|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 8th, 2008 05:30 PM | |
| Fat_Hippo | It would if there was a hockey match anyways. Better go with a peaceful sport...how 'bout curling? |
| Feb 6th, 2008 09:37 PM | |
| Fathom Zero | Oh, the blood will flow as maple syrup. |
| Feb 6th, 2008 07:23 PM | |
| MattJack | What about a winner take all hockey match? |
| Feb 6th, 2008 07:00 PM | |
| AChimp |
If we were to have a civil war, I doubt that anyone would show up. 
|
| Feb 6th, 2008 05:12 PM | |
| MattJack | Yall should just have a civil war to settle things once and for all. |
| Feb 6th, 2008 05:10 PM | |
| AChimp | They're French and the rest of us are not. |
| Feb 6th, 2008 03:22 PM | |
| MattJack | What makes them feel so special that they think they need to seperate from Canada? |
| Feb 6th, 2008 02:03 PM | |
| AChimp |
Canada has quite a few separatists who want Quebec to become a separate country so they can sit around and feel special about themselves. Anytime anything comes up for a major debate, Quebec always wants to have a special influence on the outcome because of their "culture." What's funny is that whenever they're asked how a separate Quebec would operate as a nation, they can never give a straight answer. They'd still want to use all the Canadian government services (our money, postal service, etc) but they wouldn't be paying any taxes to us to operate them. Then comes the actual Quebec borders; Natives form a large majority of the population in northern Quebec, so if Quebec separates, they'd lose all their federal treaty rights... obviously, they're not in favour of that, so they've basically stated that they're not going anywhere. I remember reading something about how we'd have to go back to the 1800's to determine what Quebec's borders really were before the treaties were all signed, and Quebec's "nation" would amount to the area immediately surrounding Quebec City and Montreal (a few thousand square miles along the St. Lawrence River). Personally, I blame the British for not kicking the French out after they beat them. |
| Feb 6th, 2008 03:21 AM | |
| Fathom Zero |
All too true. I have an entire family full of racist southerners. Civil wars are always the most brutal, brother on brother, that sort of thing. But I don't give a damn about my ancestors' woes from Poland or France or Germany or Wales. I don't have a bone to pick with Maximillien Robespierre, dick though he was. Things happened so long ago that they cease to be relevent anymore. Slavery, though not the only cause of the Civil War, was an archaic institution. So much so that it is unbelieveable how people treated each other. But that gets into cultural differences in societies and norms. Most everyone celebrates the revolution against their respective royalty. I'm more talking about disagreements with the way one's government acts, like the Reign of Terror. It seems as though more people are split that way than when everyone goes ¨DOWN WITH THE KING!¨ The newly formed government still has many followers. If there were more on one side than the other, it would be different. The weaker would end up submitting. But that isn't so with a civil war because people are poised on the end of a knife. 50-50. That's why I'm convinced that there will soon be a confrontation between the Conservatives and the non-Conservatives. Oh well. The past teaches us nothing for we are doomed to repeat it. |
| Feb 5th, 2008 10:24 PM | |
| derrida |
Yes, anywhere you go in the world there are cultural scars of wars past, and no wars are as bitter as civil wars- even the low-grade animosity between the French and the British is almost as deep rooted as north vs. south here- and they havent been at war for centuries. The victors may write the history books, but it's the losers that hold the grudges. Wars are seldom truely over. Us northerners couldnt really give a shit about the south, but the very concept of "yankees," or "carpetbaggers" or a slew of other shit looms way large in the collective southern consciousness- and its a generalization to say that those feelings of resentment etc. only occur among the people you call rednecks, lots of highly educated people feel that way. The disparity in amount of mental energy devoted to the topic is alot like how your average white person doesn't think about racial issues nearly as often as say, your average black person. |
| Feb 5th, 2008 10:10 PM | |
| Tadao |
Other countries have civil wars that divides the country into 2. The only difference is that they still are at war with gorilla warfare and constantly overthrow the government, then they switch places and do it again. Our civil war has stayed ended because we are a rich country and have lots to lose if we fight aming ourselves. The other countries only have something to gain by fighting. |
| Feb 5th, 2008 09:26 PM | |
| Fathom Zero |
Civil Wars America's Civil War is still talked about today. Some people refuse to believe why one side one and that the South will rise again. They just refuse to let it go. I know that we're a fairly young country in the grand scheme of things, but, in other countries, are there people like that? People waving those flags from their lawns or on their cars? People who "never forget?" People that believe the rednecks of their respective countries were right? It seems to me like something I'd want to forget about. It's history, literally, and to bring it up for absolutely nothing since it won't change the fact that the damn war happened 130 years ago seems pointless. I'd like to say shut the hell up to these people, but they wouldn't pay any attention to me. They're too set in their hick-dom. |
