From: c291042@cs.UAlberta.CA (David Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: History of North America Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:50:13 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:


>I know you are, but what am I?

Well you were the one who started the labelling, chum!!

>> I will concede the the 1812/1823 mix-up but that is all!!

>Dave, you didn't even get your Canadian history straight.  You
>attributed the liberal policies of British rule in Quebec to Lord
>Durham, who visited in 1839, when in fact these policies were granted
>under the Quebec Act of 1774.  Your posts are filled with egregious
>errors like this; it just doesn't seem worth it to point them all out.

Let's put it this way then.  Canada is more open and more friendly than the USA is
anyday.  Case and point, your articles.

>Furthermore, why should a Canadian be so bent out of shape about the
>Monroe Doctrine anyway?  England _wanted_ the U.S. to issue a similar
>statement _with_ them to keep the Russians at bay in Alaska and the
>Spaniards out of the newly independent countries that had recently
>gained their independence from Spain.  Only after Secretary of State
>John Q. Adams derided a joint statement as ``America acting as a
>skiff behind the British man-of-war'' (or words to that effect) did
>President Monroe issue an independent policy.  Nevertheless, the
>spirit of this policy was in Canada's interest.

 More likeley in the US's interest hoping that one day, Canada and the whole of the
 COntenient would bow down to Washington as the Capital of Contential America.

>>   Maybe you should take your own advice.  You manage to shot yourself in the foot 
>>   and contradict yourself badly.  You did indeed made the case for the Republicans
>>   quite nicley.  Next time, in  a serious debate, make SURE you cannot be rebuffed.
>>   
>>   I wish i could say Have a Nice Day, but I doubt you will.

>My comments did not include arguments for or against Republicans (or
>republics).  This is just too incoherent for further comment.  Wait!
>-- perhaps the doctor can illuminate this discussion:

 Either that, or you are some close reletive of Dan Qualye's.  BTW, who's 
 your accomplice joker?
 By the Way, give us a report at your Party's Upcoming Convention.
>              --------------------------------
>I am the psychotherapist.  Please, describe your problems.  Each time
>you are finished talking, type RET twice.

>> Laugh all you can Mr. Smith.

>Why do you say laugh all I can mr smith?

  Talk about skipping details!!

>> We are a happy mosaic, which not only encourages Europeans, but as
>> well Asians, Africans and Carribeans to keep their language and
>> culture intact!

>Do you get happy often?

  Case and point: the USA is such a Metling Pot that it has  NO idea of what a
  cultural Mosaic is.  What did you have for breakfast Steve, exlax?

>> That is more I can say about a country that give its miniorites "race
>> rights" in the 1960's compared to a country north of it already had
>> given many of its minorities the same rights when it was still a
>> colony.

>Is it because is more you can say about a country that give its
>miniorites race rights in the 1960's compared to a country north of it
>already had given many of its minorities the same rights when it was
>still a colony that you came to me?

>> Not very nice for a Melting Pot.

>Is this how you relax?

 Go ahead, leave out important details, see if we care!!  This person is  
 from the same country that recently gave us the L.A. riots.  Now, I see why.
  

>              --------------------------------

>Hmmm . . . she isn't doing much better than I am. The GNU Emacs
>command `psychoanalyze-pinhead' yields more coherent results.

Nice try clown: you skip details, you leave out information, no wonder your
super-duper psychots can't do anything right!  BTW did you modernize bedtime with
Bonzo?
>Steven Smith
Newsgroups: can.politics