So a Real American Woman goes to Quebec. As anyone who's gone up there knows, the Quebeckis (oh, lookit! I made a new word!) often insist on speaking French even when they know their audience won't understand. So what does Real American Woman do?

She responds in German:

Kein mehr Franzoesisch! Sonst werden wir Ihre Provinz besiegen und die franzoesische Sprache mit Deutsch ersetzen, weil Deutsch die Sprache der Meisterrasse ist.

Which, as freetranslation.com tells us, means:

No more French! Otherwise we will overcome your province and replace the French language with German because German is the language of the master race.

Of course, on being emailed the above story, I had to immediately propose to Real American Woman.

Tiens! un nouveau mot! : gros câlisse de tabarnac de mongole! Va te faire mettre par un câlisse d'orignal en châleur mon esti! même la tabarnac de screw de française qui se rase pas! a comprendra rien! mange un chiare de marde pis va te crosser avec ta mère gros tata de câlisse.

Perhaps we shouldn't draw the Quebecois into the whole anti-French argument... :) I personally am enjoying all the French-bashing, being an American currently living in France, it does me good, as they say.

But the Quebecois speak 'Quebecois', really, and don't insist on the French language out of some misguided allegiance to France. The Quebecois speak a different French than the French in France and are very VERY North-Americanized, so I'm for letting them enjoy their little language games and not including them in any of the bashing going on.

OK. So they call root beer 'racinette'. The French won't even let root beer come across the borders to be sold in stores. Vive le Quebec!

Valerie

Hi there racists! How ridiculous can this get? What's this whole "Pave France"-thing? Did you lose all your brains while voting for "president" (or should I say "leader") Bush? The "commander in chief" should actually be in The Hague, especially after accusing Syria of having weapons of mass destruction while still not having proven that Saddam had any of this kind. Guys, think about it - the USA are not the leaders of the world nor are your people any better than any others in the world. I would love it if some of you guys could finally start working on your own problems ia your high rate of gun-murders or teen pregnancy. Anyhow - has anyone of you actually been to France for a longer time? I think not because otherwise you would have realized that the French are a really nice to hang out with. Greetings from Old Europe (not France in this case)!

Hey Pete,

You have de-railed.

"the USA are not the leaders of the world nor are your people any better than any others in the world. I would love itif some of you guys could finally start working on your own problems ia your high rate of gun-murders or teen pregnancy"

What the hell are you talking about? Leaders of the world? We aren't leaders of anything, we're just one country who actually bothers to try and do good in the world, unlike a certain continent i know.
As for our own problems, if teen pregnancy is the worst thing happening in our country, then i'd say we're doing pretty good. Again unlike a certain continent i know, who's worst problems are raging anti-semetism, unemployment, government corruption, incapable military, inferior production methods, unreasonable government restrictions on the economy, and of course, letting france decide whats best for you.
We aren't racist, though. We don't have ghettos for our muslim population, and we don't have jews being beaten and branded on the street just for being jewish. We also dont desecrate the graves of our liberators. So continue through life with your blinders on, as your country descends into 3rd world nation status, while you complain about teen pregnancy in the U.S..

I love to hear from lusers who bemoan our "high rate of gun-murders" - as if to suggest that the whole problem would go away if only more of us would start killing each other through other methods.

Sigh..tsk tsk tsk, Pete your an idiot.
I will give you a book title which I want you to read and then tell me about the history of the United States and her people, because you are obviously and obsecenly ignorant of it,
John Adams by David McCullough,
then read,
Truman by the same author.
Read
When Character was King, by Peggy Noonan.
The Greatest Generation edited by (ugh) Tom Brokaw.
Then read as a contrast:
Explaining Hitler by Ron Rosenbaum.
While its not about France it is about a European problem and history. You know the stuff our grandparents and ancestors left behind when they left Europe and came here. It has become apparent to many of us that yes Darwinism has struck and that the weak, physically incapable and chromosomically challenged have taken over Europe while the stronger people came here and florished.

Let's be honest: None of your remarks below have any power to convince anyone that I'm wrong. I just want to let you know that I have lived in the US for some time and I have come to like your country and people very much. The only thing I really don't understand is when some few Americans start pages like "Pave France". No European I know would come along and start "Pave Alabama" or something like that. And to you, Cozmogirl, you seem to be the idiot: You recommend to read some books on American history only to tell me that Americans are the better humans anyhow and only the mentally disabled stayed behind here in Europe. Really, get your head checked - you're being a little bit of a neo-facist here, right. It's just that what I was criticising in my first post. And only so that no one is getting a wrong impression: I love Americans and your country - its just the very few wacky people supporting this page that I detest. Thanks and good night, Pete.

Pete, do you see the irony when you insult people for posting on a website, by posting on their website? Probably not.

Goodnight Pete.

Thanks for the advice but if you're really all that smart then please tell me where I should post comments like that. I mean you've got to tell the people if something they do is bothering you. I don't see to much irony right there.

Well Pete, let me explain something to you.

When you publicly denounce an action, but still engage in it, that is called hypocrisy. For example, when France agreed to the economic sanctions against Iraq, but then routinely violated those sanctions, thats hypocrisy. When France signed resolution 1441 in the UN, but then refused military action against Iraq when they failed to comply with that resolution, that is also hypocrisy. Similarly, writing a post on a website about how stupid it is to post on that particular website, is also hypocrisy. It is also amusing, and that amusement stems from what is called irony...the fact that in order to denounce the activity that you dislike, you have to engage in that activity, is ironic, as well as hypocritical. The fact that you need me to explain it to you is also ironic; it lends to the belief that your actions are so often hypocritical that you don't even realize it anymore. So based on this information, we can assume that you are

1. French
2. Educated, but stupid
3. poorly informed
4. Unrealistic

Of course, you will deny all of these things, aside from your french heritage. This is the final irony, because out of those 4 characteristics, being french is by far the worst. It must be hard to be Pete.

Dear Collins,

I have to set some things straight here: You assumed me being

1. French
2. Educated, but stupid
3. poorly informed
4. Unrealistic

First of all I'm not French, I'm German. There's your first ironic situation: Everywhere you go in Europe you hear that Germans don't like the French and vice versa. But it's not true! Most Germans like their neighbors to the west very much (well, except for when it comes to soccer). Second of all, I consider myself far from stupid. I'm not saying I'm the smartest person around but I'm actually wondering why you are teaching me about all of those resolutions in a very fair manner only to come back calling me "stupid". Let's proceed to number 3: Since WW2, Germany has developed a media-system in which you can choose from a variety of different daily newspapers and weekly political magazines not seen anywhere else in the world. I only know one country I've been to so far that can compare itself to Germany in this point and that would be France. And last of all: What makes you think I'm unrealistic? I'm just afraid that some of the actions that are being taken in the world right now will put us in a situation we don't want to be in. I'm not saying we should ignore the problems of countries opressed by their leaders but should react to that in a smart way. Something I don't consider all too smart is impending Syria while Iraq was not under full control. The lack of any proof that there are weapsons of mass destruction doesn't make it any better. Anyway, I believe that the UN should be the only instituion in power to decide if war is the only solution. What else do we need those guys at the East river for if not that?

Alright Pete, it seems your not a troll, as I originally thought(you see that, its called admitting when your wrong, your government should try it sometime). So ill be fair and answer you respectfully, as you have done for me.

Now you may like your french neighbors, but history tells us that Germany and france dont get along very well. And your right about your media system, since world war II it has developed quite impressively, although i disagree that france can compete as a large portion of their media is state sponsored(not the majority of course, but a large portion none the less). But you must also realize that the german media is based on the American media, which is, in turn, based on the British media. So while germany does indeed have a well rounded media, it only got that way from mimicing the media system in the United States, who copied the British system, and improved upon it in some ways.

The reason i think your unrealistic is because you consider teen pregnancy and a high rate of gun murders to be as serious as the economic and racial problems going on in france and Germany right now. Sure teenagers are getting pregnant in the US, they have been for years. 16 was the average age for a girl to get married up until about 75 years ago; you must take things in perspective. As for gun murder rates; people are going to kill each other. Guns, knives, big rocks, it doesn't matter; its just a tool. But I personally, if i am to be murdered, would prefer to be shot and die quickly, then to be slowly bludgeoned to death with a large rock. But those are relatively minor problems when compared to, say, jews being assaulted and branded in broad daylight in france, or 10% of the population out of work. Another reason your unrealistic is this statement:

"I believe that the UN should be the only instituion in power to decide if war is the only solution"
The decision to make war rests solely in the hands of a nation's government. It always has, and it always will; and the UN will be damned if it tries to interfere with that. Every independent state has the right to use military force if it desires to do so; it does not need the approval of outside countries. If that approval is required, than the country is no longer independent; its ability to defend itself and its interests lie in the hands of foreigners...in the 1700s, that was called "colonization". Just because today they call it "multilateralism" doesn't mean that the concept has changed. If America bombed Germany tomorrow, and germany went to the UN to approve going to war with America, but America vetoed the resolution, do you really beleive the german government would say "okay fine" and take no action? You would be foolish to think so. But thats what you expect them to do when you say the UN is the only place where war can be decided on, and its very unrealistic.

Dear Collins, thank you for your reply. I really prefer "talking" to people in this way. I also admit I have used some inappropriate terms in the first place. Even though I don't agree with every single point you made, you are pretty right about most things, especially when it comes to the German government. Mr Schröder has made the biggest mistake by using the war in Iraq as a way to get more voters in the september 2002 elections. He used this to gain popularity especially among voters in former East Germany. By saying that, no matter what, he would not participate in the war in Iraq he showed the world his inability to make proficient decisions in terms of foreign affairs. Well, actually he isn't all too successful in making the right decisions within Germany either. I'm not sure if Mr Stoiber, Schröder's opponent in last years elections, would have been more effective in solving problems. At least he never let himself go to use this war to gain popularity. A war is a far too serious situation than to be "used" in this manner. Collins, let us cease this debate. I think we still have some differences in opinion but sometimes this is even more productive winthin a democracy. I feel we should try to strenghten the ties between Europe and the USA again. Take care, Pete

All of yall need to shut up. We are all gonna die so lets make the best of it and get along.