tell me this is not how americans really think
29 Mar 2009, 3:22 pm
Dox47 wrote:
Just to add to the fun, in some restaurants the term "Canadians" is code for "black people", the mortal foe of waiters and delivery drivers everywhere. If the wrong people heard a waiter complaining to the host about the huge ghetto contingent just seated in their section, harsh words or a lawsuit could follow, where as no one would think twice when they hear the same conversation about "Canadians". In delivery driver parlance, "the ghetto" becomes "Saskatchewan", as in "man, why do I have to go out to Saskatchewan to deliver $12.95 worth of food to some damn Canadians who'll give me $13.00 and tell me to 'keep the change'?". Ironically, as far as I know actual Canadians tip just fine, it's just that they're so innocuous that they got picked as a code word that the customers wouldn't pick up on (till I just spilled the beans, of course...).
Interestingly national European stereotypes did not make their way in the USA, otherwise they would refer in this case to the Dutch. But according to the Dutch stereotype the customer would demand the 5c change back or would start to argue for a discount for prompt payment.
29 Mar 2009, 4:40 pm
Dussel wrote:
Interestingly national European stereotypes did not make their way in the USA, otherwise they would refer in this case to the Dutch. But according to the Dutch stereotype the customer would demand the 5c change back or would start to argue for a discount for prompt payment.
Hmm, the stereotype actually has made it over here to some extent, the idiom "a Dutch treat" means to invite someone to go out and eat when you expect for them to pay for their own food, or to "go Dutch" on a date means that you and the date split the check. People in this country are really touchy about racial stuff, so I'm not aware of any specific idioms referring to black people and tipping, but the fact that as a group they tend to tip poorly if at all is very well known in the service industry.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
29 Mar 2009, 7:15 pm
DrizzleMan wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
twoshots wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
zerooftheday wrote:
Canadians are like our little brothers and sisters, the nice ones. England is our parent, and we both live next door to each other. I only say little because we are technically bigger than you. Sociology/historically, the case could be made that the US and Canada are siblings.
when you say "bigger", are you talking land? because if you are, i hate to break it to you but canada is the second largest country in the world...the first is russia, not the US.
The US de facto ownz the whole wrld n00b
is this supposed to make sense? i can't even tell what language it's in....if you want to participate in the discussion you might want to try being a little more coherent.
It's in "leet".
But I don't think it will be accurate for long, considering that China owns an ever increasing portion of the US.
|\|0 7|-|!5 B3 73|-| 1337|\|355 5Þ33|<|\|355 |\|00B.
No really, are we still having a serious conversation about something from Red Eye? I mean, the people who brought us >>>Sarah Palin's Murderous Web of Death<<<
_________________
* here for the nachos.
29 Mar 2009, 9:38 pm
starvingartist wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPmXKEsm-HE
someone please tell me that this tripe is not representative of how most americans view my country (canada). i know it's fox, but still....it wouldn't be on if it didn't have an audience, and that frightens me. please tell me this is just a small minority of morons.
someone please tell me that this tripe is not representative of how most americans view my country (canada). i know it's fox, but still....it wouldn't be on if it didn't have an audience, and that frightens me. please tell me this is just a small minority of morons.
Yes, this is exactly how all Americans think. Any who claim they believe otherwise are unpatriotic traitors.
ickorack wrote:
Just a question but what reasons would the U.S. have to invade Canada.
Manifest Destiny. It's between Alaska and the rest of the continental US. Canadians have no right to stand there and divide America. It's "One nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE with liberty and justice for all*." It is time at last for Canadians to step aside and let America claim the full extent of its rightful territory: all existing land. Also, you guys have lame accents. That's just not acceptable. And some of you speak French, so we know it would be easy to invade you.
*Does not apply to Blacks, Jews, Liberals, hippies, tree-huggers, potheads, women, anti-war activists, or vegetarians. Or people with funny-sounding names.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
29 Mar 2009, 9:55 pm
ikorack wrote:
Dussel wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Just a question but what reasons would the U.S. have to invade Canada.
Perhaps they could recycle the reasons of 1812?
Wasn't that a war between Britan(Britain?) and the U.S. because of blockades placed on France.
It was largely Madison being manipulated by Napoleon, since both France and Britain were violating our trade rights. Anyways, we also had the idea that, since we were going to war with Britain, we'd take over Canada while we were at it. They seemed like an easy target, and everyone loves territorial expansion at the expense of their neighbors.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
29 Mar 2009, 10:05 pm
Orwell wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Dussel wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Just a question but what reasons would the U.S. have to invade Canada.
Perhaps they could recycle the reasons of 1812?
Wasn't that a war between Britan(Britain?) and the U.S. because of blockades placed on France.
It was largely Madison being manipulated by Napoleon, since both France and Britain were violating our trade rights. Anyways, we also had the idea that, since we were going to war with Britain, we'd take over Canada while we were at it. They seemed like an easy target, and everyone loves territorial expansion at the expense of their neighbors.
But weren't they also British colonies at the time so it really wouldn't be attacking the country Canada it would be attacking a British colony which they are not anymore.
30 Mar 2009, 2:48 am
ikorack wrote:
But weren't they also British colonies at the time so it really wouldn't be attacking the country Canada it would be attacking a British colony which they are not anymore.
What Canada by standards of International Law really is, is not that clear. In practical terms Canada is a sovereign country like the US, in theoretical terms all laws still need the Royal Assent - which theoretical can be withhold by Elizabeth II (Art. 55 of the Constitution). Article 9 of the Constitution vests all executive power in person of the Queen.
The Canadian Constitution is in itself a British Act of Parliament, the North America Act 1867. The Canada Act 1982 (Sec. 38 - 49) of the British Parliament allows Canada to amend the Canadian Constitution without the consensus of British Parliament, but still a Royal Proclamation is needed.
The constitutional bond between the UK and Canada via the person of monarch would mean in practical term that a war with Canada would mean a war with the UK too.
30 Mar 2009, 3:06 am
Dussel wrote:
ikorack wrote:
But weren't they also British colonies at the time so it really wouldn't be attacking the country Canada it would be attacking a British colony which they are not anymore.
What Canada by standards of International Law really is, is not that clear. In practical terms Canada is a sovereign country like the US, in theoretical terms all laws still need the Royal Assent - which theoretical can be withhold by Elizabeth II (Art. 55 of the Constitution). Article 9 of the Constitution vests all executive power in person of the Queen.
The Canadian Constitution is in itself a British Act of Parliament, the North America Act 1867. The Canada Act 1982 (Sec. 38 - 49) of the British Parliament allows Canada to amend the Canadian Constitution without the consensus of British Parliament, but still a Royal Proclamation is needed.
The constitutional bond between the UK and Canada via the person of monarch would mean in practical term that a war with Canada would mean a war with the UK too.
Does the UK even need consensus of the throne anymore?
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.
30 Mar 2009, 3:29 am
Fuzzy wrote:
Dussel wrote:
ikorack wrote:
But weren't they also British colonies at the time so it really wouldn't be attacking the country Canada it would be attacking a British colony which they are not anymore.
What Canada by standards of International Law really is, is not that clear. In practical terms Canada is a sovereign country like the US, in theoretical terms all laws still need the Royal Assent - which theoretical can be withhold by Elizabeth II (Art. 55 of the Constitution). Article 9 of the Constitution vests all executive power in person of the Queen.
The Canadian Constitution is in itself a British Act of Parliament, the North America Act 1867. The Canada Act 1982 (Sec. 38 - 49) of the British Parliament allows Canada to amend the Canadian Constitution without the consensus of British Parliament, but still a Royal Proclamation is needed.
The constitutional bond between the UK and Canada via the person of monarch would mean in practical term that a war with Canada would mean a war with the UK too.
Does the UK even need consensus of the throne anymore?
All laws need the Royal Assent. The Royal Assent is normally given by the Royal Commissioners (you see them occasionally sitting behind a small balustrade in the House of Lord on a low bench in front of the Throne). Also any "Order of the Council", the ratification of international treaties and the appointment of the Speaker of House of Commons, of senior civil servants (e.g. the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police), of Ministers of the Crown, of judges, calling in and dissolving parliament, issuing "Royal Charters" and the appointment of ambassadors still need the formal involvement of the monarch.
