No b*tch. We won the war of 1812 when you tried to annex us. I.E. American soliders dead, defeated and retreating, Canadians standing over them victoriously.
P.S.
Aren't you embarassed to have media like this?!
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canada won the war of 1812? Thought that was between the US and England, with a negotiated end.
We do allow Canadians ro exist on the same continent, like Ann Coulter said. What she meant was since Canadians depend on the U.S. for protecting them from invasion, they don't need to maintain hardly any Armed forces at all - it is the U.S. that affords Canada protection from invasion that allows Canada to continue exist uninvaded. No one would invade Canada or Mexico, or any of the Americas, because of the U.S. nearby to stop them.
It is called the Monroe Doctrine.
Canada is protected by the U.S. We only hope ther will continue to allow our scum to imigrate there (seeking Canadian welfare and free healthcare) while your brightest people come to the U.S.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
haha, nobody wants to attack Canada because we don't go around attacking anyone that doesn't accept our way of life. And if someone did want to **** with us, contrary to popular belief, Canada has an armed forces of 100,000+ that is helping America and the rest of the world in Afganhistan right now.
Yeah, our immigration policies are ****, I agree. We get a lot of your scum. But we also get a lot of the best of American, who simply don't want to live in a country whose mainstream values have become so intollerant. Some of our brightest do go to the US, but its not like actors, comedians and other entertainers. Canada's economy per capita is right up there with America, were not some socialist paradise if thats what your thinking...
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, war of 1812... The US invaded the English colonies in upper canada (ontario), the US forces were repelled at Dundurn Castle in Hamilton by Canadian colonists, not the British troops.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kevin954: Oh yeah, war of 1812... The US invaded the English colonies in upper canada (ontario), the US forces were repelled at Dundurn Castle in Hamilton by Canadian colonists, not the British troops.
English colonies is the operative words. The war involved few battles and we really didn't want war, so we quit and negotiated with England for peace. We could have taken over Canada if we had wanted to.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
give it a rest, you see a lot of canada bashing threads?
you have problems with ann coulter? we didn't elect her, should i bring up the crap your elected officials say about the u.s.????
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kevin954: haha, nobody wants to attack Canada because we don't go around attacking anyone that doesn't accept our way of life.
Art: Idiotic nonsense. You would be speaking Russian or German without the U.S. around. When has the U.S. attacked any country because they did not accept our way of life?
kevin954: Canada's economy per capita is right up there with America, we're not some socialist paradise if thats what your thinking...
Art: Canada's standard of living is declining relative to the U.S. - true over the last 15 years.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You would be speaking Russian or German without the U.S. around."
How ****ing igorant is this that all Americans actually believe the **** hollywood tells you? We were in WW2 right alongside you, Germany wouldn't have had a chance at getting passed England AND Canada AND Russia. As far as the cold war goes... the western world won that one together, not America. You buy into that crap because its whats been taught to you your whole life.
Canada's standard of living hasn't been declining relative to the US, where the **** do you get off saying that?? Your dollar has dropped like a rock over the last year, and 20% of Americans are below the poverty line...
keithsan... the problem is, that to Americans, this kind of behaviour is not just accepted but actually rewarded and appluaded.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
"Overall, the Canadian economy expanded slightly more than 36% during the period, and the US economy expanded by slightly less than 35%."
Our economy is doing just fine, beating America in a lot of ways.
We also have financially responsible goverment. We pay back our debt. Instead of your present cow boy president thats ****ing over your future with these massive deficits.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
if your so happy with canada, why you here complaining.....
we did WW2 last year, and your 10k in troops really weren't the catalyst you think they were.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excerpted from the Seattle Times: Friday, December 12, 2003 -
Think Canada's the place to be? Think again
By Jennifer Meeks Special to The Times
My husband and I left Canada six years ago to start a new life in the United States. Tens of thousands of university-educated, middle-class Canadians leave Canada for the U.S. every year. The Canadian government even has a name for us "The Brain Drain."
Why do we leave?
Taxes Ever wonder why you see so many rusty cars up north? It's not just because they salt the roads in the wintertime. People can't afford new ones.
Fifty percent of the Canadian paycheck goes to taxes. And, in Ontario, for example, there's a 15-percent tax at the cash register. Think about paying that every time you buy a car, a fridge or clothes. The Canadian middle class has almost been taxed out of existence.
Official bilingualism This is what most of the taxes pay for.
Learning and speaking another language may seem like fun to most Americans. Forget about that textbook Parisian you learned in high school. My husband speaks French fluently but not by Canadian government standards. He'd be passed over in employment by someone who speaks a government-approved level of French.
Canada is officially bilingual and that means everything must be in French and English. Everything. It's the law.
If you or your company do not comply with regulations then the official language "police" will be at your door. If you want to pursue a career in retail, the police, the post office, government, business and even the military, you must be bilingual.
The U.S. has its issues with African Americans and Canada has its issues with French Canadians. Affirmative action in the name of official bilingualism has resulted in a great deal of conflict.
Employment If you are English-speaking in Canada, it's difficult to find a job.
Salaries are much lower than in the U.S. When we moved to the U.S., my husband almost tripled his salary.
Our standard of living is beyond what we could have ever achieved in a lifetime living in Canada. Our relatives can't believe how well average, middle-class Americans live. Our son, who has a learning disability, is getting the best education ever in an American public school.
Meanwhile, it is the norm for Canadian schools to have at least 40 kids per class that is, if the teachers are not on strike.
Speaking of strikes. There are a lot of unhappy workers in Canada. I remember one summer when the bus drivers, postal workers, movie projectionists and government workers were all on strike. Even the doctors have "worked to rule" offering minimum health care to their patients to force the government to comply with their demands.
Health care Speaking of doctors, every Canadian has experienced or knows of a family member who has a nightmare health-care story. It may be free but that doesn't mean it's good.
Hospitals are miserable. There are long waiting lists for the most basic treatments and operations. When we went to an American hospital, it was like entering a five-star hotel. I hear Americans complain about the cost of medical bills but I would rather my child be alive and have a bill to pay than to be dead at no charge.
In Canada, there is one system of health care for everyone except the elite or government bureaucrats, who go to the U.S. and pay for decent health care.
Political oppression Imagine an American president and one political party in power for over 10 years. That's what's happened in Canada. Prime Minister Jean Chrιtien's regime has been in control for more than a decade and the average Canadian is fed up and glad to see him go. Even then, it was his decision to allow an election. Hopefully, Canada will be able to make amends and repair its relationship with the U.S.
Living in Canada made me feel like a barn animal in George Orwell's "Animal Farm." My only worry is that someday the United States will resemble Canada. Sort of like one giant Seattle. That would be my nightmare.
Note: Jennifer Meeks is a Canadian living in Seattle while she and her husband are waiting for their green cards. Her husband works in marketing for a sports memorabilia company.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Official bilingualism This is what most of the taxes pay for."
Dear God... it just lost ALL credibility right there.
"Canada is officially bilingual and that means everything must be in French and English. Everything. It's the law."
If by everything you mean instructions on cereal boxes... yes. I don't speak a word of French.
"If you or your company do not comply with regulations then the official language "police" will be at your door."
At this point, I'm sending this to my colleagues this is so funny.
"Employment If you are English-speaking in Canada, it's difficult to find a job. "
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"40 kids per class"
More like 22...
"I remember one summer when the bus drivers, postal workers, movie projectionists and government workers were all on strike. Even the doctors have "worked to rule" offering minimum health care to their patients to force the government to comply with their demands. "
This NEVER happened. At least not all at once like she claims.
"Political oppression Imagine an American president and one political party in power for over 10 years."
An American speaking to a Canadian about political oppression is ****ing FUNNNY. You've had the same elitist aristocracy in power, for, what, 228 years now?
That article was a load of ****, do you actually believe that garbage?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not about 'an American speaking to a Canadian', as you erroneously state. She is a Canadian speaking about political oppression in Canada - a Prime Minister holding onto power for 10 years and not allowing an election that would replace him.
Are you saying this didn't happen?
I would suggest that you only and exclusively expose yourself to the Canadian liberal media, since you seem to think that Fox news and other U.S. sources are garbage.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse me, a desperate want to be American talking to Canadians...
"a Prime Minister holding onto power for 10 years and not allowing an election that would replace him."
Actually, there were 3 elections, 1993, 1997 and 2000 and he won all of them. He was a good leader so Canadians decided to keep him. He was smart enough to keep us out of that counter productive and expensive death trap in Iraq anyways. If only you yankees could have kept Clinton in after 2000...
The elitist aristrocracy I'm referring to is something every political science major outside the US talks about. American society is elitist. The ancestors of the same people that held power 200 years ago at your founding are the ones who hold power today. Whether its corporate power, military power or political power, American society is uneven, oppresive and elitist.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So then the political oppression in Canada is the ability of the liberals to hold power - nothing wrong with that. It is the oppression of the stupid and ignorant over the minority smart and educated - that is a danger in any democracy and has produced inefficient or failed liberal programs in the U.S.
As far as the U.S. being lead by an elitist aristrocracy, the cream tends to rise to the top in a capitalistic democracy - competence is rewarded and incompetence is not rewarded (or even punished). Our business, political and military leaders tend to be the most competent - an aristracacy of competence where the elite leaders are the best. This makes any nation strong and increases the standard of living for all.
The problem with socialistic (and communistic-socialistic) governments is that often incompetence is rewarded and competence is ignored or punished. Diversity is valued over promotion of the best, and "each according to need" prevails, instead of "each according to how much they desrve it in earning it by their effort/ability".
This is why Cuba, France, Germany, and Canada are experiencing a gradual decline in their standard of living relative to less liberal countries like the U.S.
The U.S. has been damaged greatly by past liberal policies and will be damaged further as the ignorant and stupid majority vote in liberals that give then free medical care and welfare entitlements. This will take money from those who earned it and give it to parasites who didn't earn it, increasing parasites and incompetents while decreasing leaders and competents in society.
This is happening in Canada - right under your very nose.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh, I'm liking this, now were getting right to the core issue...
"an aristracacy of competence where the elite leaders are the best"
So your saying George Misunderestimated Bush is the cream of the American crop? With an IQ below average? I know you used the word 'tends' in describing this, but if you can't get a linguistically or mathematically competent PRESIDENT, that does indicate their are some holes in your philosophy.
"the cream tends to rise to the top in a capitalistic democracy"
Ahhh... I **REALLY** WISH this were so. The really, really, really key word their is 'tends'. But then how do you account for monopolies in the corporate world and inheritance of economics advantages\disadvantages? American economists write these off as 'market inefficincies', smalls problems in an otherwise perfect system. The problem is, as in any other society, the cream of the crop, once gaining power, want to keep it for themselves and their children. So they have no problems with policies that keep the rising cream of the crop down, just look at access to post secondary education in the US. US colleges aren't filled with the best and brightest by any means, talk to any knowledgable person in academia and they will confirm this. Poor US students just don't have access to education, whether they are better than students coming from wealthier backgrounds or not.
"The problem with socialistic (and communistic-socialistic) governments is that often incompetence is rewarded and competence is ignored or punished."
I COMPLETELY agree, but remember, Canada is NOT a socialist country. We're not even 'socialistic', we follow an keneysian economic model of using state power to correct market inefficincies.
"Diversity is valued over promotion of the best, and "each according to need" prevails, instead of "each according to how much they desrve it in earning it by their effort/ability"."
Yeah, I agree that each according to his need isn't the way to go. But 'deserving it' isn't always cut and dry, do the Wal-Mart heirs deserve that fortune they inherited? What did they do to deserve it?
"This is why Cuba, France, Germany, and Canada are experiencing a gradual decline in their standard of living relative to less liberal countries like the U.S."
NO... we're NOT! Thank about it... your dollar is dropping like a rock, your jobs are being outsourced to cheaper labour markets, your national debt is growing faster than any other industrialized country and the level of poverty in America is far beyond anything in Canada.
"increasing parasites and incompetents"
In Canada, we have social policies that turn 'parasites' (their actually people btw) into productive tax paying workers. Give a man a free meal takes resources, and that would make him a parasite. But if you teach a man to fetch his own meal, its short term pain for long term gain...
You make a lot of good points, and I totally agree that capitalism is better than 'each according to his needs' socialism. My problem is that you seem to equate state intervention in the economy with socialism\communism, and you don't seem to even acknowledge market inefficinicies. In Canada, and just about the rest of the industrialized world except the US, we use state intervention to CORRECT market inefficincies.
eg. tuition subsidies so that the best and brightest DO get to goto university\college
What were talking about now is a matter of opinion... equality via state intervention or less state intervention and more inequality. Communism, COMPLETE state intervention... is bad stuff, I'm not arguing that. But the other end of the sprectrum, free market capitalism, with NO state intervention... is also bad stuff. The proof is everywhere in American society. A liberal balance between the two is best of both worlds, it allows for sustainable growth that rewards the elite while helping the 'parasites' become the elite.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kevin954: So your saying George Misunderestimated Bush is the cream of the American crop? With an IQ below average?
Art: Absolutely! As most liberals do, you blatantly lie to support your idiotic ideas. Bush has a high IQ - you have to have to get a M.B.A. from Harvard. Bush has mild dysarthia, as do many bright people, and sometimes mispronounces or stumbles in forming words. This does not indicate a low IQ and Bush is quite intelligent. More important than intelligence is good judgement based on accurate analysis of petinent realities. Bush has this - most Canadian liberals do not.
kevin: I know you used the word 'tends' in describing this, but if you can't get a linguistically or mathematically competent PRESIDENT, that does indicate their are some holes in your philosophy.
Art: Many academicians fit this mold but have very poor judgement as described above. You have much to learn about people and life.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art:...the cream tends to rise to the top in a capitalistic democracy..
kevin: Ahhh... I **REALLY** WISH this were so. The really, really, really key word their is 'tends'.
Art: It does in afree market but not in a soclialistic-managed market like you love.
kevin: But then how do you account for monopolies in the corporate world and inheritance of economics advantages\disadvantages?
Art: That is why you need to keep the market free and competitive, which requires restricting monopolies which dominate a sector of the econmy.
kevin: American economists write these off as 'market inefficincies', smalls problems in an otherwise perfect system. The problem is, as in any other society, the cream of the crop, once gaining power, want to keep it for themselves and their children. So they have no problems with policies that keep the rising cream of the crop down, just look at access to post secondary education in the US. US colleges aren't filled with the best and brightest by any means, talk to any knowledgable person in academia and they will confirm this.
Art: If a coporation becomes self serving of its top staf, it will fail to compete and perish. If a college or university fails to recruit the best, it will gain a reputation of having poor students. This is why affirmative action is evil - it rewards incompetence and punishes competence so that incompetence reigns.
kevin: Poor US students just don't have access to education, whether they are better than students coming from wealthier backgrounds or not.
Art: More idiotic nonsense. I came from a poor family, and went to an excellent college, worked as an undergraduate while getting stipends and related non-loan assistance in graduate school, in earning three degrees. Many of my peers in school came from middle class or worse backgrounds. You seem to have the idealistic and unrealistic notion that university ecucation is for everyone and it is not.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art: The problem with socialistic (and communistic-socialistic) governments is that often incompetence is rewarded and competence is ignored or punished."
kevin: Canada is NOT a socialist country. We're not even 'socialistic', we follow an keneysian economic model of using state power to correct market inefficincies.
Art: You rob money from those who earn it and give it to those that didn't - free healthcare, welfare and other entitlements. This is the communistic idea of "each according to need" and is a hall mark of soclialism.
Art: Diversity is valued over promotion of the best, and "each according to need" prevails, instead of "each according to how much they desrve it in earning it by their effort/ability".
kevin: I agree that each according to his need isn't the way to go.
Art: But you like to rob money from those who earn more and give it to those who earned less or not at all. This is aiming at "each according to need".
kevin: But 'deserving it' isn't always cut and dry, do the Wal-Mart heirs deserve that fortune they inherited? What did they do to deserve it?
Art: The free market competition decides who is deserving and who is not in capitalism. The government decides it in soclialism. Any income redistribution is soclialistic and punishes competence and rewards incompetence.
Yes, the Wal Mart heirs deserve what they have. All you have to do is start another business that will make as much as Wal Mart, if you think this is unfair. Part of the motivation in getting ahead is to eleveate your immediate heirs, in hopes they will do the same, and start a dynasty. You would take away what others have worked for, and you call this fair? Only a liberal would think this.
Art: This is why Cuba, France, Germany, and Canada are experiencing a gradual decline in their standard of living relative to less liberal countries like the U.S.
kevin: NO... we're NOT! Thank about it... your dollar is dropping like a rock, your jobs are being outsourced to cheaper labour markets, your national debt is growing faster than any other industrialized country and the level of poverty in America is far beyond anything in Canada.
Art: The U.S. economy has grown, and is growing, stronger relative to Canada. Many Canadians are aware of this and concerned. Others, like yourself, live in liberal La La land. "increasing parasites and incompetents"
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kevin: In Canada, we have social policies that turn 'parasites' (they're actually people btw) into productive tax paying workers. Give a man a free meal takes resources, and that would make him a parasite. But if you teach a man to fetch his own meal, its short term pain for long term gain...
Art: That is a conservative idea. Maybe there is hope for Canada yet.
kevin: In Canada, and just about the rest of the industrialized world except the US, we use state intervention to CORRECT market inefficincies.
Art: You attempt this, but like any managed economy, it often fails, and usually creates more problems than it solves. The gun control debacle is a case in point - costly and ineffective. England and Australia have had increases in crime as gun control was instituted to leave innocent citizens vulnerable to criminals.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kevin: What were talking about now is a matter of opinion... equality via state intervention or less state intervention and more inequality.
Art: No, it is a matter of providing the greatest good to the greatest number in a nation - the true function of government. Empirically, managed economies have failed to do this while free economies have succeeded. Go to Cuba to se the proof. China only raised its standard of living for all of its citizens but adopting capitalism and they are on their way to becoming a world power, whereupon we will perhaps have to destroy them if they try to destroy us. That is reality.
kevin: But the other end of the sprectrum, free market capitalism, with NO state intervention... is also bad stuff.
Art: No sure of this. The U.S. made good strides without much government intervention to speak of, and thus developed a base on which to build as government intervention increased. You should read the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade.
kevin: A liberal balance between the two is best of both worlds, it allows for sustainable growth that rewards the elite while helping the 'parasites' become the elite.
Art: This is eactly what the conservatives want - teach a man to fish instead of feeding him a fish. The liberals always change it to feeding rather than teaching.
I agree that some income redistribution is helpful to enable poor people to betterr themselves, but what typically happens is that they take the extra income and buy booze, street drugs, or cigarettes instead of spending it on training, education, or investments. Instead of lower taxes that give the poor money, we should give them free education, training or investment retirement accounts. We will never do this - the linberals want allow it (look at their resistance to using a small portion of social security for investments).
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
HAHA, I don't have time to respond to all that ****, but here's the highlights...
"has a high IQ - you have to have to get a M.B.A. from Harvard."
Well, a C average MBA from Harvard where your daddy's friends are backing the college financially...
"You rob money from those who earn it and give it to those that didn't - free healthcare, welfare and other entitlements. This is the communistic idea of "each according to need" and is a hall mark of soclialism."
No, its NOT. Its a liberal idea. You can't just let people die in the streets if they don't have money. Or else those people will choose to go down fighting, they'll break into your house and steal all your ****. Or they'll jack airliners and slaughter some office workers. Helping people achieve success, like you said, by 'helping them to fish' is a conerstone of a liberal philosophy. Communism = handouts, thats not what Canada is about.
"Yes, the Wal Mart heirs deserve what they have. Part of the motivation in getting ahead is to eleveate your immediate heirs, in hopes they will do the same, and start a dynasty. You would take away what others have worked for, and you call this fair? Only a liberal would think this."
OK, wait a second. You said the Wal Mart heirs deserve what they have. WHY do THEY deserve it though. You explained why you think their parents deserved to help out their offspring (without saying how this benifits this economy or society), but thats not a justification for what the Wal Mart heirs DID to DESERVE it.
"No, it is a matter of providing the greatest good to the greatest number in a nation - the true function of government."
Yeah, exactly. America provides the greatest good. Canada provides nearly the greatest good, but to a much, much, much larger portion of the population.
"This is eactly what the conservatives want - teach a man to fish instead of feeding him a fish. The liberals always change it to feeding rather than teaching."
Well, thats exactly what Canada wants too. So maybe we have some common ground there. Feeding is the commy way, teaching is the liberal way, and I've been taught that letting the man die is the conservative way.
"I agree that some income redistribution is helpful to enable poor people to betterr themselves, but what typically happens is that they take the extra income and buy booze, street drugs, or cigarettes instead of spending it on training, education, or investments. Instead of lower taxes that give the poor money, we should give them free education, training or investment retirement accounts. We will never do this - the linberals want allow it (look at their resistance to using a small portion of social security for investments). "
Agreed, but liberal must mean different things in Canada than in the US, because state intervention to promote self reliance is what were all about. Free health care does not contradict this, it corrects for the market inefficincy of privatized health care where many are left to die in the streets (figurativly, if not litteraly). It is also more efficient on dollars spent, privatized health care is profit driven where the market economy cannot add significant value.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading all this, my buddy and I have a slingshot and some toy hand grenades. I think we'll go take on the Canadian Army, beat him, and make Canada the 51st state.
posted
HAHA, you got your cocky asses completely ****ed up and **** kicked for all the world to see by some box cutter wielding civilians...
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art: Bush has a high IQ - you have to have to get a M.B.A. from Harvard."
kevin: Well, a C average MBA from Harvard where your daddy's friends are backing the college financially...
Art: Is that why Harvard is such a prestigious university - gives out grades to those who don't earn them? Only liberals want to give out good grades to failures and lazy students.
Art: You rob money from those who earn it and give it to those that didn't - free healthcare, welfare and other entitlements. This is the communistic idea of "each according to need" and is a hall mark of soclialism.
kevin: No, its NOT. Its a liberal idea.
Art: Liberalism and socialism and communism share such redistribution of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not.
kevin: You can't just let people die in the streets if they don't have money. Or else those people will choose to go down fighting, they'll break into your house and steal all your ****. Or they'll jack airliners and slaughter some office workers.
Art: So we give money to parasitic thugs to keep them from hurting us, then these thugs reproduce thug offspring, and then we have more future thugs to give to in being blackmailed by them, and pretty soon there are more thugs than honest workers - the liberal ideal?
kevin: Helping people achieve success, like you said, by 'helping them to fish' is a conerstone of a liberal philosophy.
Art: No, not true. Liberal politicians want more welfare to buy votes from the poor, not workfare that requires the recipient to develop themselves by working or being trained. Workfare is a conservative idea.
Communism = handouts, thats not what Canada is about.
Art: Yes, the Wal Mart heirs deserve what they have. Part of the motivation in getting ahead is to eleveate your immediate heirs, in hopes they will do the same, and start a dynasty. You would take away what others have worked for, and you call this fair? Only a liberal would think this.
kevin: OK, wait a second. You said the Wal Mart heirs deserve what they have. WHY do THEY deserve it though.
Art: Because they inherited it. Who better deserves it? You will not answer this but your answer is that you and everyone else deserves it - the state should get all inheritances rather than pas them on to the family, and the deceased has no role in saying who gets what thet have earned (in your implied view).
kevin: You explained why you think their parents deserved to help out their offspring (without saying how this benifits this economy or society), but thats not a justification for what the Wal Mart heirs DID to DESERVE it.
Art: It is called private ownership (capitalism) as opposed to state onership (communism). Liberals and socialists like state ownership so they can take from those who earned it and give to those who did not. A person has the right to designate where death benefits go under capitalism. Liberals hate capitalism and call it elitist (each according to what they earn in the free and open market).
kevin: Canada provides nearly the greatest good, but to a much, much, much larger portion of the population.
Art: The income is redistributed, by the Canadian government, to those who didn't earn it. It is true the good is spread more. But this creates indolence and laziness among the population - destroys individual initiative. Productivity suffers and the standard of living goes down relative to other nations. This is a slow process - look how long it took to cripple Russia.
Art: This is eactly what the conservatives want - teach a man to fish instead of feeding him a fish. The liberals always change it to feeding rather than teaching.
kevin: So maybe we have some common ground there. Feeding is the commy way, teaching is the liberal way, and I've been taught that letting the man die is the conservative way.
Art: No, teaching is the conservative way. Take free healthcare. No one earns it or has to be trained to qualify for it - communism and liberal. Does Canadian welfare rewquire the recipient to undergo job training or work in a workfare setting? If not this is communism and liberal.
kevin:...in Canada .....state intervention to promote self reliance is what were all about.
Art: No, that is what you say is true but it is not true. Liberals take any idealistic statement as true. Your state intervention promotes dependencty and destroys individual initiative.
kevin: Free health care does not contradict this, it corrects for the market inefficincy of privatized health care where many are left to die in the streets (figurativly, if not litteraly). It is also more efficient on dollars spent, privatized health care is profit driven where the market economy cannot add significant value.
Art: Yes, getting rid of parasites is a problem for any nation. Some should die to benefit the non-parasites in society - makes the nation stronger and able to compete better in the international markets. Any nation who promotes parasites instead of letting them die will increase the number of parasites in the nation. As a result, the nation with many parasites will become less competitive in the world, and their standard of living wil reduce. Eventually the nation will suffer. The worst for the greatest number will result for that nation.
Healthcare in the U.S. suffers from being monopolisitc due to government regulation. Anyone should be allowed to practice medicine, order their own lab tests, or buy prescription medicine from anywhere they wish. This would induce competition that would lower medical costs, but the buyer must beware, as always. Many will be unable to treat themselves, and will only be able to trust licensed practitioners, and thus will pay more until they learn to treat thmeselves or find out the good but inexpensive non-licensed health practitioners.
It is not privatization that makes healthcare expensive, it is government interference which you like so much.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Art: Is that why Harvard is such a prestigious university - gives out grades to those who don't earn them? Only liberals want to give out good grades to failures and lazy students."
YES... thats EXACTLY what they do!!! Haven't you heard of the college football player getting Cs and Ds when he deserves to flunk out? This happens all the time, I've SEEN it for christ's sakes. Its the same thing with the children of people who are backing a university\college financially, they are made sure to be given Ds\Cs and never the appropriate and 'earned' F.
"Liberalism and socialism and communism share such redistribution of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not."
communism\socialism is redistribution that creates the 'parasites' you speak of that don't contribute to society. liberalism isn't about that, its about redistribution for empowerment and self-reliance. conservatism is about no redistribution, let'm die.
"Because they inherited it. Who better deserves it?"
You said that people phyiscally earn wealth and power in a capitalist society, the Wal-Mart heirs contradict your philosophy. Get over it.
"No, teaching is the conservative way."
Well, maybe in the US it is. But here, its the liberal way. Conservatives like it to, if thats what you mean, but our liberal party and liberal thinkers back workfare. In Ontario for instance, workfare legislation was supported by the liberal and conservative parties for example and only opposed by the NDP socialist party.
"No, that is what you say is true but it is not true."
Sorry buddy, but I live here, and I know my country, state intervention for the purpose of long term self-empowerment IS what Canada is all about. Just look at any of our workfare programs and our unprecdented support to entrepeurs.
"Healthcare in the U.S. suffers from being monopolisitc due to government regulation. Anyone should be allowed to practice medicine, order their own lab tests, or buy prescription medicine from anywhere they wish. This would induce competition that would lower medical costs, but the buyer must beware, as always. Many will be unable to treat themselves, and will only be able to trust licensed practitioners, and thus will pay more until they learn to treat thmeselves or find out the good but inexpensive non-licensed health practitioners.
It is not privatization that makes healthcare expensive, it is government interference which you like so much. "
Yeah, I agree with this for the most part. I've always said medical care needs to be deregulated to allow for competition.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You obviously believe the state should have what citizens earn - heirs should not be allowed to have what their family members earned when those family members die.
You say that state redistribution of earnings is only to develop people in Canada to enable them to be more productive but there are many situations of welfare in Canada where entitlements are given unconditionally - not contingent on the recipient developing themselves for the betterment of society. Free health care is the most obvious of these situations. You simply ignore such situations in your "rose colored" view of Canada.
You have unrealistic faith in the ability of government to solve problems. Someday you may realize that government often creates more problems than it solves and is essentially evil - the modern day fuedalism of royalty and the court exploiting the peasants (taxpayers).
Why don't you come to the U.S.A. and buy a degree from Harvard, then become our president, since according to you, anyone with even your intelligence can do this?
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You obviously believe the state should have what citizens earn - heirs should not be allowed to have what their family members earned when those family members die."
STILL, STILL, HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO DO THIS??? YOUR *****STILL***** DODGING THE ***FUNDAMENTAL**** QUESTION I ASKED ORIGINALLY....
ANSWER THIS, PLEASE...
If everything is earned and only the strong have power in a capitalist society as you have stated, what have the Wal-Mart heirs done to deserve this power, other than being born rich?
"the modern day fuedalism of royalty and the court exploiting the peasants (taxpayers)."
NO, thats what Wal-Mart does to its workers... inherited power exploiting the weak...
"You have unrealistic faith in the ability of government to solve problems. Someday you may realize that government often creates more problems than it solves and is essentially evil - the modern day fuedalism of royalty and the court exploiting the peasants (taxpayers)."
Yeah for sure the government creates problems when it tries to solve them, I'm was an economics minor. The problem is, the free market alone creates problems too. And, if the government applies itself PROPERLY to these problems (eg. workfare, student loans) than it CAN correct these problems.
"Why don't you come to the U.S.A. and buy a degree from Harvard, then become our president, since according to you, anyone with even your intelligence can do this? "
HAHA, who needs to do that when I can be a movie star and run a state with the IQ of a retarded single cell organism?? BTW, many wealthy Canadians buy degrees from US Ivy league schools and go on to run your country in civil service roles.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art: You obviously believe the state should have what citizens earn - heirs should not be allowed to have what their family members earned when those family members die.
kevin: STILL, STILL, HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO DO THIS??? YOUR *****STILL***** DODGING THE ***FUNDAMENTAL**** QUESTION I ASKED ORIGINALLY....
ANSWER THIS, PLEASE... If everything is earned and only the strong have power in a capitalist society as you have stated, what have the Wal-Mart heirs done to deserve this power, other than being born rich?
Art: I have answered this - several times. Why should you get my money when I die, assuming I am a Canadian citizen with in relation to you whatsoever? For that matter, why should you get my money when I am alive (via goverment entitlements), assuming I make more money than you do and am a Canadian citizen? Why shouldn't my heirs get my money when I die if i so wish? Yes, they earned it in giving me love and support while i was alive, otherwise I wouldn't leave my money to them. Now you answer my questions above.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art: government is the modern day fuedalism of royalty and the court exploiting the peasants (taxpayers).
kevin: NO, thats what Wal-Mart does to its workers... inherited power exploiting the weak...
Art: You have unrealistic faith in the ability of government to solve problems. Someday you may realize that government often creates more problems than it solves and is essentially evil - the modern day fuedalism of royalty and the court exploiting the peasants (taxpayers)."
kevin: Yeah for sure the government creates problems when it tries to solve them, I'm was an economics minor. The problem is, the free market alone creates problems too. And, if the government applies itself PROPERLY to these problems (eg. workfare, student loans) than it CAN correct these problems.
Art: The market (individuals buying and selling) is much more efficient than government. The beauty here is that the individual is repsonsible for their own decisions, and thus learns to make wise decisions over time or continues to suffer and perhaps perish. Their genes are lost from the gene pool and over time the nation becomes a nation of winners who contribute to society, with few parasites. When government choses badly it tends not be suffer (not be held accountable), and thus does not become wiser.
Let the indididual decide and be held accountable, rather than government, and the nation becomes stronger and its standard of living increases. The opposite happens when government rules in making decisions for individuals. History shows this repeatedly. Liberals and soclialists and communnists ignore this reality.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah well Art, you keep trying to tell me Bush is a "conservative"? but to me conservatives try to limit their spending...Bush has spent, and spent, and spent....and i understand you'll say it's an investment....BUT,
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said Bush was a conservative - he is far too liberal for me (fiscal policy) and we will suffer for it down the road. I say his foreign policy is good - taking the fight against terrorism to Iraq and containing it there, and using our military presence in Iraq as leverage to stabilize the mideast (encourage peace with Israel) and contain Iran and Syria.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
