October 27, 2006

"Canada can take care of North Korea. They’re not busy."

Let's talk about the part of the anti-Harold Ford ad that's not about the Playboy lady. Canada's upset!

74 comments:

Gahrie said...

Given all the crap that Canadians say about the US on a regular basis, (including their elected officials), the White House should just tell them to kiss our ass.

knoxgirl said...

more proof that they really are a bunch of wussies. Didn't they get really mad at Conan O'Brien once?

knoxgirl said...

...it was Triumph, of course!

At one point in the show, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog — a hand puppet that is a regular on the show — said to a Quebecer: “You’re French, you’re obnoxious and you no speekay English.” It told another: “I can smell your crotch from here”.

O’Brien’s team were also shown replacing street signs in the province with those that read “Quebecqueer Street” and “Rue des Pussies”.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Hmm. The complaining party in this case is conservative maverick Stephen Harper. (Remember the leading coalition switched?) Is it opportunistic? Sure, Harper is pulling the David Cameron move of looking hawkish and nationalistic while attacking the U.S. on foreign policy matters (and so appealing to the left of his country), i.e., "Canada is strong on national security, and the United States doesn't respect our support in its failed war!" But it's also kind of weird to see that a conservative Canadian PM is paying such close attention to the Senate race in TN that he would spot an anti-Ford ad and link that to Bush. Or maybe Harper doesn't think Corker is strong on international relations. (I'm kidding.)

Edward said...

Bigotry, of which this attack ad will be a memorable political example for years to come, is never able to limit itself to offending one narrow group.

Almost by definition, bigotry is intellectually reckless, so it’s no surprise that this obnoxious ad has managed to insult many others beyond the Harold Ford family or even all African-Americans.

This attack ad will become a classic example of bigotry masquerading as political humor.

Don't get me wrong. I think there are plenty of reasons to make fun of Canada, but this ad is just tawdry. Anyone who thinks it's funny should have their head checked.

NSC said...

I don't know about funny, but it certainly wasn't as bad as everyone is saying. And tawdry? Please.

Don't worry, I recently had my head checked - I am fine.

knoxgirl said...

oh, it's funny!

If you can't make fun of Canadians, then your life is ruled by P.C.

Goesh said...

Weeping Jesus! They flock across our border for cheap cigarettes in droves and we are pumping untold amounts of pollution into Canada via the Red River and they are miffed over a political ad coming out of Tennessee? Damn right them Kanucks got lots of time on their hands. Eh? For the less queasy reader however, a Canadian sniper holds the world record for the longest shot made. He whacked a taliban fighter. We shouldn't be too hard on our northern neighbors I suppose. Said taliban fighter was attempting to prevent women from being exposed meat.

Fenrisulven said...

This attack ad will become a classic example of bigotry masquerading as political humor.

Are we seeing the same ad? Where's the bigotry? I think some people are too quick to see things in Black vs White. Is it because the girl is white? If they had used a black woman, we'd be gearing complaints about reinforcing the stereotype of "Whoes". And Canada? I hope you're not buying into the French theory that mocking France is "racist"?

Fenrisulven said...

"getting complaints" not "gearing". No idea how that slipped in. Must Have Coffee.

Edward said...

If the anti-Ford attack ad could be viewed in isolation and out of all historical context, then perhaps you could make the case that it’s not bigoted.

But you can’t and you shouldn’t view that ad out of the historic context of racism’s attempt to portray black men as especially prone to rape white women.

The creators of the ad may not be extremely racist, but their ad is racist in that it exploits one of the oldest and ugliest stereotypes against black men

No one denies that, win or lose, Harold Ford is making history by running such a competitive campaign for the Senate from the deep south. The Republicans must be aware of this, and, if they were honorable, they would be going out of their way right now to ensure that they don’t win by exploiting racism.

That ad crosses all the wrong lines, and proves the extreme insensitivity, if not the outright racism, of the Republicans running the campaign against Ford.

Shanna said...

I thought the ad was funny, although I don't know how accurate it was (about Ford's positions). I don't see what the big deal is. I'm glad the Republican's have decided to go with funny attack ads this year, as I much prefer them to the grainy film with eerie music most attack ads have. The attack ad on Beebe in Arkansas is in the same vein, and is kind of cute.

Canada needs to get a sense of humor. I must admit I laughed very hard at "they're not busy". Hee.

AllenS said...

Canada needs to get busy, and bring home their own Michael J. Fox, and treat him with Canada's superior health care. Is that funny?

Henry said...

Sure it's a distateful ad. But Edward, get a grip. The Canada joke is the funniest, least "loaded" line in the spot. If you want to hang your suit of grievances on something, go back to the previous thread.

I've been thinking about this ad in context with the Michael J. Fox ad and the garbage I'm getting locally from Sheldon Whitehouse in his race against Lincoln Chafee. In the end, all of this stuff is run-of-the-mill politics. Smears, distortions, and innuendos are to be expected.

What gives the Ford and Fox ads more interest isn't the ads themselves, but the attempt by those targeted to judo a counterattack. In Ford's case by crying racism. In Fox's case by attacking the messenger.

Long ago, New York Senator Al D'Amato had the good fortune to have his opponent call him a fascist. Al took that slur and ran with it. Oh, how offended he was, not just for himself but for every Italian of voting age in New York.

This is politics. Attack, overreach, counterattack.

knoxgirl said...

Canada's superior health care

now THAT'S funny!

Icepick said...

I think everyone is missing the point, including Canada. From the article:

Whatever its intent, the aside is seen in Canada as a suggestion that the country is a free rider when it comes to global security. While Canada did not participate in the invasion of Iraq, it has posted a large portion of its army in Afghanistan as part of NATO forces since 2002.

...

The perceived slight against Canada comes at an awkward time for its minority Conservative government. The recent deaths of Canadian soldiers have prompted criticism of the government’s decision in September to increase its deployment by 500 troops to 2,500.


Okay, 2,000 troops is a "large portion" of its Army? Yikes! My old high school could field an armed force about that large, and most of them would bring their own fire arms without even going back to their lockers.

MadisonMan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MadisonMan said...

When is it sensible to attack an ally? I'm not sure I understand the anti-Canada animus that runs through the comments here.

Canadians should ignore US Political Campaign Ads. Just as United States Citizens (such as Michael J. Fox) should ignore Canadian Political Campaign Ads.

caveat: I've not seen the ad. (Lucky me!)

Pogo said...

Canada free-riding on our military?

Naw. Can't be true.
And isn't self-defence forbidden there anyway?

Madisonman ~ mocking isn't attacking. Minnesota mocks Iowa and Wisconsin, and vice versa. Family can mock each other (in fact, I think it might be required), but only family can do so.

But just touch Canada and watch what happens.

Edward said...

OK, I’ll grant you that the line in the ad about Canada is a teensy-weensy bit funny. I think I may have even let out a small chuckle at that precise moment the first time I saw the ad.

But can’t you see that that the somewhat humorous line about Canada is only in the ad to provide cover (plausible deniability) for the exploitation of lingering racism that occurs at the ad’s end?

Anyone with a conscience should feel dirty for having laughed at the Canada line once the naked white woman appears on the screen.

Shanna said...

once the naked white woman appears on the screen

I think you saw a different commercial than I did.

Shanna said...

But you can’t and you shouldn’t view that ad out of the historic context of racism’s attempt to portray black men as especially prone to rape white women.

I think that bit is like a roarshak (sp?) test. I don't think you can get anything like this out of that ad unless you are looking for it. I honestly did not understand the comments about racism in the ad when I first saw it, even knowing people had complained, until I heard it spelled out.

"I met him at the playboy party" is all the girl said. If your mind goes to rape, that says more about you than it does about the ad.

Balfegor said...

But you can’t and you shouldn’t view that ad out of the historic context of racism’s attempt to portray black men as especially prone to rape white women.

A bit of perspective here -- it's only rape if it's not consensual. If there's any actual racial anxiety being excited here, it's the fear of voluntary miscegenation, not rape.

But I think this is really awfully overblown -- it's like claiming that pointing out that Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman is RACIST RACIST RACIST!!! A RACIST ATTACK!! GRAH! Or something like that. I mean, honestly. Let's be serious here.

But can’t you see that that the somewhat humorous line about Canada is only in the ad to provide cover (plausible deniability) for the exploitation of lingering racism that occurs at the ad’s end?

No. I think you're hyperventilating over nothing.

MadisonMan said...

Ah, so this is good-natured mocking. I'm not sure I could tell.

Incidentally, Wisconsin mocks Iowa and Minnesota because of the latent inferiority of those states west of here. In reality, I think the Minnesota-Iowa rivalry is much greater, as few (no?) states can approach Wisconsin's wonderfulness.

Abraham said...

So Canada takes offense at the insinuation that they are free-riders on global security? I guess the truth hurts, but if they truly find it embarassing, as they ought, perhaps it will spur them to get serious.

Truth be told, though, I think Canada generally enjoys free-riding, even if it does give them an inferiority complex.

Anonymous said...

Dang it, Icepick -- that's just what I was going to point out. You beat me to it.

According to Wiki, Canada has 62,300 active duty troops. So they have about 3% of their troops in Afghanistan.

And Canada has about a third the active troops per thousand population that we do. Their ratio is much lower than in France, Germany, Australia or the UK. It's comparable to South Africa or Japan.

Draw your own conclusions in both cases.

Mike said...

Well, the dig at Canada might be a little late; the new government is coming around to be more supportive of the U.S. But for the last, I don't know, decade, Canada can not be fairly described as an ally. They've been very crritical and unsupportive. That's their right, but it sure doesn't make them an ally.

People forget that there are 3 positions, not 2, that one country can take towards another. On the two ends are ally and enemy. There's the third position in the middle. Call it neutral. Canada has been, to be charitable, neutral.

Anonymous said...

The sketch was conceived when SCTV moved to the CBC television network. Each episode to be broadcast on that network was two minutes longer than those syndicated to the United States. The CBC network heads asked the show's producers to add specifically and identifiably Canadian content for those two minutes. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas thought that this was a ridiculous request, since the show had been taped in Canada, with a mostly Canadian cast and crew, for two years. The request inspired them to create a parody that would incorporate every aspect of the humorous stereotype of Canadians.

Fenrisulven said...

The creators of the ad may not be extremely racist, but their ad is racist in that it exploits one of the oldest and ugliest stereotypes against black men

Thats just so much bull. I see a pretty woman teasing Ford about his appearance at a Playboy party. You see a white woman raising the "spectre" [hah] of inter-racial sex. Who's the biggot?

And Canada is fair game. This is the country that spent millions on a world disaster relief platform, only to realize afterwards that they didn't have the ability airlift it anywhere. I've served along Canadian troops, they're good to go. But Canada's foreign policy can be summed up as "hiding behind America's skirts". Big deal. Get over it.

Pogo said...

MadisonMan,
Since I am not from either MN or WI (or even IA), I feel free to mock them all.

Minnesota: Land of 10,000 regulations. If it's not compulsory, it's forbidden. Etc.

Joan said...

I'm still not buying the "racist" thing. Maybe 20, 30 years ago, yeah, but now? No way. I agree with those who said it was a dig at Ford's churchiness, bringing up the fact that he parties with pretty girls at Playboy-sponsored events.

The Canada line was very funny, followed closely by the hunter's, "He's right, I do have too many guns."

Too Many Jims said...

Who needs allies?

bearbee said...

Canadian Forces in the 21st century

MadisonMan said...

Big deal. Get over it.

To whom is this addressed?

Pogo: Why do all trees on the IA-MN line lean south? Because Iowa sucks (or Minnesota blows, depending on where you live).

JorgXMcKie said...

Q. Why are all the HS football fields in Wisconsis covered with artificial turf?

A. To keep the cheerleaders from grazing.

Ba-da-bing!

From a former FIB.

JorgXMcKie said...

Hmmm. Evidently former FIBs can't spell nor preview.

salvage said...

Ha! Ha! That's so funny!

Guess what? Last time? Canada did take care of North Korea, in fact one of our units was awarded a U.S. Presidential Unit Citation for holding a line against an overwhelming attack. We were there from day one till the end.

And if we go back further while America was having Nazi rallies in Madison Square Garden we were dealing with the Germans invading Poland. I wonder did that make y’all appeasers? And if you’ll note every war we go to ends up being not only righteous but a win. We said no to Vietnam and Iraq, pretty good judgement huh?

We’re goofy that way.

And Bush has done a bang up job in dealing with NK so far, gosh they’ve only had one nuclear test, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! DARN GOOD PROGRESS HECK OF A JOB BUSHIE!

Americans spitting on allies who died for you and are dying in Afghanistan right now. Y’know I have to argue with people everyday about how important Afghanistan is but it’s attitudes like this that make it hard. When people say they don’t like Americans, they’re not talking about Americans in general they’re talking about some of you with your arrogance and hubris.

Icepick said...

And if you’ll note every war we go to ends up being not only righteous but a win.

A win usually AFTER the US shows up. See WWI and WWII.

Actually, you bring up Korea. How, exactly, was that a win?

And how about that judgement to get involved in WWI? Are you claiming that butchery was righteous?

Icepick said...

When people say they don’t like Americans, they’re not talking about Americans in general they’re talking about some of you with your arrogance and hubris.

As opposed to every effing Canadian I've ever dealt with who has told me that every Canadian is better than any American. I rememeber getting into it online with several Canadians on September 12, 2001, and only one of you bastards DIDN'T tell me that you were happy it happened. Out of seven Candains, six were pro-bin Laden and pro-American massacre, and one was completely drunk.

The self-righteousness of Canadians is appalling. How about that great peace-keeping work you did in Rwanda? Great job standing around watching hundreds of thousands of people get hacked to death. Great job of "winning" a "righteous" war.

How about this line:

Americans spitting on allies who died for you and are dying in Afghanistan right now.

You died for us in WWII? No, you died for yourselves or for England. (And you have already accused us of being cowards and Nazi-sympathizers in the same comment, BTW. Is consistency of position too much for Canadians to handle, or are you just a poor example?)

And in WWI we pulled your sorry asses completely out of the fire after you had spent 2+ years participating in the worst battle field butchery in the history of human warfare. What a glorious moment for you! You must be immensely proud to have been so astonishingly stupid and incompetent!

You want to fight in Afghanistan, fine. But you wouldn't even be there if we hadn't given you a lift. Or have you forgotten what lousy air-lift support your own military could provide. How about this: Get out of Afghanistan now. Only, you have to supply the air-lift capacity yourselves.

Derve said...

Icepick, shh. You won't get invited up for the fishing trip.

Icepick said...

Two final points.

And if we go back further while America was having Nazi rallies in Madison Square Garden we were dealing with the Germans invading Poland.

Well, we do have these thingies we like to call "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Assembly", even for Nazi assholes. And I'd like to note what a FINE job you Cannucks did of stopping the Germans in Poland!

Icepick said...

Derve, like a Floridian would want to be ass-deep in snow in July. I'll pass.

Anonymous said...

Another example of Canadian free-riding is in their pharmaceuticals. They pay rock bottom prices while the US pays the profit marging that gets put back into R&D for new life-saving drugs:

When nations (like Canada) impose price controls on pharmaceuticals they free ride off of American drug consumers. The cost of pharmaceuticals can be broken up into the cost of making the actual pills and the expense of researching and testing (to government authorities' satisfaction) the chemical formula behind each pill, and the expenses of advertising the medicine. Price-restricting nations try to set prices that cover only the cost of manufacturing the pills, but exclude the expense of testing and research. As a result, they hope countries like the U.S., which don't yet impose price controls, will pay drug research costs.

Joe said...

Edward, Tennessee is not from "the deep south."

I don't know where the deep south starts but I'd suggest it doesn't cross the northern border of Mississippi or Louisiana.

salvage said...

Icepick your grasp of history is as thin and narrow as your namesake only you have no point.

And if you met any Canadians and if they were hostile it's only because they got to know your ignorance. I've only read three of your posts and it's obvious that you're easy to dislike. Cuz funny, here in Ottawa? There was a candle light vigil that night at the U.S. embassy.

But oh no, what you read on the Internet must be more valid!

Althouse’s true believers, you’re truly a fascinating bunch.

Fenrisulven said...

shrug. My experiences with Canadians after 9-11 was similar to Icepicks. They were cheerleading the terrorists.

There was that one good article by a Canadain [?]. The about how we always run to the aid of the world, but no one bothers when we have our own natural disasters.

Anyways, I think you're taking this too seriously. It was a joke. Americans don't have contempt for Canada. We hardly ever think of her.

BTW, good job busting up that terror ring. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

They were cheerleading the terrorists.

That's as may be but to their national credit Canadians also handled hundreds of airliners that needed to get on the ground somewhere, and they housed thousands of the passengers that were on those jets. There may have been some "you got what you deserved" types, but the normal, majority reaction seems to have been "how can we help."

salvage said...

>They were cheerleading the terrorists.

Who?

Name a name, provide a link. Or was it more “some guy on the Internet”.

And so what? I know Americans who burn crosses on the lawns of black families; do they represent the nation as a whole? I hear there are some Italian Americans in the mafia, guess they must all be criminals.

And it's not a joke when there's a funeral every other week for a Canadian soldier dying in an war that was set in motion by an attack on America (a war that would be going better if you hadn't gone to Iraq and how's that working out for you anyway?) and some hack horks out a cheap shot to that service and sacrifice both past and present.

And if it were a Canadian politician who ran an ad disparaging the U.S. military I’m sure you all would be laughing.

Oh yes, I’m sure you would.

Shanna said...

Salvage, I think you're missing the point a bit.

I think the ad was more trying to portray the dem's, and Ford, as soft on national security, which is a general Rep complaint about the Dem's. I don't know if they had any reason (I don't live in TN), but I don't think this is really about Canada at all, except the joke of "they're not busy". Which, come on. It's a joke. You don't look any busier when you get mad about it :) Why are you in Canada following the TN senate race? I'm surprised no one has mentioned the South Park movie.

I liked the guns one too.

Old Dad said...

I like most of the Canucks that I've met. Granted, most have been provincials. They're like most red state Americans.

The ad is funny, but I can see how it might touch a nerve. I think your typical Canadian would get the joke, and say something like "eff off Yank, let's get a cold one."

And the Candian armed forces have always been terrific fighters. The problem is they've got some mouthy elitist lefties with megaphones. Those phonies are worse than our moonbats, but they don't represent Canada.

Revenant said...

Are we seeing the same ad? Where's the bigotry?

Your guess is as good as mine.

The Mechanical Eye said...

salvage,

You realize your responses confirm a few unfortunate stereotypes...

Mortimer Brezny said...

Salvage is case in point why Stephen Harper made his comments.

Icepick said...

Salvage, of the seven Canadians I knew at the time, six were pro-bin Laden.

As for my grasp of history, it seems deeper than yours, if you think that Canada won a righteous war in Korea, and that Canada won wars without the help of other nations. I assume you've got no answer at all for Canadian troops standing by and doing nothing during the Rwandan genocide. You've been called out on the facts, and you've got nothing to say except a comment on my handle. How worthless.

MadisonMan said...

Icepick, is it your contention that the USA singlehandedly won the conflicts mentioned in this thread? And that the USA deaths were only for USA interests?

I hope you've become acquainted with more Canadians in the past 5+ years, btw. Your sampling way back when was pretty skewed. Why was that?

Mark R. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Icepick said...

Salvage, here's a brief sample of anti-American comments from Canadian leaders.

From Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish: "Damn Americans, I hate the bastards."

and

Following the November U.S. election, she expressed shock at the re-election of George W. Bush. She said that "America is completely out of touch with the rest of the free world" and blamed this on collective "extreme psychological damage" due to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

You could make the claim that she was kicked out of her party, but she had already been elected in the first place, and she didn't get kicked out until after several incidents.

As for how great the Canadians are as allies, there's this story about how a close associate of Paul Martin charged with improving ties with the US got caught on tape talking about wanting to "embarass" the Americans. If that's what you guys consider improving relations, I'd hate to see what you're like when you get warlike. Oh, that's right, you call us to fly you to the conflict.

Of course, Paul Martin ran for re-election on an anti-American platform, so it's hardly surprising that his subordinates would feel the same way.

Somebody's electing these people. If their ideas are not mainstream, how are they winning office?

Chum said...

'Of course, Paul Martin ran for re-election on an anti-American platform, so it's hardly surprising that his subordinates would feel the same way.

Somebody's electing these people. If their ideas are not mainstream, how are they winning office?'

They weren't relected largely because of their comments.

Icepick said...

Icepick, is it your contention that the USA singlehandedly won the conflicts mentioned in this thread? And that the USA deaths were only for USA interests?

No, we didn't singlehandedly win those conflicts. But CANADA sure as hell didn't win them singlehandedly, either. And some aren't wins. (In no way can the Korean War be thought of as a win. A bloody draw, yes; a win, no.)

And yes, American deaths in WWI, WWII, Korea and elswhere have been for (perceived) American interests. Other than our involvement in Somalia, I can't think of any conflicts we've been involved in for charitable purposes. (And you'll note how much support that effort got from the US public. I still think that was a giant "FUCK YOU" from Bush pere to Clinton.) Sometimes it has been in the interests of others as well, but that is incidental.

What truly defines allies are common opponents, not some mushy feel-good rhetoric. We allied with Stalin because the USA and the USSR had common enemies. And once those enemies were destroyed, we were at each others throats for decades. (See above, regarding Korea.) No charity there, and no expectation of quarter, either.

Canada felt it was in their interest to go to war in Afghanistan. Afterall, if they didn't, it might hurt their trade relationship with us, and they would be hard-pressed to make do without our commerce. That's it. That's all.

They felt they had enough cover to avoid going to Iraq (including that they just don't have the capacity, and the lack of UN imprimateur), and so they didn't. That's it. That's all. Friendship or loyalty had nothing to do with either.

Note that when Canadian forces had the opportunity to make a sacrifice for others in Rwanda, they didn't. They stood around and let the slaughter happen lest they get bloodied in the process. You know why? They really had no interest in being there. It was strictly for show. No common enemy, so they didn't fight for the Tutsis. We didn't either, and for the exact same reason.

Icepick said...

How'd they get in office in the first place, Chum? It's not like these were sudden changes for them. They just ramped up the rhetoric a bit.

Chum said...

'How'd they get in office in the first place, Chum? It's not like these were sudden changes for them. They just ramped up the rhetoric a bit.'

Actually you're wrong. No federal govt had made such comments prior to this. They weren't elected 12 years ago based on a platform on anti US sentiments and when the Libs used negative ads during the last election, one of which was anti-US policy (not people) in the last election they were kicked out.

Canadians tend to not vote on emotion but on performance and not based on left or right issues. Canadian politics aren't based on 'party' lines to the same degree they are in the states. There isn't the same left/right division appeal made to voters. Most Canadians vote against/for whoever they're sick of, disgusted with, and past performance, with party preference being low on the list.

Paul Zrimsek said...

They weren't relected largely because of their comments.

This thread has lost its whole raison d'etre then. Bob Corker hasn't even been elected. When he is, it's unlikely to be on account of a throwaway line in a TV spot.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chum said...

'If you want more Canada/America bashing,'

Hell no Theo, but thanks for pointing out the blog. It looks worth the read. It's difficult to find decent and interesting blogs without an obvious political POV/bias. (I scanned post titles so hope I'm correct in my quick assessment)

Joan said...

I second the recommendation on Megan McArdle's blog. She's fascinating and covers a lot of different topics from an economics/kinda libertarian perspective, very thoughtful all around.

Steven said...

Well, Canada is a free rider on the militaries of its NATO allies.

Let's look at the class of all NATO members. The ratio of troops to population (World Almanac 2005 data) in these countries are:

1/254 -- Belgium
1/147 -- Bulgaria
1/622 -- Canada
1/180 -- Czech Republic
1/237 -- Denmark
1/243 -- Estonia
1/233 -- France
1/290 -- Germany
1/60 -- Greece
1/300 -- Hungary
N/ALL -- Iceland
1/290 -- Italy
1/473 -- Latvia
1/284 -- Lithuania
1/514 -- Luxembourg
1/307 -- Netherlands
1/172 -- Norway
1/237 -- Poland
1/234 -- Portugal
1/230 -- Romania
1/247 -- Slovakia
1/307 -- Slovenia
1/267 -- Spain
1/134 -- Turkey
1/283 -- United Kingdom
1/205 -- United States

So, we see, Canada could double the size of its military and it would move from the second-smallest per capita military contingent (ahead of tiny-population Iceland, with no troops at all) to the fourth-smallest, ahead of Latvia and Luxembourg.

Paco Wové said...

I finally got around to seeing the ad in question. Commenter Edward appears to be viewing some other ad -- naked chicks? Where?

Salvage -- I'm surprised that someone can survive in the cold Canadian climate with as thin a skin as you appear to have.

Michael said...

Every Canadian I've ever known (and I've known quite a few), has, to some large degree, been extremely deficient in recognizing irony. They are the most literal minded people. So this reaction is entirely unsurprising.

Revenant said...

I know Americans who burn crosses on the lawns of black families

I really doubt that's true. The odds of you knowing one of the handful of people who still do that are incredibly remote, unless you yourself are one of the few remaining members of the Klan.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
George said...

You can find fair, balanced profiles of both candidates on the front page of today's Chattanooga Times, which is co-owned by The NYT...

http://www.timesfreepress.com/

(Look under "Local.")

As for Ford's legislative accomplishments, the paper only says, "Rep. Ford said he took a role in changing rules governing corporations in the aftermath of the Enron collapse, and he claims to have helped stop President Bush from selling ports to the United Arab Emirates."

Ti-Guy said...

Every Canadian I've ever known (and I've known quite a few), has, to some large degree, been extremely deficient in recognizing irony. They are the most literal minded people. So this reaction is entirely unsurprising.

Bullshit. It's because Americans don't generally know what irony is (ask Ann Althouse. She won't tell you). Most of you confuse (witless) sarcasm with irony. Anyway, what you might think is ironic most Canadians think is stupid, and are too polite to tell you that directly and choose the literal interpretation to...y'know...be civil.

Anyway, you guys say what you want about Canada. No one here is really listening anymore...we're just astounded at how trashy you all seem to have become in the last while.

Unknown said...

Wow as a Proud Canadian I am confused of how ignorant some of the Americans are of how much Canada supported Britain and America in Afghanistan. Actually at one point during the last mission in Afghanistan, A Canadian Officer was leading all of the British and American troops in to battle. So I thin that most of the Canadian haters on this site need to give Canada more credit. And Canada's JTF2 which is better and more conditioned than the navy seals and Delta Force was apart of task force in Iraq and Afghanistan, which helped the Navy Seals, German, and other European and Australian elite units complete difficult counter terrorist missions. Canada should be more respected because if you ask any U.S. Soldier who fought in Afghanistan, he or she would tell you how many times the Canadians saved their ass. And how many times they paid them back for it and worked together as a team. You would be surprised of how much respect your newly elected President has for Stephen Harper and his Country. So yes we are allies. Just because we chose not to help U.S. fight a useless war in Iraq, doesn't mean we aren't your ally. We have the right to use our brains, instead of the triggers or our guns.

Unknown said...

The Iraq War was not just a waste of fucking time, it was unjustified. And any Americans who believe that are well educated on basic common sense. Americans who don't, are fucking morons, which doesn't surprise me since your country is full of them. It's pretty simple, Iraq has shown no threats to American or any other country since the Gulf War, and they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, which was actually warned by Hanz Brix of the UN. But Bush and his band of retards still decided to storm Iraq and kill more innocent civilians than Al-Qaeda did in New York. Yeah, that's right American's you and your pathetic government isn't any better than Al-Qaeda, because you spill innocent blood on foreign soul just to get revenge. Your no better, trigger happy morons. You think that your better than Canada, ha ha I laugh. At least the Canadian Government knows when they should fight, you made a mockery of yourselves and embarrassed your own allies with the Iraq war. Just a very unjustified war than could of been avoided.