From: smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
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 16:42:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: minerva.SMITH.92Aug12114210
	<SMITH.92Aug10122030@gramian.harvard.edu> <c291042.713542395@gsb003>
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

c291042@cs.UAlberta.CA (David Yadallee) writes:

> smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
> >As loathe as I am to enter into rational debate with apparently
> >irrational fanatics, I am sorely tempted here.
> 
> This seems typical of the USA: labellers, esp. anyone who does NOT
> agrre with them!!

I know you are, but what am I?

> 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.

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.

>   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:

              --------------------------------
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?

> 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?

> 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?

              --------------------------------

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

Steven Smith
Newsgroups: can.politics