared to modern society given the massive and dramatic attitude changes that have occurred all over the globe thanks to such innovations as global communication, universal sufferage, religious and racial tolerance, and certain charters that grant certain freedoms and rights?

Get real for a second. What the hell are you arguing? That the English and French came to Canada a helluva long time ago, took over the country by force, set up colonies that eventually overpowered the native residents and set up a formal government, and how people that now come to that newly-formed country (well over 100 years later) should expect the same "opportunity" to create their own sub-civilization within Canada?

Are you that fucking dense that you can't see how one thing is not quite like the other?

If so, god damn, go get some perspective.

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by saywhaaaat

Oh please. :rolleyes:

Where do I begin here? Should I talk about the parts that occurred during colonial times, when nations from Europe were rapidly expanding across the globe in an effort to secure land and resources while spreading their influence at the same time? Should I talk about how the events that took place over 100 years ago can't even be compared to modern society given the massive and dramatic attitude changes that have occurred all over the globe thanks to such innovations as global communication, universal sufferage, religious and racial tolerance, and certain charters that grant certain freedoms and rights?

Get real for a second. What the hell are you arguing? That the English and French came to Canada a helluva long time ago, took over the country by force, set up colonies that eventually overpowered the native residents and set up a formal government, and how people that now come to that newly-formed country (well over 100 years later) should expect the same "opportunity" to create their own sub-civilization within Canada?

Are you that fucking dense that you can't see how one thing is not quite like the other?

If so, god damn, go get some perspective.

So what, if something happened a long time ago that makes it OK? So if I were to rape and kill your entire family, you wouln't have the right to be upset if it happened twenty years ago? Get real.

I was born in this country, but this country makes me sick sometimes. You guys still have the queen's head on your money for fucks sake! The USA got rid of the monarchy two hundred and fifty yeas ago! What is Canada waiting for? Within a few years at most you'll have Prince Charles' ears on your money. Stand up and have the balls to stand on your own two feet!

Canada is not a parlimentary democracy. It is officially classed as a parlimentary monarchy - anyone of you who argue that the queen is just a figurehead should look at how the Governor General, in other words the queen's viceroy to Canada, influenced your life just two short months ago.

I don't consider singing Oh Canada in between beers at a hockey game to be the pinnacle of patriotism, either. In this country you are not born free, you are born as a subject to the British throne. Can you people not see how outdated and ridiculous this is? Can you not see why the USA and indeed the rest of the civilized world laugh at us? I can't blame them.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


I was born in this country, but this country makes me sick sometimes. You guys still have the queen's head on your money for fucks sake! The USA got rid of the monarchy two hundred and fifty yeas ago! What is Canada waiting for? Within a few years at most you'll have Prince Charles' ears on your money. Stand up and have the balls to stand on your own two feet!

Canada is not a parlimentary democracy. It is officially classed as a parlimentary monarchy - anyone of you who argue that the queen is just a figurehead should look at how the Governor General, in other words the queen's viceroy to Canada, influenced your life just two short months ago.

:facepalm:

I knew the minute it was announced that the Governor General was going to be the tie breaker between the Conservatives and Coalition that this was going to happen.

So now, instead of being able to point out that the Queens representative hasn't had any influence on Canadas government for as long as most can remember, retards like this guy can say "hey guys, remember that thing? See, the Queen runs the country. I are smrt"

Whoopedy doo, a figure head who was selected by the Canadian government made a multiple choice decision that otherwise would have gone to a Canadian-government-appointed judge.

Seriously dude, stop being so intellectually dishonest.

[saywhaaaat]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


So what, if something happened a long time ago that makes it OK? So if I were to rape and kill your entire family, you wouln't have the right to be upset if it happened twenty years ago? Get real.

I was born in this country, but this country makes me sick sometimes. You guys still have the queen's head on your money for fucks sake! The USA got rid of the monarchy two hundred and fifty yeas ago! What is Canada waiting for? Within a few years at most you'll have Prince Charles' ears on your money. Stand up and have the balls to stand on your own two feet!

Canada is not a parlimentary democracy. It is officially classed as a parlimentary monarchy - anyone of you who argue that the queen is just a figurehead should look at how the Governor General, in other words the queen's viceroy to Canada, influenced your life just two short months ago.

I don't consider singing Oh Canada in between beers at a hockey game to be the pinnacle of patriotism, either. In this country you are not born free, you are born as a subject to the British throne. Can you people not see how outdated and ridiculous this is? Can you not see why the USA and indeed the rest of the civilized world laugh at us? I can't blame them.

You lack of ability to see how significant changes in domestic and global attitudes is actually kind of funny. You sitll haven't figured out that the global political environment that existed 150 years ago is not the same one that exists today.

Let me guess: you're the pseudo-intellectual that argues with the professor in your lectures because you think you're really smart, right? Think about the reality of life 150 years ago. Colonialism was a big thing back then... not so much today (funny how that works, huh?). When the Europeans arrived at the (now) Canadian shores there was no unified government set in place by the natives, but rather a series of tribes that were squabbling amongst themselves. It was a free for all really, with the Europeans ultimately being the victors.

So how is the historical events that took place under wildly different circumstances even remotely applicable to what happens now? This isn't saying that historically it isn't relevant, but it certainly is not applicable in the modern political environment. The attitudes are simply too different.

What happened 20 years ago remains under the modern sphere of thought. Of course if you raped and murdered my family 20 years ago it'd be relevant, because I'd still be alive (for it to be relevant to me) and the political structure that we live in now was already well established. However, if you raped and murdered my family 150 years ago what reason would I have to remain angry today?

Think about it, really. I still can't figure out why you seem to think that the laws and attitudes of 100+ years ago seem to apply today. It's like how 90 years ago women couldn't vote, yet they can today. Your argument is akin to saying "women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they weren't before" and having it be considered plausible. Obviously, anyone with half a brain would disagree with you because we don't live under the same circumstances anymore.

In short, things change. Attitudes, ideas, people... they all change.

So what if we're considered British subjects. Have you been to England? They aren't exactly serfs under British monarchial rule anymore. Funny how that has changed as well.

Your attitude is also kind of funny. If you're so disgusted with this country and how we "aren't free" then perhaps you should join modded46 and leave it? After all, being a British subject is completely terrible right? I mean, I have to look at my queen on my quarters! What the hell is that about, and why should I have to tolerate that? Disgusting, I tell you!

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by saywhaaaat


You lack of ability to see how significant changes in domestic and global attitudes is actually kind of funny. You sitll haven't figured out that the global political environment that existed 150 years ago is not the same one that exists today.

Let me guess: you're the pseudo-intellectual that argues with the professor in your lectures because you think you're really smart, right? Think about the reality of life 150 years ago. Colonialism was a big thing back then... not so much today (funny how that works, huh?). When the Europeans arrived at the (now) Canadian shores there was no unified government set in place by the natives, but rather a series of tribes that were squabbling amongst themselves. It was a free for all really, with the Europeans ultimately being the victors.

So how is the historical events that took place under wildly different circumstances even remotely applicable to what happens now? This isn't saying that historically it isn't relevant, but it certainly is not applicable in the modern political environment. The attitudes are simply too different.

What happened 20 years ago remains under the modern sphere of thought. Of course if you raped and murdered my family 20 years ago it'd be relevant, because I'd still be alive (for it to be relevant to me) and the political structure that we live in now was already well established. However, if you raped and murdered my family 150 years ago what reason would I have to remain angry today?

Think about it, really. I still can't figure out why you seem to think that the laws and attitudes of 100+ years ago seem to apply today. It's like how 90 years ago women couldn't vote, yet they can today. Your argument is akin to saying "women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they weren't before" and having it be considered plausible. Obviously, anyone with half a brain would disagree with you because we don't live under the same circumstances anymore.

In short, things change. Attitudes, ideas, people... they all change.

So what if we're considered British subjects. Have you been to England? They aren't exactly serfs under British monarchial rule anymore. Funny how that has changed as well.

Your attitude is also kind of funny. If you're so disgusted with this country and how we "aren't free" then perhaps you should join modded46 and leave it? After all, being a British subject is completely terrible right? I mean, I have to look at my queen on my quarters! What the hell is that about, and why should I have to tolerate that? Disgusting, I tell you!

You wrote "so what if we're British subjects?". I feel sorry for you, I really do. You seemingly have no problem not being a free person. I am free, I don't belong to anyone else, and I'm not a subject of any foreign monarchy.

"Colonialism was a big thing back then... not so much today (funny how that works, huh?)."
How do you explain the illegal 2003 US invasion of Iraq? Do you really believe they were there to "free the pepple from a ruthless dictator"? Or do you realize they were there to steal oil?

"When the Europeans arrived at the (now) Canadian shores there was no unified government set in place by the natives, but rather a series of tribes that were squabbling amongst themselves"

How is this any different from the situation we have today? We have a province that represents over a quarter of Canadians that has elected a provincial government bent on removing them from Canada! The Bloc Quebecois has been elected in 49 out of 75 seats in Quebec! Hardly a harmonious, well-run country.

[szw]

Originally posted by LilDrunkenSmurf
So wait, if a woman goes to the middle east (forgive me, I don't know which country) she's expected to cover up, and that has to be done, to respect local laws.

Yet we have people coming to our country, and CHANGING our laws to suit them.

I mean seriously, you can't listen to O CANADA without being offended? Then don't come to Canada... Isn't it required to sing that song to obtain citizenship?

I'm atheist, and I don't even get offended by the "God" part of the song.

What laws are we changing? What country do you think these people are from? You posted once and someone told you that you should read the thread. Then you posted again without reading it...

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

I'm not citing any specific instances in this thread that their changing laws. In the story, they want to change the rules in a school to stop our national anthem from being sung. I'm glad they have to sing TBH.

And yea, I still didn't read it.

[adam c]

i think Jim Rome99 and Modded46 should go be fuck buddy's or something

[n1zm0]

Originally posted by Super_Geo

The US anthem is better... but the best anthem of all time has to be the old school USSR anthem!


the current russian federation national anthem is the same song just revised lyrics to remove lenin this and lenin that lol, funny that they kept 'motherland' tho, ooo those russians.

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Originally posted by adam c
i think Jim Rome99 and Modded46 should go be fuck buddy's or something

New sig material. Thanks!

[saywhaaaat]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


You wrote "so what if we're British subjects?". I feel sorry for you, I really do. You seemingly have no problem not being a free person. I am free, I don't belong to anyone else, and I'm not a subject of any foreign monarchy.

"Colonialism was a big thing back then... not so much today (funny how that works, huh?)."
How do you explain the illegal 2003 US invasion of Iraq? Do you really believe they were there to "free the pepple from a ruthless dictator"? Or do you realize they were there to steal oil?

"When the Europeans arrived at the (now) Canadian shores there was no unified government set in place by the natives, but rather a series of tribes that were squabbling amongst themselves"

How is this any different from the situation we have today? We have a province that represents over a quarter of Canadians that has elected a provincial government bent on removing them from Canada! The Bloc Quebecois has been elected in 49 out of 75 seats in Quebec! Hardly a harmonious, well-run country.
Hey Romey, why don't you address my proper arguments as opposed to telling me how sorry you feel for me. I could care less how one sub-100 IQ drone feels about me. I feel sorry for you too, but not because you are forced to live in Canada as one of the Queens subjects. It sounds like there's a place in upstace South Carolina that you should check out :)

You're so misinformed it's rediculous. Please explain to me where the loss of freedoms are that stem from being a British subject. I'd like to know exactly how my personal freedoms are being infringed upon. Since I'm not free I'm not able to do basic things, right? Such as challenge the government, participate in the political process, and/or continue to have to listen to other (free) idiots that meander on about pointless topics and then change their arguments whenever their current (unsatisfactory) argument loses traction. I'm free to do all of those things.

Freedom is basically about perspective. Think about it: if we were "completely" free I'd be able to come over to your place, smack your dumb ass around a bit, and then go home without fear of persecution from the police. That's true freedom, no? What I gather is that you're implying that because some form of formal government exists that you aren't truly free. Well, I know a small little island on the other side of the world that you could live on that may offer you such "freedom". Just don't expect power, running water, or laws of any kind. You know, just saying.

In regards to the "illegal" invasion of Iraq, well, I don't believe that Canada had any part of that and hence it is irrelevant to our conversation. Try to stay on topic please, stop referencing events that are beyond Canadian politics :)

Now, your last "point" is just rediculous. This yet another example of how you are trying to make one thing look like the other. I fail to see how groups of tribesmen that were warring with each other is AT ALL similar to the political structure in place today in Canada. Your reference to Quebec's separationist ideas isn't even relevant because Quenec is choosing to achieve its goals through political channels as opposed to sharpening a stick and hurling it Canadian officials!

So, let's just make this simple: what was your argument again? Do you even know at this point? Because every time I've addressed one of your well thought out posts you seem to change what you're arguing. Stick with an argument please and stop making it so easy for someone with half a brain to prove you a moron.

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by saywhaaaat

Hey Romey, why don't you address my proper arguments as opposed to telling me how sorry you feel for me. I could care less how one sub-100 IQ drone feels about me. I feel sorry for you too, but not because you are forced to live in Canada as one of the Queens subjects. It sounds like there's a place in upstace South Carolina that you should check out :)

You're so misinformed it's rediculous. Please explain to me where the loss of freedoms are that stem from being a British subject. I'd like to know exactly how my personal freedoms are being infringed upon. Since I'm not free I'm not able to do basic things, right? Such as challenge the government, participate in the political process, and/or continue to have to listen to other (free) idiots that meander on about pointless topics and then change their arguments whenever their current (unsatisfactory) argument loses traction. I'm free to do all of those things.

Freedom is basically about perspective. Think about it: if we were "completely" free I'd be able to come over to your place, smack your dumb ass around a bit, and then go home without fear of persecution from the police. That's true freedom, no? What I gather is that you're implying that because some form of formal government exists that you aren't truly free. Well, I know a small little island on the other side of the world that you could live on that may offer you such "freedom". Just don't expect power, running water, or laws of any kind. You know, just saying.

In regards to the "illegal" invasion of Iraq, well, I don't believe that Canada had any part of that and hence it is irrelevant to our conversation. Try to stay on topic please, stop referencing events that are beyond Canadian politics :)

Now, your last "point" is just rediculous. This yet another example of how you are trying to make one thing look like the other. I fail to see how groups of tribesmen that were warring with each other is AT ALL similar to the political structure in place today in Canada. Your reference to Quebec's separationist ideas isn't even relevant because Quenec is choosing to achieve its goals through political channels as opposed to sharpening a stick and hurling it Canadian officials!

So, let's just make this simple: what was your argument again? Do you even know at this point? Because every time I've addressed one of your well thought out posts you seem to change what you're arguing. Stick with an argument please and stop making it so easy for someone with half a brain to prove you a moron.

It is not worth my time to argue with someone who does not know how to spell basic words. You are just another under-educated Canadian. Good luck to you sir.

[saywhaaaat]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


It is not worth my time to argue with someone who does not know how to spell basic words. You are just another under-educated Canadian. Good luck to you sir.
What you mean to say is "I know that your spelling mistakes are clearly typo's given that you typed quite a bit in a short period of time and don't proofread your posts, but since I have no valid argument and I have the intelligence of a brain-dead seal, I'm going to bow out while making a "wise" crack at you in an attempt to save what's left of my dignity."

Well done, Romey, well done :)

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by saywhaaaat

What you mean to say is "I know that your spelling mistakes are clearly typo's given that you typed quite a bit in a short period of time and don't proofread your posts, but since I have no valid argument and I have the intelligence of a brain-dead seal, I'm going to bow out while making a "wise" crack at you in an attempt to save what's left of my dignity."

Well done, Romey, well done :)


You misspelled "ridiculous" several times in your post. Hardly a typo.

The plural of "typo" is "typos" not "typo's". You should learn how to properly use an apostrophe. You're just another poorly educated Canadian. Your country is hardly known worldwide for producing academics, so I wouldn't worry too much.

[Jim Rome99]

"I could care less how one sub-100 IQ drone feels about me".


You should read this phrase a few times and figure out what you are saying. Basically, if you COULD care less, that means that you DO care at least a little bit. The correct use of this phrase would be to say the following:

I COULDN'T care less how one sub-100 IQ drone feels about me.

Futhermore, you very clearly DO car how I feel about you, otherwise you wouldn't keep responding to my clearly antogonistic posts designed to frustrate and befuddle you.

[saywhaaaat]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99



You misspelled "ridiculous" several times in your post. Hardly a typo.

The plural of "typo" is "typos" not "typo's". You should learn how to properly use an apostrophe. You're just another poorly educated Canadian. Your country is hardly known worldwide for producing academics, so I wouldn't worry too much.

You're right, and perhaps I (and other "pepple") should attend the same grammar-police academy that you did.

Another well thought out rebuttal by modded46's homeboy :)


How do you explain the illegal 2003 US invasion of Iraq? Do you really believe they were there to "free the pepple from a ruthless dictator"? Or do you realize they were there to steal oil?
Oh, I do car do I? Funny. Funny how no one has perfect grammar anymore, yourself included. Before you jump on the grammar police bandwagon you should probably follow your own rules.


Futhermore, you very clearly DO car how I feel about you, otherwise you wouldn't keep responding to my clearly antogonistic posts designed to frustrate and befuddle you.

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by saywhaaaat


You're right, and perhaps I (and other "pepple") should attend the same grammar-police academy that you did.

Another well thought out rebuttal by modded46's homeboy :)


Oh, I do car do I? Funny. Funny how no one has perfect grammar anymore, yourself included. Before you jump on the grammar police bandwagon you should probably follow your own rules.



When I mispelled "people" as "pepple", it was a spelling error, not a grammar error. Do you know the difference? Serious question. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. Canadians are far from being the brightest knives in the crayon box.

[saywhaaaat]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


When I mispelled "people" as "pepple", it was a spelling error, not a grammar error. Do you know the difference? Serious question. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. Canadians are far from being the brightest knives in the crayon box.
How about you form a valid argument that properly addresses the criticisms that I've laid out for you as opposed to trying to discredit me via the use of improper grammar and spelling as an attack against my posts with improper grammar and spelling.

Oh the heavenly grammar gods, please forgive me for I have wronged you so! :rolleyes:

[Jim Rome99]

Serious post here, I'll stop trying to wind you up. You posted the following question before and I'll do my best to tell you how I feel about it.

"Please explain to me where the loss of freedoms are that stem from being a British subject. "

In my opinion, and I realize that it's only my opinion, when the Governor General refused to dissolve parliament back in December, it showed me that Canadians are not truly a free and independent people. How can they be considered free when an unelected "figurehead" has such enormous influence and power over their everyday lives?

Canadians like you and me would have had their lives changed signifcantly, for better or worse, had the Conservatives gotten the boot and the Liberal-NDP coalition taken power. How can this country be considered any kind of a democracy when this kind of thing is allowed to happen?

Other countries modelled after Britain's Westminter system of government, such as Ireland, elect a President, who holds power similar to the queen's viceroy ("governor general", as Canadians like to call her, probably to make themselves feel better about being serfs to a foreign crown). Why do we not do this in Canada? Because we are not allowed to, as we are not a free people.

[01RedDX]

.

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Do you honestly think the governor general makes decisions autonomously or at the behest of the queen? :rofl: :rofl:

The monarchy may be useless and archaic but it is merely a symbol in Canadian politics. You need to relax.

If it is merely a symbol then why not remove it? The Queen is the head of the Anglican church. I am a Catholic. Why should I have to pledge allegiance to the head of a different religion? This is secular country, last time I read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[FivE.SeveN]

Are you people honestly arguing over typos now? What the fuck :nut:

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by FivE.SeveN
Are you people honestly arguing over typos now? What the fuck :nut:

What do you mean by YOU PEOPLE?

[Generic]

Where does it say these kids are immigrants??

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


If it is merely a symbol then why not remove it?

Because no one except you and a handful of raving lunatics actually gives a fuck about this meaningless shit, and it'd be a bitch to go through the process of making the change.

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by Antonito


Because no one except you and a handful of raving lunatics actually gives a fuck about this meaningless shit, and it'd be a bitch to go through the process of making the change.

So you'll have no problem in a couple of years when Prince Charles is on all your money?

[01RedDX]

.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Jim Rome99


So you'll have no problem in a couple of years when Prince Charles is on all your money?

We'll see if it actually happens. I don't pay nearly as much attention to the royal family as you seem to, but last I heard, he isn't going to be king.

However, maybe that'll be enough to get people to care. That's the thing, as it is right now, no one cares because it doesn't mean anything.

[Generic]

Originally posted by Generic
Where does it say these kids are immigrants??

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by Antonito


We'll see if it actually happens. I don't pay nearly as much attention to the royal family as you seem to, but last I heard, he isn't going to be king.

However, maybe that'll be enough to get people to care. That's the thing, as it is right now, no one cares because it doesn't mean anything.

It is a pretty simple concept. The eldest son of the reigning monarch becomes king when the current head dies.

[Supa Dexta]

I dunno... I think I remember hearing something of him never gonna get a shot at it. :dunno:

[Jim Rome99]

Originally posted by Supa Dexta
I dunno... I think I remember hearing something of him never gonna get a shot at it. :dunno:

Why would he "not get a shot" at it? He's the eldest son of the reigning monarch. Of course he will be king, unless he dies before his mother. Not likely, she's 83 years old.

[Antonito]

I think it has to do with that woman he had on the side and wanting to be her tampon :rofl:

[canuckcarguy]

The anthem is back in that school. I heard the principal on the radio today, crying (literally), he's now on stress leave and doesn't know if he'll every be able to return to the education system because of how stressful the situation was. He claims he was threatened with bodily harm. Wah wah...

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by canuckcarguy
The anthem is back in that school. I heard the principal on the radio today, crying (literally), he's now on stress leave and doesn't know if he'll every be able to return to the education system because of how stressful the situation was. He claims he was threatened with bodily harm. Wah wah...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/02/10/nb-anthem-threats.html


"He said that I should be ashamed of myself, that I embarrassed the community. He said that if my admin assistant wasn't there he would drag me outside by my shirt collar to the parking lot and beat me senseless," Millett said.

I think the most recommended comment sums up my sentiments on this quite well, so I'll just copy-paste it here...



Good grief!

It seems to me like you are all behaving like a bunch of red-neck Americans on this issue. Death threats towards a guy who dropped a song?

IT'S A SONG!!!!

Patriotism is represented by tangible action, not by singing some "ditty" every morning (albeit a very good one!).

Canada has always represented tolerance and free thought to the rest of the planet (myself included).

I find it ironic and very sad that so many people are so vehement about this that they violate those very principles that Canada stands for (sorry for the pseudo-pun).

How American of us to focus on the Anthem and link it to our soldiers and pride in our country, instead of seeing beyond a bunch of words to what is really important and that's not forcing beliefs, politics, or lifestyle on each other.

I'll translate for those locals there "Hey Ma! Ya'll a bunch of crazies!"


And for those who still think that this was the result of immigrants who you might perceive as being somehow less patriotic than those of us who happen to be born here, here you go..


Millett has said that two parents objected to the anthem ritual on religious grounds

[Supa Dexta]

'He said that I should be ashamed of myself, that I embarrassed the community. He said that if my admin assistant wasn't there he would drag me outside by my shirt collar to the parking lot and beat me senseless.'

haha, thats awesome.. I can just picture some old grumpy senior calling him to say that,

[canuckcarguy]

I personally think this guy was full of it from the start. He says some parents complained about the anthem on religious grounds, but refused to identify them. Of course, conveniently, they never came forward. Really? Do we actually believe that 2 parents who have religious objections to the anthem complain to the principal, the issue gets national attention, and in this small region of New Brunswick, nobody figures out who the parents are? I don't buy it.

Then, he receives all of this harassment and threatening behavior, but of course doesn't know who's harassing him, so there can be no actual police investigation or identification of the suspects. All of this harassment culminates in the mystery man who shows up at or calls the school and threatens to haul him outside and beat him senseless, but once again, nobody can identify the culprit. No description, no other teachers saw him, no phone call traced by the police, and again in a small maritime community.

I call bullshit on the whole thing. This politically incorrect moron decides unilaterally to gas the anthem, thinking he'll be a hero, and Canadians, by and large, tell him to piss off.

Now he's on stress leave and doesn't know when he can return to education... let's hope never. Kids don't need exposure to losers like this guy.

[WhippWhapp]

A woman I am friends with teaches grade three here, and at her school the students don't sing the national anthem due to the religious connotations in the song.