# What is this thing about "Blame it on Canada"?



## 777

I am from Finland and I am perplexed by the statement "Blame it on Canada".  What is the origin of that?  Is it a joke or an insult?

Also, why is there anti-Canadian sentiment in the USA?  

Thank you


----------



## Hobbit

The "Blame Canada" joke started with a song in the South Park movie, where the U.S. blames Canada for kids using profanity, since two particularly childish and vulgar comedians the kids like are from Canada, and that's where they learned the profanity.

The anti-Canadian sentiment from the U.S.A. stems from the anti-U.S. sentiment from Canada.  The Canadian media is very anti-American and 40% of Canadian teens would describe the U.S. as "evil."  They hate us, and we're beginning to get tired of their bullcrap, so we return the sentiment.


----------



## Comrade

777 said:
			
		

> I am from Finland and I am perplexed by the statement "Blame it on Canada".  What is the origin of that?  Is it a joke or an insult?
> 
> Also, why is there anti-Canadian sentiment in the USA?
> 
> Thank you



South Park - The Movie

"Blame Canada" one of the songs.


This is considered funny because of Canada's insignificance in the world and insofar as America itself it concerned.  Canada is generally affected by the USA and rarely vice-versa.

In that same respect, there is little serious anti-Canadian sentiment at all in America, simply by way of it's total lack of real impact on the USA.

But, there is a fundamental and very serious anti-American feeling among many Canadians due to their own position in the relationship.  While I understand this completely, it's not like I as an American find such feelings rational.


----------



## 777

Why is Canada so anti-American?


----------



## Comrade

777 said:
			
		

> Why is Canada so anti-American?




For the same reason most of Europe is also so.  Impotence.


----------



## Doomer

actual Anti-Americanism is fairly rare in Canada. For the most part Canadians are anti-Bush. Unfortunatly the "Vocal Minority" (aka loud mouth board trolls) give average Canadians a bad name.

   As for that poll. I would really like to see the actual poll that was made. It's really easy to scew(sp) a poll one way or another.

eg poll. Do you feel americans are :good
                                              : a little evil
                                              : moderately evil
                                              : very evil

  that poll is exaggerated  but you get the idea.

Also where was the poll taken? it's commonly known that anti-americanism is highest in Quebec. but a large portion of Quebec is Anti-Canada too.

On a person to person basis most Canadians and Americans get along fine (as long as politics don't enter into the conversation).

  I'd say the biggest hit to American-Canadian relations though is a combination of Jean Cretien and George W. Bush.  (they really didn't get along at all and IMO both of them are not very good diplomats. Diplomacy is very important when two people don't like each other.

As for the blame Canada thing. It is mostly just a south park joke.

I could go on and on with the events that contributed diminishing to American-Canadians relations since the Brian Mulroney - Ronald Reagan Years. (when relations were at an all time high). But that would a lot of time.

Sufficed to say Canadian-American relations are not as simplistic as many would have you believe when they try to sum it up in a one line answer.


----------



## Comrade

Doomer said:
			
		

> actual Anti-Americanism is fairly rare in Canada. For the most part Canadians are anti-Bush. Unfortunatly the "Vocal Minority" (aka loud mouth board trolls) give average Canadians a bad name.
> 
> As for that poll. I would really like to see the actual poll that was made. It's really easy to scew(sp) a poll one way or another.
> 
> eg poll. Do you feel americans are :good
> : a little evil
> : moderately evil
> : very evil
> 
> that poll is exaggerated  but you get the idea.
> 
> Also where was the poll taken? it's commonly known that anti-americanism is highest in Quebec. but a large portion of Quebec is Anti-Canada too.
> 
> On a person to person basis most Canadians and Americans get along fine (as long as politics don't enter into the conversation).
> 
> I'd say the biggest hit to American-Canadian relations though is a combination of Jean Cretien and George W. Bush.  (they really didn't get along at all and IMO both of them are not very good diplomats. Diplomacy is very important when two people don't like each other.
> 
> As for the blame Canada thing. It is mostly just a south park joke.
> 
> I could go on and on with the events that contributed diminishing to American-Canadians relations since the Brian Mulroney - Ronald Reagan Years. (when relations were at an all time high). But that would a lot of time.
> 
> Sufficed to say Canadian-American relations are not as simplistic as many would have you believe when they try to sum it up in a one line answer.



The question asked of Canadian youth was whether *America* was evil, not whether Bush was.

While I don't see those 40% as a rational sign of true ignorance, what it does indicate is the fact that Canadian media is portraying that image to it's people.  The results of this poll of the youth are clearly a sign of the effect Canada's recent anti-American media campaign on those who are most easily influenced by it.

In addition, many of us on this board have been in direct contact with Canadians via the Internet through various venues on the Internet, and it's no secret how much and how many simply despise us for who we are, as a nation.

I'm personally at a loss for what they intend to affect in America with such irrational attitudes.  Given they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by opposing US policy internationally, I'm hoping reason will win out in the end, despite the damage they have done to their own up and coming generation and their perception of America.


----------



## Doomer

I Answered you by saying that polls should be taken with a "Grain of salt" becuase they can be easily scewed. I also mentioned fact about what area of Canada had the most anti-Americanism (Quebec) and questioned where the poll was taken.
  Reading a poll without questioning when, where, and how the poll was taken is acting blindly.

   I also mentioned the fact that the loudest people are usually in the minority. (trust me I see plenty of Americans pass through Canadian forums who act the same way some Canadians act on American Forums. It doesn't make me think that most americans are like that.

As for the youth. Well, they're just youth. They'll grow up, become wiser and more educated. I know that my views are much different now then they were 15 years ago.  You need to remember that most youth are loud mouthed, irrational people, who believe they are invincible, and know everything. Thats why they're youth, and thats why they're not allowed to drink, join the army, or vote.

Also you seem to make it sound like our media has nothing better to do then bash Americans. For the most part our media spends it time on Canadian issues with the odd American issue thrown in here and there, and even most of that is Canadian-American Relations or Foreign policy which causes a ripple effect across the border.


----------



## Comrade

Doomer said:
			
		

> I Answered you by saying that polls should be taken with a "Grain of salt" becuase they can be easily scewed. I also mentioned fact about what area of Canada had the most anti-Americanism (Quebec) and questioned where the poll was taken.
> Reading a poll without questioning when, where, and how the poll was taken is acting blindly.


http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/weinreb063004.htm

"Can West News Services, owners of several Canadian newspapers including the National Post as well as the Global Television Network commissioned a series of polls to determine how young people feel about the issues that were facing the countrys voters. Dubbed "Youth Vote 2004", the polls, sponsored by the Dominion Institute and Navigator Ltd. were taken with a view to getting more young people involved in the political process.

In one telephone poll of teens between the ages of 14 and 18, over 40 per cent of the respondents described the United States as being "evil". That number rose to 64 per cent for French Canadian youth."

This addresses your question directly, does it not?



> I also mentioned the fact that the loudest people are usually in the minority. (trust me I see plenty of Americans pass through Canadian forums who act the same way some Canadians act on American Forums. It doesn't make me think that most americans are like that.



Perhaps "loud" is not the most unique aspect of internet users.  In fact, the word I would ascribe to most is "educated".  Most internet users, especially those who debate online, are among the most learned of their respective population.



> As for the youth. Well, they're just youth. They'll grow up, become wiser and more educated. I know that my views are much different now then they were 15 years ago.  You need to remember that most youth are loud mouthed, irrational people, who believe they are invincible, and know everything. Thats why they're youth, and thats why they're not allowed to drink, join the army, or vote.



Sure, but the youth are also the most easily manipulated.  And of late the media of Canada leans so far left that it's not hard to see their perceptions a result of this hard core anti-American bias in that media.



> Also you seem to make it sound like our media has nothing better to do then bash Americans. For the most part our media spends it time on Canadian issues with the odd American issue thrown in here and there, and even most of that is Canadian-American Relations or Foreign policy which causes a ripple effect across the border.



Well I've been in Canada and stuck with Canadian programming for days on end, since before and after the Iraq war.  In both cases the bias against and fixation of Bush and American policy was glaringly obvious to me, in your local news.  I'm sure you might believe this be a product of our own "radically biased" media but then again there is always the net results of the polls which reflect the insane idea that America is now "evil" to almost half of the youth in Canada.  I can't get over how this is supposed to make any sense in a country with rational debate and true balance in their media.


----------



## Merlin1047

777 said:
			
		

> Why is Canada so anti-American?



I don't think that Canada is anti-American.  I believe that Quebec is anti-American because they are pro-French and the French are anti-American because they long to be the big dog on the European block and think they can do so by posturing against American interests.

Ever since that pompous windbag De Gaulle came to Quebec and had the damn nerve to bellow about a French Quebec, that part of Canada has been a pain in the ass not only to the US, but to the rest of Canada as well.


----------



## Annie

I think that the US and Canadian relations, at least from the US side, is more on the order of how many get along with a very close cousin, perhaps one that lived on the same block, while growing up. Almost, but not quite a sibling. You and they might say terrible things to each other, but each knows to some extent it's the closeness of the relationship that makes it possible. 

Fighting, verbal that is, might be pretty intense, certainly more intense than the much older cousin one thinks so beautiful, handsome, or smart, but sees only at one holiday a year! The 'oh so perfect cousin' holds a position of being a model or an ideal one would like to emulate. 

If some event happens that shakes the foundation of the family, the close cousin sniping at you might piss you off, but you expect it. If the 'perfect, but rather distant cousin' does something similar, one's tendency might be to have the scales lifted from their eyes, see the ugliness previously hidden or denied, and vow to not only stay away from them, but know they never belonged on the pedestal they believed they deserved and that you put them on in the first place. 

With the passing of the crisis, the close cousin and you return to normal relations. Not so the distant cousin.


----------



## Comrade

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I think that the US and Canadian relations, at least from the US side, is more on the order of how many get along with a very close cousin, perhaps one that lived on the same block, while growing up. Almost, but not quite a sibling. You and they might say terrible things to each other, but each knows to some extent it's the closeness of the relationship that makes it possible.
> 
> Fighting, verbal that is, might be pretty intense, certainly more intense than the much older cousin one thinks so beautiful, handsome, or smart, but sees only at one holiday a year! The 'oh so perfect cousin' holds a position of being a model or an ideal one would like to emulate.
> 
> If some event happens that shakes the foundation of the family, the close cousin sniping at you might piss you off, but you expect it. If the 'perfect, but rather distant cousin' does something similar, one's tendency might be to have the scales lifted from their eyes, see the ugliness previously hidden or denied, and vow to not only stay away from them, but know they never belonged on the pedestal they believed they deserved and that you put them on in the first place.
> 
> With the passing of the crisis, the close cousin and you return to normal relations. Not so the distant cousin.



An interesting comparison from the height of the Cold War, which polled Americans soon after Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech about how they viewed the USSR.

http://www.danyankelovich.com/americasnewthinking.html

"The Soviet Union is like Hitler's Germany -- an evil empire trying to rule the world." 

Agree:  56% 

May 1984
Public Agenda
Foundation 

While Canada may not be close to this figure yet, I'd gather France and perhaps even others in Europe are already surpassing this statistic.  No Arab or Asian country would post lower than 56% overall, in my opinion.  In fact the latest polls seem to indicate that the upper 80% of the population among most of the world is inclined to agree with this statement.

Anti-Americanism is a very nasty thing these days.   What are we supposed to do about it.    :huh:


----------



## dilloduck

I would suggest we assist other countries to improve the quality of life of thier own citizens. No more-no less.


----------



## Comrade

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I would suggest we assist other countries to improve the quality of life of thier own citizens. No more-no less.




But that seems to be what makes us evil in the eyes of our allies, doesn't it?


----------



## Hobbit

Doomer said:
			
		

> actual Anti-Americanism is fairly rare in Canada. For the most part Canadians are anti-Bush. Unfortunatly the "Vocal Minority" (aka loud mouth board trolls) give average Canadians a bad name.
> 
> As for that poll. I would really like to see the actual poll that was made. It's really easy to scew(sp) a poll one way or another.
> 
> eg poll. Do you feel americans are :good
> : a little evil
> : moderately evil
> : very evil
> 
> that poll is exaggerated  but you get the idea.
> 
> Also where was the poll taken? it's commonly known that anti-americanism is highest in Quebec. but a large portion of Quebec is Anti-Canada too.
> 
> On a person to person basis most Canadians and Americans get along fine (as long as politics don't enter into the conversation).
> 
> I'd say the biggest hit to American-Canadian relations though is a combination of Jean Cretien and George W. Bush.  (they really didn't get along at all and IMO both of them are not very good diplomats. Diplomacy is very important when two people don't like each other.
> 
> As for the blame Canada thing. It is mostly just a south park joke.
> 
> I could go on and on with the events that contributed diminishing to American-Canadians relations since the Brian Mulroney - Ronald Reagan Years. (when relations were at an all time high). But that would a lot of time.
> 
> Sufficed to say Canadian-American relations are not as simplistic as many would have you believe when they try to sum it up in a one line answer.



It was a Gallup (I think) poll I got off of Bill O'Reilly's "Radio Factor."  Bear in mind that this particular poll was taken of teenagers.  The point was how the media propoganda was affecting the younger generation.  They had seperate stats for French Canadians (e.g. Quebec) and the number rose to 64%.  If you go to billoreilly.com under "current column," he talks about this.


----------



## Comrade

Hobbit said:
			
		

> It was a Gallup (I think) poll I got off of Bill O'Reilly's "Radio Factor."  Bear in mind that this particular poll was taken of teenagers.  The point was how the media propoganda was affecting the younger generation.  They had seperate stats for French Canadians (e.g. Quebec) and the number rose to 64%.  If you go to billoreilly.com under "current column," he talks about this.



"Can West News Services, owners of several Canadian newspapers including the National Post as well as the Global Television Network commissioned a series of polls to determine how young people feel about the issues that were facing the countrys voters."

Don't let 'em chalk it up to a conservative source when you don't have to.


----------



## Said1

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> I don't think that Canada is anti-American.  I believe that Quebec is anti-American because they are pro-French and the French are anti-American because they long to be the big dog on the European block and think they can do so by posturing against American interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quebecers are pro-French only to the extent of having an independant Quebec. They consider themselves different from Europeans, and would like to have their own nation-state. They are anti-Canadian, anti-American, and anti-European. Not that all Quebecers feel this way, but that is sort of what the seperatist movement is all about.
Click to expand...


----------



## Yurt

Doomer said:
			
		

> I'd say the biggest hit to American-Canadian relations though is a combination of Jean Cretien and George W. Bush.  (they really didn't get along at all and IMO both of them are not very good diplomats. Diplomacy is very important when two people don't like each other.



I concur entirely.  My better half is Canadian, and I love Canada.  Majority of people are really friendly (BC only experience).  Her dad does not agree with the "cowboy" ways of Bush.  However, when I talk with him, he readily admits, that our two great country's (and they are both great, and don't bash because of silly political differences, we are not talking east/west), relationship would be better except for Cretien.  He may not agree with all Bush's policies, but he readily agrees that Cretien has created tensions that do NOT need to exist.  

Also, on some level, he understands our reasoning for war, especially, (lives on vancouver island) he hears the facts from someone outside of BC.  

Please,  DO NOT EVER, put down Canadians (West of Quebec, believe it or not, the rest of Canada cannot stand having french on one side of the breakfast cereal), unless you know some personally.  If you do not, then do not put them down because of their goverment.  My better half's brother would (in CAN military) and could, easily destroy terrorists.  Canada is our greatest ally, so long as quebec shuts UP!


----------



## softwaremama

Canada is incredibly beautiful and so much of it is unspoiled. But I have to admit I've experienced anti-Americanism from Canadians. And not just in Quebec. Sorry but: they can't stand us, are you kidding? 

The Canadians I know in the maritime provinces resent the size and power of the U.S. They come to the U.S. to shop and go to ball games and theaters, but criticize us for not being socialistic and "caring". They seem mired in the gov't taking care of them. People there are often on what they call "The Pokey" (welfare or unemployment of some kind, it would seem, available to those out of work?). 

Canadians seem to take extended vacations--for weeks and weeks--very odd. I mean, what companies pay you to do that? Uh, nobody who wants to make money, that's for sure. Rank out and out competitive captialism and entrepreneurial thinking seem to upset them. They are incredulous that there are those who have two weeks' vacation.

It's a perplexing place, not like the U.S. Hey, Kathianne, if they're cousins, they're very distant ones who happen (most of them) to speak English. It's a beautiful, strange, and it's the Twilight Zone. That's been my experience.


----------



## Doomer

softwaremama said:
			
		

> Canada is incredibly beautiful and so much of it is unspoiled. But I have to admit I've experienced anti-Americanism from Canadians. And not just in Quebec. Sorry but: they can't stand us, are you kidding?
> 
> The Canadians I know in the maritime provinces resent the size and power of the U.S. They come to the U.S. to shop and go to ball games and theaters, but criticize us for not being socialistic and "caring". They seem mired in the gov't taking care of them. People there are often on what they call "The Pokey" (welfare or unemployment of some kind, it would seem, available to those out of work?).
> 
> Canadians seem to take extended vacations--for weeks and weeks--very odd. I mean, what companies pay you to do that? Uh, nobody who wants to make money, that's for sure. Rank out and out competitive captialism and entrepreneurial thinking seem to upset them. They are incredulous that there are those who have two weeks' vacation.
> 
> It's a perplexing place, not like the U.S. Hey, Kathianne, if they're cousins, they're very distant ones who happen (most of them) to speak English. It's a beautiful, strange, and it's the Twilight Zone. That's been my experience.



Not the Pokey.    Pogey.  And to most of Canada, especially out west, easterners are considered "defeatists". Also I think some of you seem to forget that Canada, like America, has many different viewpoints. The east is different from Quebec, which is different from Ontario, which is different from the west. This is partly why the different regions of Canada tend to bicker a lot between each other. To really fully understand this, you need to understand our history and politics. But to make it simple. The farther west you go, the less anti-americanism there is.


----------



## Said1

softwaremama said:
			
		

> Canada is incredibly beautiful and so much of it is unspoiled. But I have to admit I've experienced anti-Americanism from Canadians. And not just in Quebec. Sorry but: they can't stand us, are you kidding?
> 
> The Canadians I know in the maritime provinces resent the size and power of the U.S. They come to the U.S. to shop and go to ball games and theaters, but criticize us for not being socialistic and "caring". They seem mired in the gov't taking care of them. People there are often on what they call "The Pokey" (welfare or unemployment of some kind, it would seem, available to those out of work?).
> 
> Canadians seem to take extended vacations--for weeks and weeks--very odd. I mean, what companies pay you to do that? Uh, nobody who wants to make money, that's for sure. Rank out and out competitive captialism and entrepreneurial thinking seem to upset them. They are incredulous that there are those who have two weeks' vacation.
> 
> It's a perplexing place, not like the U.S. Hey, Kathianne, if they're cousins, they're very distant ones who happen (most of them) to speak English. It's a beautiful, strange, and it's the Twilight Zone. That's been my experience.



Do, do, do, do, do. To say that all Canadians resent American's for the reasons you stated are silly generalizations. This may be the case with the few Canadian's you know, but it doesn't represent all of us. Doomer is right about the west, it's one of the best places to visit in the country, and their views are very different from ours in the east. I've lived all over Canada, and know this first hand.

Sometimes the reactions people get are also in direct to respone of the attitude shown to them - no one likes to be criticized, especially  at the game. :baby:


----------



## dilloduck

I lived in Minnesota for 10 years and loved out annual vacations into Canada. People were great and so was fishing. I live in Texas now and need a Canadian to explain the "reputation" of some Canadian truck drivers. What is it with those rascals?


----------



## Said1

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I lived in Minnesota for 10 years and loved out annual vacations into Canada. People were great and so was fishing. I live in Texas now and need a Canadian to explain the "reputation" of some Canadian truck drivers. What is it with those rascals?



My ex has driven transport for 18 yrs.....I know what his problem is :happy2: As for the others, you'll need to be more specific - what reputaion?


----------



## dilloduck

Said1 said:
			
		

> My ex has driven transport for 18 yrs.....I know what his problem is :happy2: As for the others, you'll need to be more specific - what reputaion?



I keep hearing about the wild "newfie"(i think) drivers. Women drinking etc?


----------



## Said1

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I keep hearing about the wild "newfie"(i think) drivers. Women drinking etc?



Wild Newfies hahaha!   Newfies can be a wild bunch, not all, but some.   I am AMAZED some of the people my ex has worked for haven't killed anyone or themselves. Not all truckers are like that, but I'm sure (and Jeff would probably agree) there are many who have played with their own lives and the lives of others.


----------



## dilloduck

Said1 said:
			
		

> Wild Newfies hahaha!   Newfies can be a wild bunch, not all, but some.   I am AMAZED some of the people my ex has worked for haven't killed anyone or themselves. Not all truckers are like that, but I'm sure (and Jeff would probably agree) there are many who have played with their own lives and the lives of others.



And the ones that bring hookers with em for extra bucks---now there's a great idea !!!!!


----------



## Said1

dilloduck said:
			
		

> And the ones that bring hookers with em for extra bucks---now there's a great idea !!!!!



Never heard of that, although I would doubt Canadians are the only ones guilty of running hookers up and down the highway.


----------



## dilloduck

no doubt---thanks to NAFTA we now have mexicans driving around with everything imagineable.  Scary!


----------



## Said1

dilloduck said:
			
		

> no doubt---thanks to NAFTA we now have mexicans driving around with everything imagineable.  Scary!



It's an industry in need of major reform. There are people going up and down the highway here (as well as there to be sure) in all sorts of unimaginable trucks. Not to mention what they are doing in those things. Nothing stopping 4 people (usually non-Canadians) from running one truck 24hrs a day, some don't even stop to take a leak.


----------



## softwaremama

Doomer said:
			
		

> Not the Pokey.    Pogey.  And to most of Canada, especially out west, easterners are considered "defeatists". Also I think some of you seem to forget that Canada, like America, has many different viewpoints. The east is different from Quebec, which is different from Ontario, which is different from the west. This is partly why the different regions of Canada tend to bicker a lot between each other. To really fully understand this, you need to understand our history and politics. But to make it simple. The farther west you go, the less anti-americanism there is.



Doomer, This makes sense. I've only been to western Canada once and it was for a business trip. Everybody I know there is from Nova Scotia or nearby. Trust me, they really don't like Americans. It gets ugly. All a tourist/visitor can do is go on his or her experience, and that's mine. 

Pogey? How did it ever get a name like that? Never thought to ask.


----------



## greeneyez1029

Nice to see the truth being spoken for a change... 





			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> Merlin1047 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that Canada is anti-American.  I believe that Quebec is anti-American because they are pro-French and the French are anti-American because they long to be the big dog on the European block and think they can do so by posturing against American interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quebecers are pro-French only to the extent of having an independant Quebec. They consider themselves different from Europeans, and would like to have their own nation-state. They are anti-Canadian, anti-American, and anti-European. Not that all Quebecers feel this way, but that is sort of what the seperatist movement is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> Nice to see the truth being spoken for a change...



Good, you've now met Said. You will probably relate well with Doomer too! Issac is great, just a bit to the left-for an American, not Canadian. Then there is Mr. Marbles....


----------



## MrMarbles

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Good, you've now met Said. You will probably relate well with Doomer too! Issac is great, just a bit to the left-for an American, not Canadian. Then there is Mr. Marbles....



Whao, whao, whao. What are you trying to say? It better not be along the lines of radical communist. I'm only pro communist. lol.


----------



## Annie

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Whao, whao, whao. What are you trying to say? It better not be along the lines of radical communist. I'm only pro communist. lol.




 That's what I meant! How about 'committed socialist'? (and no, not THAT kind of 'committed'.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Good, you've now met Said. You will probably relate well with Doomer too! Issac is great, just a bit to the left-for an American, not Canadian. Then there is Mr. Marbles....



Haha it would seem our ENTIRE nation is a bit too "left" for most Americans.


----------



## Annie

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Haha it would seem our ENTIRE nation is a bit too "left" for most Americans.



You've got a point!


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Haha it would seem our ENTIRE nation is a bit too "left" for most Americans.



Who you calling a lefty? :cof: You're probably right Isaak, even the most hardline conservatives in Canada would only be moderates by USA's comparison.


----------



## MrMarbles

Kathianne said:
			
		

> That's what I meant! How about 'committed socialist'? (and no, not THAT kind of 'committed'.



Hhmmm commited socialist...... I'm left, i vote NDP, and actually mean it! But actual socialist, depends on you r definition.


----------



## Annie

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Hhmmm commited socialist...... I'm left, i vote NDP, and actually mean it! But actual socialist, depends on you r definition.



hey whatever your own lable, fine with me! From what you've written, I do not see an anarchist or problem for my country.


----------



## greeneyez1029

How are you this evening Kathianne? Thanks for familiarizing me with some of the others. 


			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Good, you've now met Said. You will probably relate well with Doomer too! Issac is great, just a bit to the left-for an American, not Canadian. Then there is Mr. Marbles....


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> How are you this evening Kathianne? Thanks for familiarizing me with some of the others.


\

I'm good, and yourself?   

I think they've all put in their appearances. Nice group, wish we had more Canadians, all are much more polite than us Americans. We can't help it, it's in our nature!


----------



## greeneyez1029

I'm excellent, thanks for asking..Something to be said for politeness, just not for being a doormat...


			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> \
> 
> I'm good, and yourself?
> 
> I think they've all put in their appearances. Nice group, wish we had more Canadians, all are much more polite than us Americans. We can't help it, it's in our nature!


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> I'm excellent, thanks for asking..Something to be said for politeness, just not for being a doormat...



Agreed! I think as a general rule, we're just a bit questioning of everything and anything, makes us seem aggressive!  :tng:


----------



## greeneyez1029

Here in Canada we call questioning anything, a hate crime...





			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Agreed! I think as a general rule, we're just a bit questioning of everything and anything, makes us seem aggressive!  :tng:


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> Here in Canada we call questioning anything, a hate crime...




That's kinda how it appears to me. Seems that many don't go along with many of the pc stuff, but don't do anything, just accept it. Same things would run into very different response here. Funny, two cultures, so close.


----------



## greeneyez1029

Just goes to show how far to the left the North has gone.. 


			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> That's kinda how it appears to me. Seems that many don't go along with many of the pc stuff, but don't do anything, just accept it. Same things would run into very different response here. Funny, two cultures, so close.


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> Just goes to show how far to the left the North has gone..



Have you thought of coming down here? You sound kinda like me in the teacher's lounge!  :shocked:


----------



## greeneyez1029

Actually to be honest I have thought about it...I'm fed up with terrorism up here dressed up in multiculturalism...Disgraceful what Canada is turning into...Think I'm bad you should hear my mother...She leans heavier to the right than I do..Makes me look tame..





			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Have you thought of coming down here? You sound kinda like me in the teacher's lounge!  :shocked:


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> Actually to be honest I have thought about it...I'm fed up with terrorism up here dressed up in multiculturalism...Disgraceful what Canada is turning into...Think I'm bad you should hear my mother...She leans heavier to the right than I do..Makes me look tame..



Well you would be welcomed! No doubt of that.


----------



## greeneyez1029

Thanks, never know might see me posting from your side of the boarder one day...


			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Well you would be welcomed! No doubt of that.


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> Thanks, never know might see me posting from your side of the boarder one day...



You will feel at home! I can tell.


----------



## greeneyez1029

I'll say this much I like this message board much more than Yahoo's, ugh... 


			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> You will feel at home! I can tell.


----------



## greeneyez1029

Home is where you make it and heading south might be where I go to make it...So thank you for the welcome...





			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> You will feel at home! I can tell.


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> Home is where you make it and heading south might be where I go to make it...So thank you for the welcome...



You're Welcome! And thanks for the kudos for our country!


----------



## greeneyez1029

I think I'm going to have fun on these boards..Definately my kind of place... :funnyface 





			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> You're Welcome! And thanks for the kudos for our country!


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> I think I'm going to have fun on these boards..Definately my kind of place... :funnyface



Yes, thank god that school starts soon! Hours of fun, now better get those 'summer projects' going!


----------



## greeneyez1029

I've already spent the summer redoing my apt, working and going to school. I am ready for my kiddies to go back to school so I can have a rest...


			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Yes, thank god that school starts soon! Hours of fun, now better get those 'summer projects' going!


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> I've already spent the summer redoing my apt, working and going to school. I am ready for my kiddies to go back to school so I can have a rest...



What are you going to school for? I'm working on my master's, 1/2 through now.


----------



## greeneyez1029

I'm taking a few law courses working towards Law clerk. 1/4 done..Well done, keep up the good work... 


			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> What are you going to school for? I'm working on my master's, 1/2 through now.


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> I'm taking a few law courses working towards Law clerk. 1/4 done..Well done, keep up the good work...



Dittos back! Sounds like an interesting position. Would you get to do research and such?


----------



## greeneyez1029

I hope so. my mom says arguing was my calling in life..


			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Dittos back! Sounds like an interesting position. Would you get to do research and such?


----------



## Annie

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> I hope so. my mom says arguing was my calling in life..




Sounds like me! Ok, move here to Chicagoland and we'll rule the world!  :shocked:


----------



## greeneyez1029

Sounds good!!! It would be a mass exodus of Liberals, I love it!!!!





			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Sounds like me! Ok, move here to Chicagoland and we'll rule the world!  :shocked:


----------



## Said1

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> Actually to be honest I have thought about it...I'm fed up with terrorism up here dressed up in multiculturalism...Disgraceful what Canada is turning into...Think I'm bad you should hear my mother...She leans heavier to the right than I do..Makes me look tame..



I'm all for multiculturalism in Canada when it comes to art, food, and understanding customs. What I don't like and can't excuse is incorporating religious laws to suite their needs. Haven't Canadian's learned anything from appeasing the French? (I'm sorry Isaak, but I couldn't help myself....I'll do it for you.   )


----------



## MrMarbles

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> Actually to be honest I have thought about it...I'm fed up with terrorism up here dressed up in multiculturalism...Disgraceful what Canada is turning into...Think I'm bad you should hear my mother...She leans heavier to the right than I do..Makes me look tame..



What are you talking about? What part of Canada are you from?


----------



## Said1

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? What part of Canada are you from?



You have to be careful when you go to China Town....one never knows.....  :rotflmao:


----------



## Isaac Brock

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> Actually to be honest I have thought about it...I'm fed up with terrorism up here dressed up in multiculturalism...Disgraceful what Canada is turning into...Think I'm bad you should hear my mother...She leans heavier to the right than I do..Makes me look tame..



Terrorism dressed up as multiculturalism?  Hardly.  Canadian multiculturalism is the backbone of our country.  Were Canada to forgo it, we might as well just join the United States, as the cultural and societal differences between would be too little for any of our citizens to know it.

Inr reality it works remarkably well.  We have nowhere near the ethnic tensions of other countries.  Our minorities generally add to the Canadian economy filling in both high tech, academic jobs as well as low end positions.  The wide variety of different backgrounds improves has become the fabric of our culture including culinary traditions, entertainment and art.  While no system is perfect, I've seen the alternatives and, frankly, they're somewhat un-Canadian.

I ask you what would Canada be without people like David Suzuki, Michael Odaatje, Portia White and countless others?  Or without the Kensington and Grandville Market?  Or the Chinese restaurant that is in almost every small town that followed the CN/CP rail?  Or the Filipino nurses that represent a significant portion of our medical profession?

I don't wish my point to come across to you with a chip on my shoulder, but the Canada in which you describe, doesn't seem to me like Canada at all.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> I'm all for multiculturalism in Canada when it comes to art, food, and understanding customs. What I don't like and can't excuse is incorporating religious laws to suite their needs. Haven't Canadian's learned anything from appeasing the French? (I'm sorry Isaak, but I couldn't help myself....I'll do it for you.   )



Canada should be a secular country pure a simple.  That Sharia law will get struck down so fast if a case is ever elevated to the supreme court (which according to an Ontario Justice memo, it is).

As for the French question, that has little to do with culture and a lot to do with politics and history.  Who knows what will even come of that.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Terrorism dressed up as multiculturalism?  Hardly.  Canadian multiculturalism is the backbone of our country.  Were Canada to forgo it, we might as well just join the United States, as the cultural and societal differences between would be too little for any of our citizens to know it.


Is defining yourselves as something "other than" america worth the future cost of allowing western freedoms and ideals to be subverted from within your own borders?


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Is defining yourselves as something "other than" america worth the future cost of allowing western freedoms and ideals to be subverted from within your own borders?



My western freedoms and ideals are not being subverted within my own country.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> My western freedoms and ideals are not being subverted within my own country.




Stick a finger in the air.  I think you'll agree the chill winds of communism are blowing.


----------



## Isaac Brock

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Stick a finger in the air.  I think you'll agree the chill winds of communism are blowing.



Seems to me to be about 25 degrees Celcius with a slightly Northerly wind and I believe I can smell the Tim Horton's nearby.  Mmm socialist donuts!


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Canada should be a secular country pure a simple.  That Sharia law will get struck down so fast if a case is ever elevated to the supreme court (which according to an Ontario Justice memo, it is).



That is my feeling too, although the fact that it still an option for Muslim people upsets me a great deal.




			
				Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> As for the French question, that has little to do with culture and a lot to do with politics and history.  Who knows what will even come of that.



Although I am aware of this, I was speaking in terms of appeasment towards certain groups, such as bill 101.  I guess what I'm trying to say is "give an inch, take a mile".


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Seems to me to be about 25 degrees Celcius with a slightly Northerly wind and I believe I can smell the Tim Horton's nearby.  Mmm socialist donuts!



You mean "mmmm socialist donuts and COFFEE".  :funnyface


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> Although I am aware of this, I was speaking in terms of appeasment towards certain groups, such as bill 101.  I guess what I'm trying to say is "give an inch, take a mile".



Yeah I think i see what you mean. I think all of Canada agrees that the relationship between Quebec and Canada is a great big mess.  They're like the middle child gone bad politically.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> You mean "mmmm socialist donuts and COFFEE".  :funnyface



Correction!  You mean, that I mean "mmm social donuts and a Double-Double!"   :tng:


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Correction!  You mean, that I mean "mmm social donuts and a Double-Double!"   :tng:



Oops, my bad - how could I forget the cream and sugar?


----------



## MrMarbles

I'm surprised. I've got nothing to say.

Ya Canada!

Tim's rule, Robins sucks!


----------



## Said1

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> I'm surprised. I've got nothing to say.




 :happy2:


----------



## Isaac Brock

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> I'm surprised. I've got nothing to say.
> 
> Ya Canada!
> 
> Tim's rule, Robins sucks!


 
:shocked:


----------



## greeneyez1029

I agree, when the U.S. takes another hit from the extremists (God forbid), I myself wouldn't be shocked to hear they entered the states through Canada to begin with, we are putting the nations safety to the side for the sake of being politically correct. 


			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Is defining yourselves as something "other than" america worth the future cost of allowing western freedoms and ideals to be subverted from within your own borders?


----------



## greeneyez1029

Ontario, home of the politically correct.





			
				MrMarbles said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? What part of Canada are you from?


----------



## Isaac Brock

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> I agree, when the U.S. takes another hit from the extremists (God forbid), I myself wouldn't be shocked to hear they entered the states through Canada to begin with, we are putting the nations safety to the side for the sake of being politically correct.



How is Canada's security being compromised by adopting multiculturalism?  

It would seem to me that a multi-ethnic population where no one group feels oppressed would be preferential from a stability point of view, to one where an ethnic minority feels oppressed.  I don't think I've ever heard of a happy terrorist.  

Security does not occur by selecting which ethnic group should be allowed in Canada, security occurs with stronger port of entry and border controls, intelligence spending as well as increased immigration background screening.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> I agree, when the U.S. takes another hit from the extremists (God forbid), I myself wouldn't be shocked to hear they entered the states through Canada to begin with, we are putting the nations safety to the side for the sake of being politically correct.




Yes.  Welcome to the board greeneyez1029.  I had been wondering if there were any reasonable canadians.  My faith is restored!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> How is Canada's security being compromised by adopting multiculturalism?


Multiculturalism says Muslims at the airport should not receive more scrutiny than white natives.  They call it profiling and make it a crime.  Any nitwit knows if you were serious about fighting terror you would profile.


> It would seem to me that a multi-ethnic population where no one group feels oppressed would be preferential from a stability point of view, to one where an ethnic minority feels oppressed.  I don't think I've ever heard of a happy terrorist.


That "feeling" of being oppressed is too subjective.  People are hypersensitized to being offended, by the pc movement as a matter of fact.  People are taught by libs to feel offended at the very mention of or sight of ideas or symbols deemed politically undesirable.  It's crappy liberalism, socialist thought control, groupthink, it's doubleplusungood.


----------



## greeneyez1029

Speaking as a grandaughter of Italian immigrants, I agree it's a good thing in many ways, however extremists that are gaining entry to this country are abusing what it was meant for, and out of political correctness we are giving far too much access to this country, and not enough focus is going into our own security, and that lack of effort is exactly what these extremists count on when operating within a terrorist cell..





			
				Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Terrorism dressed up as multiculturalism?  Hardly.  Canadian multiculturalism is the backbone of our country.  Were Canada to forgo it, we might as well just join the United States, as the cultural and societal differences between would be too little for any of our citizens to know it.
> 
> Inr reality it works remarkably well.  We have nowhere near the ethnic tensions of other countries.  Our minorities generally add to the Canadian economy filling in both high tech, academic jobs as well as low end positions.  The wide variety of different backgrounds improves has become the fabric of our culture including culinary traditions, entertainment and art.  While no system is perfect, I've seen the alternatives and, frankly, they're somewhat un-Canadian.
> 
> I ask you what would Canada be without people like David Suzuki, Michael Odaatje, Portia White and countless others?  Or without the Kensington and Grandville Market?  Or the Chinese restaurant that is in almost every small town that followed the CN/CP rail?  Or the Filipino nurses that represent a significant portion of our medical profession?
> 
> I don't wish my point to come across to you with a chip on my shoulder, but the Canada in which you describe, doesn't seem to me like Canada at all.


----------



## greeneyez1029

No, security occurs when we question who it is asking for access to our country.
A happy terrorist is an undisturbed terrorist....





			
				Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> How is Canada's security being compromised by adopting multiculturalism?
> 
> It would seem to me that a multi-ethnic population where no one group feels oppressed would be preferential from a stability point of view, to one where an ethnic minority feels oppressed.  I don't think I've ever heard of a happy terrorist.
> 
> Security does not occur by selecting which ethnic group should be allowed in Canada, security occurs with stronger port of entry and border controls, intelligence spending as well as increased immigration background screening.


----------



## greeneyez1029

Thank you, I am not saying to throw Muslims clean out of Canada, I just feel more effort should be made to flush the ones that mean us and our neighbors harm out. Why wait for another 9/11 to occur? Everyone knows it's coming it's just a matter of  when.





			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yes.  Welcome to the board greeneyez1029.  I had been wondering if there were any reasonable canadians.  My faith is restored!


----------



## greeneyez1029

I agree , we are allow their rights to supercede our national safety, and that is wrong on all levels. There are moderate Muslims that live here and live in peace, questioning ones coming into the country for our safety benefits them as well. 





			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Multiculturalism says Muslims at the airport should not receive more scrutiny than white natives.  They call it profiling and make it a crime.  Any nitwit knows if you were serious about fighting terror you would profile.
> 
> That "feeling" of being oppressed is too subjective.  People are hypersensitized to being offended, by the pc movement as a matter of fact.  People are taught by libs to feel offended at the very mention of or sight of ideas or symbols deemed politically undesirable.  It's crappy liberalism, socialist thought control, groupthink, it's doubleplusungood.


----------



## Said1

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> I agree , we are allow their rights to supercede our national safety, and that is wrong on all levels. There are moderate Muslims that live here and live in peace, questioning ones coming into the country for our safety benefits them as well.



I think muslims are under more scrutiny and racial profiling than most Canadians would be willing to admit.  This is a largely unpublicized fact which seems to scare people for some reason.  Canadians tend to be afraid of offending people,leaving them able to pull the race card out when given the opportunity. 

We are far to compliant towards certain groups living within the country, especially since their sole purpose seems to be in establishing themselves, then isolate themselves from Canadian society. In doing this we are literally letting them have their cake and eat it too. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for the Arars of the world, but I live 5 min away from the Peace Tower, I could be killed by flying depris.


----------



## MrMarbles

> Multiculturalism says Muslims at the airport should not receive more scrutiny than white natives. They call it profiling and make it a crime. Any nitwit knows if you were serious about fighting terror you would profile.



If Canada was to seriously adopt profiling, i don't think we would have much room for the average 'gun totting' American.



> That "feeling" of being oppressed is too subjective. People are hypersensitized to being offended, by the pc movement as a matter of fact. People are taught by libs to feel offended at the very mention of or sight of ideas or symbols deemed politically undesirable. It's crappy liberalism, socialist thought control, groupthink, it's doubleplusungood.



You always have a way of jumping from one thread to another with this same crap. We've argued it blue in two other threads already, and everytime, you leave to start it again in another one. I'm going to find you RWA, you can run, but you can't hide.

Greeneyes,

Mulitculturalism, is Canada's strongest ideal. It is what makes us great. To clamp down on immigration, and profile a certain group of the population out would be against everything our nation stands for. I'm all for security but we don't need deny access to our country in order to be secure. We keep being told that we are a safe haven for terrorists, but i've never really seen any evidence of that, just speculation. To deny our roots, and future is wrong, why change because the big guy down there says we should?


----------



## greeneyez1029

I agree with you, there is a difference between politeness and submission.





			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> I think muslims are under more scrutiny and racial profiling than most Canadians would be willing to admit.  This is a largely unpublicized fact which seems to scare people for some reason.  Canadians tend to be afraid of offending people,leaving them able to pull the race card out when given the opportunity.
> 
> We are far to compliant towards certain groups living within the country, especially since their sole purpose seems to be in establishing themselves, then isolate themselves from Canadian society. In doing this we are literally letting them have their cake and eat it too. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for the Arars of the world, but I live 5 min away from the Peace Tower, I could be killed by flying depris.


----------



## greeneyez1029

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> If Canada was to seriously adopt profiling, i don't think we would have much room for the average 'gun totting' American.
> 
> 
> 
> You always have a way of jumping from one thread to another with this same crap. We've argued it blue in two other threads already, and everytime, you leave to start it again in another one. I'm going to find you RWA, you can run, but you can't hide.
> 
> Greeneyes,
> 
> Mulitculturalism, is Canada's strongest ideal. It is what makes us great. To clamp down on immigration, and profile a certain group of the population out would be against everything our nation stands for. I'm all for security but we don't need deny access to our country in order to be secure. We keep being told that we are a safe haven for terrorists, but i've never really seen any evidence of that, just speculation. To deny our roots, and future is wrong, why change because the big guy down there says we should?


 I did not say to deny, don't twist my words please. What I said was that people looking to gain entry to this country need to be scrutinized about who they are and what their business is in this country, if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about. If I was travelling abroad, they certainly want to know who I am, and what my business is in their country.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> If Canada was to seriously adopt profiling, i don't think we would have much room for the average 'gun totting' American.


You cannot contain your antiamericanism, can you?


> You always have a way of jumping from one thread to another with this same crap. We've argued it blue in two other threads already, and everytime, you leave to start it again in another one. I'm going to find you RWA, you can run, but you can't hide.


Please don't threaten me.


> Greeneyes,
> 
> Mulitculturalism, is Canada's strongest ideal. It is what makes us great.


Isaak already admitted that defining yourself against america is the primary reason you feel socialism should be your main goal.  Otherwise you'd "might as well become americans" or however he said it.  And yes, multiculturalism is a thin sheath over an attempt to erode values which stand in the way of implementing socialism.


> To clamp down on immigration, and profile a certain group of the population out would be against everything our nation stands for. I'm all for security but we don't need deny access to our country in order to be secure. We keep being told that we are a safe haven for terrorists, but i've never really seen any evidence of that, just speculation. To deny our roots, and future is wrong, why change because the big guy down there says we should?



I know it hurts to see your countryman succumb to powers of reason and logic.  You should try it.  We're talking about profiling, not complete exclusion.  To pretend muslims with foreign names shouldn't be give a more thorough look is idiocy.


----------



## MrMarbles

> You cannot contain your antiamericanism, can you?



We are talking about profiling. You want to profile people because of their skin, and country of origin. Ok, then we will do that. Most handguns on Canadin streets, and involved with crime are from the States. So in order to protect our citizens we will stop, and scrutinize the 'group' of people that are most likely to bring their guns to Canada, white Americans. Ya profiling!



> Please don't threaten me.



You just have ways of abruptly ending your arguments, only to try and re-start them on different threads, whats up with that?



> Isaak already admitted that defining yourself against america is the primary reason you feel socialism should be your main goal. Otherwise you'd "might as well become americans" or however he said it. And yes, multiculturalism is a thin sheath over an attempt to erode values which stand in the way of implementing socialism.



This is what he said. 



> Terrorism dressed up as multiculturalism? Hardly. Canadian multiculturalism is the backbone of our country. Were Canada to forgo it, we might as well just join the United States, as the cultural and societal differences between would be too little for any of our citizens to know it.
Click to expand...


Multiculturalism is the main difference between US and Canada. Our socialist values are not implemented in order to define ourselves form you. They're implemented because this is what we believe in, and this is what works. It is a way of telling an American from Canadian. But thats not why we do it, it being the right thing to do is the reason why we do it.




> I know it hurts to see your countryman succumb to powers of reason and logic. You should try it. We're talking about profiling, not complete exclusion. To pretend muslims with foreign names shouldn't be give a more thorough look is idiocy.



Again, why stop at Muslims, why not protect ourselves from all evils. Profile those most likely to bring harm to us, white Americans.



> I did not say to deny, don't twist my words please. What I said was that people looking to gain entry to this country need to be scrutinized about who they are and what their business is in this country, if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about. If I was travelling abroad, they certainly want to know who I am, and what my business is in their country.



Ok. Um... Sounds all right to me. But again, scrutinize everyone, because you don't have to be Muslim to be a jerk.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> We are talking about profiling. You want to profile people because of their skin, and country of origin. Ok, then we will do that. Most handguns on Canadin streets, and involved with crime are from the States. So in order to protect our citizens we will stop, and scrutinize the 'group' of people that are most likely to bring their guns to Canada, white Americans. Ya profiling!


That's simply a crime problem, not an active attempt to destabilize the state as terrorism is.  Therefore, it does not warrant profiling.


> You just have ways of abruptly ending your arguments, only to try and re-start them on different threads, whats up with that?


That abrupt ending you feel is called losing, get used to it.  Me "restarting them on other threads" is also known as me whipping other liberals.


> This is what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> _Isaac Said_
> Were Canada to forgo it, we might as well just join the United States, as the cultural and societal differences between would be too little for any of our citizens to know it.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an identity issue to me.  It's citing the main reason to support "multiculturalism" is simply to be different.  That's a not a good reason to adopt a genocide producing system like socialism.


> Multiculturalism is the main difference between US and Canada. Our socialist values are not implemented in order to define ourselves form you. They're implemented because this is what we believe in, and this is what works. It is a way of telling an American from Canadian. But thats not why we do it, it being the right thing to do is the reason why we do it.


It's not right because it stifles innovation, decouples reward from effort and eventually ruins markets, and leads to genocide.


> Again, why stop at Muslims, why not protect ourselves from all evils. Profile those most likely to bring harm to us, white Americans.


If you really feel that's best.  


> Ok. Um... Sounds all right to me. But again, scrutinize everyone, because you don't have to be Muslim to be a jerk.



Yet, and still, the biggest threat to world stability is Jihad motivated terrorism.


----------



## MrMarbles

> That's simply a crime problem, not an active attempt to destabilize the state as terrorism is. Therefore, it does not warrant profiling.



Or you just don't like it if it were to happen to you.



> That abrupt ending you feel is called losing, get used to it. Me "restarting them on other threads" is also known as me whipping other liberals.



Right, okay there. You do realize that you never really answer questions or reply to ones in which a personally state examples of how liberal ideals work. You just go on another thread and start again, and the cycle begins again.



> Sounds like an identity issue to me. It's citing the main reason to support "multiculturalism" is simply to be different. That's a not a good reason to adopt a genocide producing system like socialism.



Canada has an identity problem, no kidding. Nothing new there. It's not to be different, it's to be us. It works, its great. Try it sometime. And if we were to tally up the amount of dead, killed by their own gov't, your precious neo-con country will way out weigh ours.   



> It's not right because it stifles innovation, decouples reward from effort and eventually ruins markets, and leads to genocide.



How? Wait i already heard it all. And your wrong. Again, look north, and to europe, liberal ideals help all.



> Yet, and still, the biggest threat to world stability is Jihad motivated terrorism.



Or maybe the largest owner of WMD's, and the only one that has and is ready and willing to use them again. Any guess's who?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Or you just don't like it if it were to happen to you.


It's simply unwarranted, considering there is no overtly stated, state sponsored movement on the part of white americans to destroy canada.


> Right, okay there. You do realize that you never really answer questions or reply to ones in which a personally state examples of how liberal ideals work. You just go on another thread and start again, and the cycle begins again.


I always answer questions and always reply to the best of my ability.  You just wish I would quit this thread.


> Canada has an identity problem, no kidding. Nothing new there. It's not to be different, it's to be us. It works, its great. Try it sometime. And if we were to tally up the amount of dead, killed by their own gov't, your precious neo-con country will way out weigh ours.


Embracing socialism just to have an identity is something americans grow out of at age 20.  Your nation is stuck in an adolescent mindset, apparently.


> How? Wait i already heard it all. And your wrong. Again, look north, and to europe, liberal ideals help all.


onerous taxation and/ or income redistribution eliminates incentive and innovation.  It's true.    Economies begin to fail.  No new jobs are created.  The economy shrinks.  Genocide begins.  But killing evil westerners and the abominable forms of government we've created is the goal of lefties.  I forgot.  Please excuse me.


> Or maybe the largest owner of WMD's, and the only one that has and is ready and willing to use them again. Any guess's who?



It's the USE of the power we should be judged upon.  What would osama do with a few football fields of ICBMs? You should think about these things. Where would canada be without the international system of trade created by and underwritten by the promise of political stability guaranteed by the U.S. military?  You really need to think a bit deeper on many issues.


----------



## greeneyez1029

The people who attacked the U.S.S. Cole, the first and second, not to mention successful attacks on the world trade centers, as well as various embassies were not black Hispanic, Italian, Jewish or Dutch or Christian or Buddihist, they were whether you like to admit it or not Muslim, they are the ones grinding their axe at the west right now. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it any less real a fact.





			
				MrMarbles said:
			
		

> We are talking about profiling. You want to profile people because of their skin, and country of origin. Ok, then we will do that. Most handguns on Canadin streets, and involved with crime are from the States. So in order to protect our citizens we will stop, and scrutinize the 'group' of people that are most likely to bring their guns to Canada, white Americans. Ya profiling!
> 
> 
> 
> You just have ways of abruptly ending your arguments, only to try and re-start them on different threads, whats up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> This is what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> Multiculturalism is the main difference between US and Canada. Our socialist values are not implemented in order to define ourselves form you. They're implemented because this is what we believe in, and this is what works. It is a way of telling an American from Canadian. But thats not why we do it, it being the right thing to do is the reason why we do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why stop at Muslims, why not protect ourselves from all evils. Profile those most likely to bring harm to us, white Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Um... Sounds all right to me. But again, scrutinize everyone, because you don't have to be Muslim to be a jerk.


----------



## MrMarbles

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's simply unwarranted, considering there is no overtly stated, state sponsored movement on the part of white americans to destroy canada.
> 
> I always answer questions and always reply to the best of my ability.  You just wish I would quit this thread.
> 
> Embracing socialism just to have an identity is something americans grow out of at age 20.  Your nation is stuck in an adolescent mindset, apparently.
> 
> onerous taxation and/ or income redistribution eliminates incentive and innovation.  It's true.    Economies begin to fail.  No new jobs are created.  The economy shrinks.  Genocide begins.  But killing evil westerners and the abominable forms of government we've created is the goal of lefties.  I forgot.  Please excuse me.
> 
> 
> It's the USE of the power we should be judged upon.  What would osama do with a few football fields of ICBMs? You should think about these things. Where would canada be without the international system of trade created by and underwritten by the promise of political stability guaranteed by the U.S. military?  You really need to think a bit deeper on many issues.



I'll cut to the chase here.  We are really debating liberalism here. Liberal and social ideals are used all around the world, and they are working pretty damn good. America has embraced such ideals, when your ultra-capitalist ways failed in the 30's, liberalism was embraced and saved your country. Where would it be without it?

Our economy has not failed, netheir has other liberal states. They all sway back and forth like Americas.


Your are the only super power left, in an age that dosen't need them. Your greatest strength was your dollar. Everyone use to have to do trade with it, but no anymore, the EU is and will see a change in that. As for your jingoist ways, we do not need your military to protect us. It does not dictate any type of stability. So where would Canada be? Thats the fun of the 'what if' game. But a very good possiblity would be a much more diverse, and less dependable system. One that would be able to take hits better, and wouldn't dive everytime the US did.


----------



## MrMarbles

greeneyez1029 said:
			
		

> The people who attacked the U.S.S. Cole, the first and second, not to mention successful attacks on the world trade centers, as well as various embassies were not black Hispanic, Italian, Jewish or Dutch or Christian or Buddihist, they were whether you like to admit it or not Muslim, they are the ones grinding their axe at the west right now. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it any less real a fact.




I know they are muslim. And they have attacked the US. So why do we need to change the fabric of our being?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> I'll cut to the chase here.  We are really debating liberalism here. Liberal and social ideals are used all around the world, and they are working pretty damn good. America has embraced such ideals, when your ultra-capitalist ways failed in the 30's, liberalism was embraced and saved your country. Where would it be without it?


I agree with monopoly busting, and some other basic social services.  very basic.  and any aid given should carry a negative social stigma.  Yes. welfare recipients should be shamed.

You libs are taking it too far.  You villify all businesspeople, refuse to acknowledge the role of private commerce in society, and are generally going too far with your collectivistic tendencies.  You love mob rule, but mob rule degenarates to tyranny when protections on the individual are not in place:  Rights such as a right  to purchase property, expression, and to conduct commerce in free voluntary association with other parties.


> Our economy has not failed, netheir has other liberal states. They all sway back and forth like Americas.


Yes.  but because of our tilt towards capitalism, we have more growth and have had for years and can afford the military it takes to secure the world markets, which the rest of you benefit from.


> Your are the only super power left, in an age that dosen't need them.


You just think there's no need for them,  because you've conveniently learned to ignore the gratitude you should feel for the u.s. for fighting back various forms of totatalitarianism over the past 100 years.


> Your greatest strength was your dollar. Everyone use to have to do trade with it, but no anymore, the EU is and will see a change in that. As for your jingoist ways, we do not need your military to protect us. It does not dictate any type of stability. So where would Canada be? Thats the fun of the 'what if' game. But a very good possiblity would be a much more diverse, and less dependable system. One that would be able to take hits better, and wouldn't dive everytime the US did.



our greatest strength was and always will be our moral clarity.  More diverse LESS dependable system?  What does that mean.  What is a more diverse system?


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I agree with monopoly busting, and some other basic social services.  very basic.  and any aid given should carry a negative social stigma.  Yes. welfare recipients should be shamed.



I think most welfare recipients are not proud of being on welfare, shaming them more will not work. I think strict time limits would be a better approach to take.



> You libs are taking it too far.  You villify all businesspeople, refuse to acknowledge the role of private commerce in society, and are generally going too far with your collectivistic tendencies.  You love mob rule, but mob rule degenarates to tyranny when protections on the individual are not in place:  Rights such as a right  to purchase property, expression, and to conduct commerce in free voluntary association with other parties.



Government job creation would not exsist without a good economy coming from the private sector. Government job creation can get things rolling, but it only lasts as long as the economy, once the boom is over, so is job creation. Attention should focus more on private industry, not government created jobs. - IMHO


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> I think most welfare recipients are not proud of being on welfare, shaming them more will not work. I think strict time limits would be a better approach to take.


A little institutionalized  shame is ok.  YOU may feel bad about taking handouts, but that's due to your family values.  Since values and family are being redefined and eliminated by the apparatchiks, a little government provided shame is ok.  Just a little.


----------



## greeneyez1029

What we have to change is our lax attitude at the boarders about who enters our country, yes, we would all like to believe that everyone who enters our country is doing so with noble intentions. But the last few years have taught us that is simply not true. Why should we as neighbors to the U.S. make it easier for terrorists to operate within our country on the premise of attacking the U.S. ? Terrorism affects everyone, not just the U.S. I don't particularly like the idea of terrorists being comfortable while hiding out in our country.





			
				MrMarbles said:
			
		

> I know they are muslim. And they have attacked the US. So why do we need to change the fabric of our being?


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> A little institutionalized  shame is ok.  YOU may feel bad about taking handouts, but that's due to your family values.  Since values and family are being redefined and eliminated by the apparatchiks, a little government provided shame is ok.  Just a little.




Perhaps, but I think time limits would be more effective. Shame them all you want,  it probably won't stop many from cashing that check each month. Taking the check away after 10yrs might have show better results. I don't see how a single person can survive on $520.00 per month in the first place, but I guess a person can get used to anything.


----------



## MrMarbles

What about people on welfare that already work 40hrs/wk? People whose means can't support three kids, rent, food, etc. There are people who abuse the system, but many more who need it to survive. Why shame someone who is doing the best they can, but do to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to rise to the top?



> You libs are taking it too far. You villify all businesspeople, refuse to acknowledge the role of private commerce in society, and are generally going too far with your collectivistic tendencies. You love mob rule, but mob rule degenarates to tyranny when protections on the individual are not in place: Rights such as a right to purchase property, expression, and to conduct commerce in free voluntary association with other parties.



Any examples? You constantly state this, but have never produced evidence of liberals being evil, just because you say it is, dosen't make true.



> our greatest strength was and always will be our moral clarity. More diverse LESS dependable system? What does that mean. What is a more diverse system?



What moral clarity? Have you ever watched US TV, movies, music, or even the news? 

It means, our assets would probably spread out more in the world, instead of putting most of our eggs in one basket, America.



> You just think there's no need for them, because you've conveniently learned to ignore the gratitude you should feel for the u.s. for fighting back various forms of totatalitarianism over the past 100 years.



Do i need to quote myself from the other thread? For the first half of the 20th century, sure, but it was always late. And the second half of the century, is very, very debatable.




> Government job creation would not exsist without a good economy coming from the private sector. Government job creation can get things rolling, but it only lasts as long as the economy, once the boom is over, so is job creation. Attention should focus more on private industry, not government created jobs.



Or as a means to start the ball rolling again. But your right.


----------



## Said1

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> What about people on welfare that already work 40hrs/wk? People whose means can't support three kids, rent, food, etc. There are people who abuse the system, but many more who need it to survive. Why shame someone who is doing the best they can, but do to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to rise to the top?



There are countless programs available to people on social assistance that can help them improve their job skills and education. It's up to the individual to take advantage of this. The average family on welfare receives $900 per month in social assistance benefits (not to mention drug and dental benefits). They are entitled to a chid tax credit of approx $240.00 per month, per child on top of the montly amount from social assitance. I know a family of 10 (7 kids) who are on welfare. They receive $900 a per month, plus an additional $1400 per month in child tax. They are also entitled to earn and extra $300 per month working (which they don't btw). Not a bad income for doing nothing is it? Being on social assistance also entitles them to $4000 to go back to school, (as is everyone on welfare in Ontario) in order to get the skills they need to work, and they don't. People make their own choices, the opportunities are there, provided by the government, although it doesn't seem like many take advantage of them. 

I work for 2 "social programs", so I can't knock all government funded programs aimed at people on welfare, but it can be very frustrating to say the least!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> What about people on welfare that already work 40hrs/wk? People whose means can't support three kids, rent, food, etc. There are people who abuse the system, but many more who need it to survive. Why shame someone who is doing the best they can, but do to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to rise to the top?


They need to toughen up and quit whining.  There is no guarantee in life.  


> Any examples? You constantly state this, but have never produced evidence of liberals being evil, just because you say it is, dosen't make true.


History shows collectivist schemes you libs desire always are a thin cover for obscene tyranny and corruption.


> What moral clarity? Have you ever watched US TV, movies, music, or even the news?


We do the right thing in promoting freedom around the globe, refusing to accept the moral relativism of the extreme leftist world community.


> It means, our assets would probably spread out more in the world, instead of putting most of our eggs in one basket, America.


What the heck are you blabbering about here?


> Do i need to quote myself from the other thread? For the first half of the 20th century, sure, but it was always late. And the second half of the century, is very, very debatable.



The new left in the world has a completly distorted view of america, divorced from history, sense, reality, and safety. 









Or as a means to start the ball rolling again. But your right.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MrMarbles

Said1 said:
			
		

> There are countless programs available to people on social assistance that can help them improve their job skills and education. It's up to the individual to take advantage of this. The average family on welfare receives $900 per month in social assistance benefits (not to mention drug and dental benefits). They are entitled to a chid tax credit of approx $240.00 per month, per child on top of the montly amount from social assitance. I know a family of 10 (7 kids) who are on welfare. They receive $900 a per month, plus an additional $1400 per month in child tax. They are also entitled to earn and extra $300 per month working (which they don't btw). Not a bad income for doing nothing is it? Being on social assistance also entitles them to $4000 to go back to school, (as is everyone on welfare in Ontario) in order to get the skills they need to work, and they don't. People make their own choices, the opportunities are there, provided by the government, although it doesn't seem like many take advantage of them.
> 
> I work for 2 "social programs", so I can't knock all government funded programs aimed at people on welfare, but it can be very frustrating to say the least!



Wow, seven kids, i thought those days had passed. 

Anyway, what would happen if those assistances weren't there? I know people take advantage of it, and there need to be ways to prevent it, but these systems still need to be there.



> They need to toughen up and quit whining. There is no guarantee in life.



Ok, if you ever get laid off, we will see how you feel about getting a little help from the gov't.



> History shows collectivist schemes you libs desire always are a thin cover for obscene tyranny and corruption.



When? Where? How? Dude, you keep saying this, but have never produced any evidence. Contrary, i have shown how your own conservative, capitalist gov't has used it's values in attempts to gain power and influence over other nations.



> We do the right thing in promoting freedom around the globe, refusing to accept the moral relativism of the extreme leftist world community.



See, wyas you use YOUR values to try and control others. Promoting freedom = engaging in illegal wars, and puttin gpeopl under American military rule.



> What the heck are you blabbering about here?



If it's beyond you, nevermind.



> The new left in the world has a completly distorted view of america, divorced from history, sense, reality, and safety.



It's one that is free from US bias. Just the facts.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> When? Where? How? Dude, you keep saying this, but have never produced any evidence. Contrary, i have shown how your own conservative, capitalist go  v't has used it's values in attempts to gain power and influence over other nations.


The SOviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba...  see communism or socialism.  Check any stats.  The more socialist an economy, the less it grows.    stagnation.  oppression.  evil. Control of black markets by government connected individuals only.


----------



## Said1

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Wow, seven kids, i thought those days had passed.



Yeah, 7 kids ages 4 months - 12. Their parents are around 30 or a little younger. There is another family in a similar situation, they have had 4 kids in 6  years!



> Anyway, what would happen if those assistances weren't there? I know people take advantage of it, and there need to be ways to prevent it, but these systems still need to be there.



I'm not saying take welfare away, I'm saying strict time limits is an easier way to motivate people into taking advantage of some of the programs that could actually help them. 




> Ok, if you ever get laid off, we will see how you feel about getting a little help from the gov't.



Again, time limits. You are only entitled to UI for a certain length of time, and there are programs you can take advantage of while on UI too. I think you know the sort of system abuse I'm talking about, not people who need short term help in order to get back on their feet. I've been there, I was off sick for 6 months last year. The medication alone was almost as much as my rent. THere was no way I could borrow that much money.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Let's recap the virtues of a more diverse less dependable system.  Please help us all out here, Mr. Marbles.  What sort of less dependable system would you prefer?  Are you an anarchist?


----------



## MrMarbles

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The SOviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba...  see communism or socialism.  Check any stats.  The more socialist an economy, the less it grows.    stagnation.  oppression.  evil. Control of black markets by government connected individuals only.



OK. Then whats the problem with liberals? They are not Socialist or Communist. Communism works only in theory, no one is arguing about that. But liberals are not communist.

Anyway here is two 'stagnate' economies. 

Vietnam

The country raked in foreign direct investment worth more than 8% of GDP last year: even more, proportionally, than China. After its oversized and overheating neighbour, Vietnam also boasts Asia's best-performing economy. It has grown by an average of 7.4% a year over the past decade and is likely to achieve a similar figure this year. Better yet, the boom has lifted many Vietnamese out of poverty. As recently as 1993, the World Bank considered 58% of the population poor. By 2002, that had fallen to 29%. 

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2653647 

China

During the past three years China has accounted for one-third of global economic growth (measured at purchasing-power parity), twice as much as America. In the past year, China's official GDP growth rate has surged to 9.7%. Even this may underestimate the true rate, which some economists reckon was as high as 13%.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2668015 

As for Soviet Union, it's Stalinist ways and enevitable break-up was it's greatest flaws. And Cuba is under the boot of America, if the US layed off, i'm sure they would be doing a lot better to.

You confuse liberals with communists, which is the same if I were to call a conservative a fascist. Pretty dumb, eh?








> Let's recap the virtues of a more diverse less dependable system. Please help us all out here, Mr. Marbles. What sort of less dependable system would you prefer? Are you an anarchist?



Thats out of context. You had said that Canada would be nowhere without the economic trade with the US. I had a 'what if' scenario in which Canada would have more trade assets with the rest of the world, then with the States, making it more diverse, and less dependable on US growth.


----------



## MrMarbles

Said1 said:
			
		

> Yeah, 7 kids ages 4 months - 12. Their parents are around 30 or a little younger. There is another family in a similar situation, they have had 4 kids in 6  years!
> 
> I'm not saying take welfare away, I'm saying strict time limits is an easier way to motivate people into taking advantage of some of the programs that could actually help them.
> 
> Again, time limits. You are only entitled to UI for a certain length of time, and there are programs you can take advantage of while on UI too. I think you know the sort of system abuse I'm talking about, not people who need short term help in order to get back on their feet. I've been there, I was off sick for 6 months last year. The medication alone was almost as much as my rent. THere was no way I could borrow that much money.



Personnaly, i'm not to sure where exactly i stand on welfare. We need the system, how it is to be governed? The jury is still out on that one. But a case by case of assesment might be best. Standard time limits may hurt alot of people. It takes a lot of time to raise 7 kids, or get help for health reasons, or mental problems, schooling, everyone is different.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> OK. Then whats the problem with liberals? They are not Socialist or Communist. Communism works only in theory, no one is arguing about that. But liberals are not communist.
> 
> Anyway here is two 'stagnate' economies.
> 
> Vietnam
> 
> The country raked in foreign direct investment worth more than 8% of GDP last year: even more, proportionally, than China. After its oversized and overheating neighbour, Vietnam also boasts Asia's best-performing economy. It has grown by an average of 7.4% a year over the past decade and is likely to achieve a similar figure this year. Better yet, the boom has lifted many Vietnamese out of poverty. As recently as 1993, the World Bank considered 58% of the population poor. By 2002, that had fallen to 29%.
> 
> http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2653647
> 
> China
> 
> During the past three years China has accounted for one-third of global economic growth (measured at purchasing-power parity), twice as much as America. In the past year, China's official GDP growth rate has surged to 9.7%. Even this may underestimate the true rate, which some economists reckon was as high as 13%.
> 
> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2668015
> 
> As for Soviet Union, it's Stalinist ways and enevitable break-up was it's greatest flaws. And Cuba is under the boot of America, if the US layed off, i'm sure they would be doing a lot better to.
> 
> You confuse liberals with communists, which is the same if I were to call a conservative a fascist. Pretty dumb, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats out of context. You had said that Canada would be nowhere without the economic trade with the US. I had a 'what if' scenario in which Canada would have more trade assets with the rest of the world, then with the States, making it more diverse, and less dependable on US growth.




Vietnam and china introducing capitalism in a piecemeal fashion causes the grow the growth you speak of.  However, what remnants do remain of their socialist system is precisely what's still holding them back:



> But as Martin Rama of the World Bank points out, Vietnam has almost no middling private firms between these mom-and-pop ventures and big exporters backed by foreign investors.
> 
> Such businesses find it hard to grow because they cannot readily get access to land or capital. About half of bank lending goes to state-owned enterprises, although that share is falling. What is more, even if banks (mostly state-owned themselves) wanted to lend to entrepreneurs, the latter have little collateral to pledge for their loans. In Vietnam, the state owns all the land and grants land-use rights to farmers, businesses and home-owners. Although these are theoretically transferable, banks are fearful that Vietnam's antiquated courts would not enforce their rights. Such fears have precluded a free market for land, further adding to private firms' difficulties. Corruption also weighs heaviest on small businesses: in some provinces, they can be subjected to as many as 15 different bureaucratic inspections each year.
> 
> The government, although trying to solve some of these problems, appears addicted to public enterprise. It continues to provide state-owned firms with loans and landwhich many of them then rent on at a mark-up to the private sector. It invests with Stakhanovite zeal in impressive but uneconomical facilities, such as oil refineries, steel mills and fertiliser plants.
> 
> The net result is a massive misallocation of resources. Vietnam's ratio of investment to economic growth has fallen by roughly a quarter in recent years. To reverse that slide, argues Robert Glofcheski, an economist at the UN Development Programme, the government must revert to the same tactics that made its agricultural reforms so successful: more spending on health and education, further transfers of assets from the public to the private sector and faster deregulation.



You really need to read closer.

China is the same.  state run labor camp with  many misallocation and human rights problems.  economic growth based on slave labor doesn't count.


----------



## Said1

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Vietnam
> 
> The country raked in foreign direct investment worth more than 8% of GDP last year: even more, proportionally, than China. After its oversized and overheating neighbour, Vietnam also boasts Asia's best-performing economy. It has grown by an average of 7.4% a year over the past decade and is likely to achieve a similar figure this year. Better yet, the boom has lifted many Vietnamese out of poverty. As recently as 1993, the World Bank considered 58% of the population poor. By 2002, that had fallen to 29%.
> 
> 
> China
> 
> During the past three years China has accounted for one-third of global economic growth (measured at purchasing-power parity), twice as much as America. In the past year, China's official GDP growth rate has surged to 9.7%. Even this may underestimate the true rate, which some economists reckon was as high as 13%.
> 
> Thats out of context. You had said that Canada would be nowhere without the economic trade with the US. I had a 'what if' scenario in which Canada would have more trade assets with the rest of the world, then with the States, making it more diverse, and less dependable on US growth.



Vietnam (China and Cuba) lost their biggest customers with the end of the Soviet Union, this is obvious by the dates when the country was the most depressed, and when the country started growing again. Liberalising their trade markets was mandatory for them to survive within growing international markets, compete or die. Vietman  also saves parts of their export quotas especially for DFI, but the MFA agreement(Multi-fibre Agreement)  will be phased out very soon, causing serious competion from from other Asian markets (ie: China) hindering such rapid growth. Depending on the amount of spill over directly linked to DFI will depend on their continued success. With the phasing out of the Manufactued Fiber Agreement, China, Vietnam and others will have to open their markets even moreso, since there will no longer be quotes on exports to USA and EU.



> Thats out of context. You had said that Canada would be nowhere without the economic trade with the US. I had a 'what if' scenario in which Canada would have more trade assets with the rest of the world, then with the States, making it more diverse, and less dependable on US growth.



I think I get your point with this. Canada should be more diverse. Being dependant on on country for trade can be dangerous, as seen with above mentioned countries right? IF that's your point, I agree.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

> I think I get your point with this. Canada should be more diverse. Being dependant on on country for trade can be dangerous, as seen with above mentioned countries right? IF that's your point, I agree.



Yes.  Many diverse trading partners, competition, market forces.  Individuals should be trading entities as well, to utilize the benefits and efficiencies of competition inside nations as well as between them.


----------



## MrMarbles

> China is the same. state run labor camp with many misallocation and human rights problems. economic growth based on slave labor doesn't count.




Whats minimum wage in the US?


----------



## Hobbit

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Whats minimum wage in the US?



Don't know, don't care.  It hasn't bee raised in 7 years and everybody pays above it, anyway.  I think it's around $5.25/hr, but every teenager and deadbeat I've known who applied to a dead end job with no resume got at least $6.25/hr, and anybody who's been working full time for more than a year or two is up in the $8 range, which isn't bad for someone with no experience and, at best, a high school education.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Care to follow up Senor Marbles?  Minimum wage and ....


----------



## MrMarbles

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Care to follow up Senor Marbles?  Minimum wage and ....



Where i'm from $7.50.


----------



## Shazbot

Minimum wage in the US is $5.15/hr.  I am an advocate to raise it.  I make well above that, as do many friends.  However, I do know several people (grown men and women with children) working for minimum wage...they aren't exactly making ends meet.

-Douglas


----------



## lilcountriegal

Which leads me to a question...

I was talking to my neighbor last night who is a waitress.  How exactly does business get around the minimum wage law with waitresses?  My neighbor is in her late 50s and runs her ass off for Pizza Hut for the past eight years... her wage?  $2.52/hour. 

Anyone care to educate me on the loophole for waitresses/waiters?


----------



## MrMarbles

lilcountriegal said:
			
		

> Which leads me to a question...
> 
> I was talking to my neighbor last night who is a waitress.  How exactly does business get around the minimum wage law with waitresses?  My neighbor is in her late 50s and runs her ass off for Pizza Hut for the past eight years... her wage?  $2.52/hour.
> 
> Anyone care to educate me on the loophole for waitresses/waiters?



Who can live off of $2.25? Even with tips, which are nothing you would want to depend on, is not going to cut it.


----------



## Annie

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Who can live off of $2.25? Even with tips, which are nothing you would want to depend on, is not going to cut it.



Hey, back in 1975 I made 75 cents per hour. At the same time I was making $110 or more for a 6 hour shift as a waitress. Who's reeming whom? :spank3:


----------



## Shazbot

lilcountriegal said:
			
		

> Which leads me to a question...
> 
> I was talking to my neighbor last night who is a waitress.  How exactly does business get around the minimum wage law with waitresses?  My neighbor is in her late 50s and runs her ass off for Pizza Hut for the past eight years... her wage?  $2.52/hour.
> 
> Anyone care to educate me on the loophole for waitresses/waiters?


 If the average tip income is high enough, then the lower wage is justified.  Especially since cash tips are not taxable income.  I could not possibly be a waiter - it would simply drive me insane.  However, I have plenty of friends waiting tables, most of them with a wage of something like $4.00/hr.  But with their tips, they are truly making bank!  As long as you don't live in a rural, po-dunk town, tips are not to be scoffed at!

-Douglas


----------

