Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pouncey wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.

Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.

Yeah, we decided to shed the UK yoke earlier rather than later. For some countries it was much, much later. Ahem, *cough*...

Canada decided to negotiate politically for independence. It was granted without bloodshed.

This year we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canada's founding as an independent country.

If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.

Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.

Actually, our founding fathers knew they were committing treason against the crown and were prepared to pay the price. Many people were executed for treason during the war.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

The Queen of England is a symbolic figurehead. She is our head of state only as a technicality. We don't care about her opinion regarding our politics and we don't even try to find out what it is.

As for what you're referring to 30 years ago, I have no idea what it could possibly be, but I feel comfortable telling you that you have seriously misunderstood something or have been drastically misinformed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.

Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.

Actually, our founding fathers knew they were committing treason against the crown and were prepared to pay the price. Many people were executed for treason during the war.

That's my point.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

Ah, yes, the Canada Act of 1982. Is it really independence if there's an asterisk attached to it.

 Breotan wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

Ah, yes, the Canada Act of 1982. Is it really independence if there's an asterisk attached to it.

Generally we consider our country's birth to have started with the British North America Act in 1867.

 Pouncey wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

The Queen of England is a symbolic figurehead. She is our head of state only as a technicality. We don't care about her opinion regarding our politics and we don't even try to find out what it is.

As for what you're referring to 30 years ago, I have no idea what it could possibly be, but I feel comfortable telling you that you have seriously misunderstood something or have been drastically misinformed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.

Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.

Actually, our founding fathers knew they were committing treason against the crown and were prepared to pay the price. Many people were executed for treason during the war.

That's my point.

I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed and Canada severed the last vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament, that you weren't completely[i] a formally independent nation. Athough you were mostly independent after the 1931 Statute of Westminster passed and British Parliament could no longer make Canadian laws. I think I even read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.

 Breotan wrote:
I'm fully aware of this. What someone decides to call themselves is their own business. That does not mean I am under any obligation to participate.

And this is why people are calling you a transphobic . The only question here is why the mods are content to allow your appalling comments to continue to exist.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed, that you weren't a formally independent nation. I think I read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.

Well, I was born in 1988 and pretty much everything I've heard about Canadian history says that my country was created in 1867 when we got our own federal government.

I am not really interested in the opinions of Americans regarding when my country technically gained independence though.

Can we get back to trash-talking Trump?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'm fully aware of this. What someone decides to call themselves is their own business. That does not mean I am under any obligation to participate.

And this is why people are calling you a transphobic . The only question here is why the mods are content to allow your appalling comments to continue to exist.

Referring to him as "transphobic" isn't likely to get the message across. Many people who are intolerant have come to embrace such words, and there are a few who argue that the term is simply inaccurate due to the literal meaning of the greek or latin word "phobia". Trying to explain that the term "transphobic" does not necessarily imply fear and is simply the common English word to describe people who are prejudiced or bigoted of transgendered people falls on deaf ears even after they admit that there is no other word that could be substituted.

Essentially you're dealing with someone who does not view intolerance and bigotry as bad things.

 Pouncey wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed, that you weren't a formally independent nation. I think I read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.

Well, I was born in 1988 and pretty much everything I've heard about Canadian history says that my country was created in 1867 when we got our own federal government.

I am not really interested in the opinions of Americans regarding when my country technically gained independence though.

Can we get back to trash-talking Trump?

I'm just saying. If another country can make laws in your country, i.e. Great Britain pre-1931, then independence isn't happening.

So, you see, going the decisive and bloody route to nationdom is most effect in removing of all the technicalities!

And don't worry, we've got at least 4 more years to throw darts at Donnie.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed, that you weren't a formally independent nation. I think I read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.

Well, I was born in 1988 and pretty much everything I've heard about Canadian history says that my country was created in 1867 when we got our own federal government.

I am not really interested in the opinions of Americans regarding when my country technically gained independence though.

Can we get back to trash-talking Trump?

I'm just saying. If another country can make laws in your country, i.e. Great Britain pre-1931, then independence isn't happening.

So, you see, going the decisive and bloody route to nationdom is most effect in removing of all the technicalities!

I... really don't care. Also I guess I shouldn't be surprised that an American is advocating war.

And don't worry, we've got at least 4 more years to throw darts at Donnie.

I still think we should send him to Mars and force him to pay for it.

 Pouncey wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed, that you weren't a formally independent nation. I think I read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.

Well, I was born in 1988 and pretty much everything I've heard about Canadian history says that my country was created in 1867 when we got our own federal government.

I am not really interested in the opinions of Americans regarding when my country technically gained independence though.

Can we get back to trash-talking Trump?

I'm just saying. If another country can make laws in your country, i.e. Great Britain pre-1931, then independence isn't happening.

So, you see, going the decisive and bloody route to nationdom is most effect in removing of all the technicalities!

I... really don't care. Also I guess I shouldn't be surprised that an American is advocating war.

And don't worry, we've got at least 4 more years to throw darts at Donnie.

I still think we should send him to Mars and force him to pay for it.

Sorry if the facts I've cited don't jibe with your understanding of your country's history, but they are what they are. Once again, they're just fact, not opinions btw, as you stated earlier.

And yeah, I'm a regular warmonger. What a patently absurd statement.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Yeah, I'm a regular warmonger. What a patently absurd statement.

You literally just finished suggesting that Canada should have had its own war of independence. How is advocating wars not warmongering?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Sorry if the facts I've cited don't jibe with your understanding of your country's history, but they are what they are. Once again, they're just fact, not opinions btw, as you stated earlier.

Was there some part of "I don't care" that was difficult to understand or something?

 Breotan wrote:
Nope. As I said previously, do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I actually said. You do not get to do that.

I simply noted that your attempt to mock Chelsea Manning also mocked everyone else wanting a similar surgery. This doesn't require me putting any words in your mouth, it is a simple piece of logic - if Manning is seen as a eunuch, then so is everyone else who undertakes the same surgery.

It is not possible for you to not understand this. It is a basic function of human conversation. If I was to say 'that is a dog, therefore it must have four legs' it would not be putting words in my mouth for you to conclude that I think dogs have four legs. This is basic stuff.

I don't believe you are actually confused by this. You are feigning confusion in order to avoid owning up to what you posted. That's bad form. Not as bad as mocking someone for transgender surgery, but pretty crappy all the same.

 Pouncey wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Yeah, I'm a regular warmonger. What a patently absurd statement.

You literally just finished suggesting that Canada should have had its own war of independence. How is advocating wars not warmongering?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Sorry if the facts I've cited don't jibe with your understanding of your country's history, but they are what they are. Once again, they're just fact, not opinions btw, as you stated earlier.

Was there some part of "I don't care" that was difficult to understand or something?

Sorry, falling back on "I don't care" when confronted with facts to the contrary of one of your positions, or statements, just goes to undermine your posting on these boards. Don't go there.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

Ah, yes, the Canada Act of 1982. Is it really independence if there's an asterisk attached to it.

Generally we consider our country's birth to have started with the British North America Act in 1867.

My Canadian friend, take no notice of these damn rebels belittling the proud achievements of Canada.

You gave us John Candy, Dan Aykroyd, you successfully repelled two American invasions, and have a military record that only the Mongols can match.

And something about ham and maple syrup.

I've always found Canadians to be decent, honourable, sophisticated, and possessed of decorum and good manners.

I like America, but I've always seen Canada as the older, more sophisticated brother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.

My Australian friend, take no notice of these damn Yankee rebels.

I'm not going to say that Australians are like the Canadians,

But you gave us Neighbours and Home and Away, and Crocodile Dundee

You're all right

Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.

Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Nope. As I said previously, do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I actually said. You do not get to do that.

I simply noted that your attempt to mock Chelsea Manning also mocked everyone else wanting a similar surgery. This doesn't require me putting any words in your mouth, it is a simple piece of logic - if Manning is seen as a eunuch, then so is everyone else who undertakes the same surgery.

It is not possible for you to not understand this. It is a basic function of human conversation. If I was to say 'that is a dog, therefore it must have four legs' it would not be putting words in my mouth for you to conclude that I think dogs have four legs. This is basic stuff.

I don't believe you are actually confused by this. You are feigning confusion in order to avoid owning up to what you posted. That's bad form. Not as bad as mocking someone for transgender surgery, but pretty crappy all the same.

I think you're misunderstanding his viewpoint.

To him, he's not doing anything wrong. Because he believes that transgendered people are immoral and deserve to be mocked. He doesn't care to understand the reality, because his moral values dictate to him that transgendered people are doing something very, very wrong that should not be condoned by society. Probably his belief system insists that a deity individually crafted every person individually, thus everyone is born as they were meant to be, and any alteration made to the body is a violation of his deity's will.

He also feels perfectly comfortable with enforcing his personal morals on others, regardless of their opinions, because he believes that as the majority religion in his region, his belief system should be made law and enforced on the rest of society.

Personally, I derive great satisfaction from describing my own belief system and hearing comments like, "Wow. It's weird to hear that Satanism is much more tolerant and accepting than Christianity is."

Generally Christians don't follow the teachings of Jesus at all. If they did, well, they'd probably find themselves more at home following Satanism because it would be more in line with their values and morals.

 sebster wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.

Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.

Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.

The Arrogant Worms have an entertaining song about the War of 1812.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVC677-YmfM

Crappy video, but the important part is the song.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.

Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.

It was Empire in name only for nations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. They were de facto independent.

Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But you gave us Neighbours and Home and Away, and Crocodile Dundee

You're all right

And Steve Irwin.

One of humanity's finest. It's an utter shame how some people reacted to his death.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.

Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.

Is this whole Canadian backlash because we just beat you at the World Junior Hockey Championship? It is, isn't it!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.

Newfoundland's Blue Puttees are rather famous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knxR-Q2VoBE

Our troops occasionally had a fearsome reputation. I'm not a military expert by any means, but I like to think of Canada as a friendly, peace-loving country that's tough to get to fight a war, but like all democracies, once you convince the people that war is necessary, well, they become a fearsome opponent since the people are behind the war, not just the rulers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.

Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.

Is this whole Canadian backlash because we just beat you at the World Junior Hockey Championship? It is, isn't it!

I prefer to remember that time when our women's hockey teams squared off at the Olympics with a score of 40-something for the Canadians and low single digits for the Americans.

We usually win a couple years in a row, then lose to either the Swiss, Russians or Americans.

Nothing new. Just means they will be cast adrift, doomed to forever roam the hudsons bay on a sheet of ice.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.

Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.

It was Empire in name only for nations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. They were de facto independent.

Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.

As I pointed out earlier, it wasn't until the -30's that Britain ceased to be able to make Canadian laws and that's not a sign of independence. Also, I think you're underestimating the power of that "Empire in name only..." bit. In 1914- Canadian Prime Minister Borden declares war, pledging Canada's support to "The Empire".

 BigWaaagh wrote:
As I pointed out earlier, it wasn't until the -30's that Britain ceased to be able to make Canadian laws and that's not a sign of independence. Also, I think you're underestimating the power of that "Empire in name only..." bit. In 1914- Canadian Prime Minister Borden declares war, pledging Canada's support to "The Empire".

Yup, because that's a thing an independent country does. Declare war on their own and pledge to support one of their allies who is being attacked.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.

Newfoundland's Blue Puttees are rather famous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knxR-Q2VoBE

Our troops occasionally had a fearsome reputation. I'm not a military expert by any means, but I like to think of Canada as a friendly, peace-loving country that's tough to get to fight a war, but like all democracies, once you convince the people that war is necessary, well, they become a fearsome opponent since the people are behind the war, not just the rulers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.

Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.

Is this whole Canadian backlash because we just beat you at the World Junior Hockey Championship? It is, isn't it!

I prefer to remember that time when our women's hockey teams squared off at the Olympics with a score of 40-something for the Canadians and low single digits for the Americans.

1812 wasn't it? Anyways, that trend is changing, we beat ourselves in Sochi.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
1812 wasn't it? Anyways, that trend is changing, we beat ourselves in Sochi.

No, it was in the 21st century. I know that because I remember watching the game on TV.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?

It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.

Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.

It was Empire in name only for nations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. They were de facto independent.

Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.

As I pointed out earlier, it wasn't until the -30's that Britain ceased to be able to make Canadian laws and that's not a sign of independence. Also, I think you're underestimating the power of that "Empire in name only..." bit. In 1914- Canadian Prime Minister Borden declares war, pledging Canada's support to "The Empire".

In both world wars, the USA pledged support to the British Empire, obviously because they were allies, but that didn't make the USA part of the Empire.