Politics

RobertDyck · 2016-05-09 12:53:27

Antius: We do build cities where there are resources that are profitable. We build off-shore oil platforms that cost $millions$ and house hundreds. Gold mines in Yukon and other places. When the gold runs out, the town is abandoned. There are many abandoned places, you can search the internet. Russians built a town on an island to harvest oil, Japan built a town on another island for coal. Both towns are completely abandoned. In the 1800s a town was built on an island off antarctica for whaling; it's now abandoned too. A similar town will be built on Mars as soon as something profitable is found there.

Tom: "We" includes all humanity, not just America. Why immediately assume that means taking land from another country? Canada could build an archology, a single large building with all the services of an entire town. Or a biosphere, with trees and crops. In fact several Canadian communities are building greenhouses, but they're just normal size greenhouses to extend the growing season so they can grow produce.

Inuit people have lived in the arctic since aboriginals crossed the Bearing Sea land bridge at the end of the last ice age. They just live there, it's their home. Colonizing the north sounds good, but there are two problems. First, it's part of Canada so you don't get away from taxes and government regulation. That's one major reason why many people want to go to Mars. The second is aboriginal people don't want others treating their land as free for the taking. Mars doesn't have any aboriginal people.

Terraformer · 2016-05-09 15:28:44

What about Alaska?

Or even better, Svalbard. It would be a great place to try setting up such settlements, especially given the political situation there - there would be no problems with visas for most people wishing to go.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-10 08:47:59

RobertDyck wrote:

Antius: We do build cities where there are resources that are profitable. We build off-shore oil platforms that cost $millions$ and house hundreds. Gold mines in Yukon and other places. When the gold runs out, the town is abandoned. There are many abandoned places, you can search the internet. Russians built a town on an island to harvest oil, Japan built a town on another island for coal. Both towns are completely abandoned. In the 1800s a town was built on an island off antarctica for whaling; it's now abandoned too. A similar town will be built on Mars as soon as something profitable is found there.
Tom: "We" includes all humanity, not just America. Why immediately assume that means taking land from another country? Canada could build an archology, a single large building with all the services of an entire town. Or a biosphere, with trees and crops. In fact several Canadian communities are building greenhouses, but they're just normal size greenhouses to extend the growing season so they can grow produce.
Inuit people have lived in the arctic since aboriginals crossed the Bearing Sea land bridge at the end of the last ice age. They just live there, it's their home. Colonizing the north sounds good, but there are two problems. First, it's part of Canada so you don't get away from taxes and government regulation. That's one major reason why many people want to go to Mars. The second is aboriginal people don't want others treating their land as free for the taking. Mars doesn't have any aboriginal people.

Probably Mars has a novelty value that northern Canada simply does not. Also it is easier to set up a dome on Mars, the weather won't disturb it as much. Standing structures on Mars will last a lot longer than they will in the Arctic or Antarctic for that matter. In some respects the environment is less challenging on Mars, because of its thin atmosphere. You will probably need less energy to heat an inhabited structure on Mars, because Mars' laboratory vacuum conditions acts as a natural insulator, the only part you have to worry about much is thermal conduction through the ground, and you can insulate against that. In the Arctic, the wind carries away a lot of heat.

Also on Mars, astronauts won't have to worry about frostbite much, in the Arctic its a constant worry.

RobertDyck · 2016-06-23 16:32:46

Click image for video clip.
The first Flying Fickle Finger of Fate award. September 18, 1968

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-06-23 17:48:30)

SpaceNut · 2016-06-23 16:52:29

I do remember the Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In (often simply referred to as Laugh-In) is an American sketch comedy television program that ran for 140 episodes from January 22, 1968. Some skits were very funny.....

RobertDyck · 2016-09-15 02:38:32

20 October 2015 I posted this in another thread...

RobertDyck wrote:

Canada had a federal election yesterday. Amazing results! I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, our party won! We won big! Last election was a big loss for us. In 2011, the Conservative Party of Canada went from minority to majority, but our party lost so badly that the third party, the NDP, won more seats in the House of Commons that we did. That made the NDP the Official Opposition for the first time. Since Canada was founded, the Liberal and Conservative parties have been government or opposition; both parties have gone through major changes, but it has always been one or the other. The NDP is a socialist party, they've been third or worse since they were created. But last election they did very well, relegating our party to third position. This election we won. We went from third party to government, the first time in Canadian history a party did that. But we didn't just form government, we won a majority.
I have mixed emotions about this. I tried for the Liberal nomination in my riding, and do have support from the riding association (electoral district association), but it was manipulated at the provincial level. However, I believe in fiscal responsibility. The Liberal party was government from the September 1993 to January 2006, the Finance Minister got us out of an incredible mess. He cut spending, eliminated the deficit, reduced debt, reduced taxes. I still believe in that. Before the election campaign started, the current Liberal leader made statements in support of both the left-wing and fiscally-responsible factions of the party. However, during the current election campaign, the Liberal leader said he would increase spending and run a deficit. Conservatives had dramatically increased spending; starting the first day they were elected. The last Liberal budget included spending projections for that year and 5 years in the future. Conservatives claim they cut spending for this year, but if you project spending from the last Liberal budget to this year, their spending is still far above what Liberal spending would be. But the current Liberal leader wants to increase spending further?
If the Liberal party had won with a minority, there might have been a chance they would have listened to me. I would argue for return to fiscally responsible policies from the last time they were in power. But with this majority, they will implement their election platform. That means spend-and-deficit.
I've seen politicians twist things around to make a loss sound like a win. I guess I have to find a way to do this. My party won. The Liberal candidate who won in my riding/electoral district did not. She actually did well, received more votes that Liberal candidates in a long time. In 1993 the Liberal candidate got more votes; that was the last time the Liberal party unseated a Conservative government to win a majority. My riding is the only one in the city of Winnipeg that did not elect a Liberal candidate. The Conservative incumbent was unseated, the son of the previous NDP Member of Parliament won, unseating him by a slim margin: 34.26% vs 34.14%. He won by 51 votes. The Liberal candidate got 29.22% and the Green candidate 2.37%. So how do I turn this to my advantage?

Today, just after midnight 15 September 2016, Tom responded with...

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Liberal Press! Its not the Liberal Party that won, it was the Liberal Press. The Liberal Press controls the party agenda, it determines who gets elected, the Liberal Press is the same in Canada or the United States, and logic dictates that since the liberals like big government, they would coordinate the party agendas of both the United States Democratic Party, and Canada's Liberal Party, they will see to it that Liberal and Democratic Politicians that advocate for Unification of Canada, the United States, and of course the Mexicans, so they can get all those third world votes to cement their rule, and then they'll come up with a new flag for the North American Government, a new Constitution which cements their rule as the only party. The Media runs things, it has done most of the legwork for getting Hillary as far as she has got in the Presidential Election, and once she is President, they will control her, because if she doesn't do as they say, they will see to it that she is impeached, they got a lot of dirt on her that they've been holding back, she is their puppet, and if the Canadians aren't careful, she may end up being your President too! The Liberal Press doesn't want its puppet strings getting tangled, so they want only one puppet, and having only one country in North America makes things a lot simpler for them to control everything!

Canada has no desire to join the United States. We fought a war in 1812 to stay separate. Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin said "The United States is our neighbour, not our nation." And there has been efforts by American press to control Canadian press. The first president of the CBC claimed executives from American media tried to give him orders. He just smiled and pointed out they don't own the CBC. The CBC was a bastion of Canadian culture, but has degenerated in recent years.

The Republican party strongly controlled the Conservative Party of Canada while Stephen Harper was leader. I met a group of former Progressive Conservative party members who jumped to the Liberal party when that party merged with the Reform party. The resulting merged party is simply called Conservative Party of Canada. One of those members told me the American Republican party paid for memberships to the Conservative party, and he still has the receipt for his membership to prove it. It's illegal for a foreign entity to interfere with Canadian politics. And party memberships are supposed to be paid by the member, not anyone else. That's a strict rule to prevent leadership candidates from buying delegates in the leadership campaign. And Conservative candidates and key campaign workers were sent to Conservative school in the United States. After all that there were attempts by the Liberal party to cozy up to the Democrat party, but they never were any good at it. Liberals in Canada are far too independent. Actually a lot of them are down right arrogant.

When Bill Clinton was president, some young people started to ask why Canada and the US are separate countries. I was scared at that talk. Then George W. Bush got elected. That showed them why; ended all such talk. Now there's Donald Trump. Some people are excited that Hillary is a woman, but others like me are very concerned that she's such a hawk. The US definitely needs change, but Trump?

There have been efforts by many in the United States to absorb Canada. Primarily American corporate executives who want to treat Canada as part of the US. Walmart bought Wolco, a major Canadian retailer. Hudson's Bay Company aka HBC aka "The Bay" is an iconic Canadian company, originally a fur company since the 1600s. They're now owned by NRDC Equity Partners, parent company of Lord & Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue. Zellers was a large budget retailer owned by HBC; they were bought by Target who promptly failed and closed. I don't think any of these companies are "liberal"; big "L" or small "l".

No, US media does not control Canadian media.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-15 08:24:13

RobertDyck wrote:

20 October 2015 I posted this in another thread...
RobertDyck wrote:
Canada had a federal election yesterday. Amazing results! I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, our party won! We won big! Last election was a big loss for us. In 2011, the Conservative Party of Canada went from minority to majority, but our party lost so badly that the third party, the NDP, won more seats in the House of Commons that we did. That made the NDP the Official Opposition for the first time. Since Canada was founded, the Liberal and Conservative parties have been government or opposition; both parties have gone through major changes, but it has always been one or the other. The NDP is a socialist party, they've been third or worse since they were created. But last election they did very well, relegating our party to third position. This election we won. We went from third party to government, the first time in Canadian history a party did that. But we didn't just form government, we won a majority.
I have mixed emotions about this. I tried for the Liberal nomination in my riding, and do have support from the riding association (electoral district association), but it was manipulated at the provincial level. However, I believe in fiscal responsibility. The Liberal party was government from the September 1993 to January 2006, the Finance Minister got us out of an incredible mess. He cut spending, eliminated the deficit, reduced debt, reduced taxes. I still believe in that. Before the election campaign started, the current Liberal leader made statements in support of both the left-wing and fiscally-responsible factions of the party. However, during the current election campaign, the Liberal leader said he would increase spending and run a deficit. Conservatives had dramatically increased spending; starting the first day they were elected. The last Liberal budget included spending projections for that year and 5 years in the future. Conservatives claim they cut spending for this year, but if you project spending from the last Liberal budget to this year, their spending is still far above what Liberal spending would be. But the current Liberal leader wants to increase spending further?
If the Liberal party had won with a minority, there might have been a chance they would have listened to me. I would argue for return to fiscally responsible policies from the last time they were in power. But with this majority, they will implement their election platform. That means spend-and-deficit.
I've seen politicians twist things around to make a loss sound like a win. I guess I have to find a way to do this. My party won. The Liberal candidate who won in my riding/electoral district did not. She actually did well, received more votes that Liberal candidates in a long time. In 1993 the Liberal candidate got more votes; that was the last time the Liberal party unseated a Conservative government to win a majority. My riding is the only one in the city of Winnipeg that did not elect a Liberal candidate. The Conservative incumbent was unseated, the son of the previous NDP Member of Parliament won, unseating him by a slim margin: 34.26% vs 34.14%. He won by 51 votes. The Liberal candidate got 29.22% and the Green candidate 2.37%. So how do I turn this to my advantage?
Today, just after midnight 15 September 2016, Tom responded with...
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Liberal Press! Its not the Liberal Party that won, it was the Liberal Press. The Liberal Press controls the party agenda, it determines who gets elected, the Liberal Press is the same in Canada or the United States, and logic dictates that since the liberals like big government, they would coordinate the party agendas of both the United States Democratic Party, and Canada's Liberal Party, they will see to it that Liberal and Democratic Politicians that advocate for Unification of Canada, the United States, and of course the Mexicans, so they can get all those third world votes to cement their rule, and then they'll come up with a new flag for the North American Government, a new Constitution which cements their rule as the only party. The Media runs things, it has done most of the legwork for getting Hillary as far as she has got in the Presidential Election, and once she is President, they will control her, because if she doesn't do as they say, they will see to it that she is impeached, they got a lot of dirt on her that they've been holding back, she is their puppet, and if the Canadians aren't careful, she may end up being your President too! The Liberal Press doesn't want its puppet strings getting tangled, so they want only one puppet, and having only one country in North America makes things a lot simpler for them to control everything!
Canada has no desire to join the United States. We fought a war in 1812 to stay separate.

Actually that war was between the United States and the United Kingdom, and the UK was fighting to keep her colony, which Canada was at that time. So tell me, do you want to keep your right as a British citizen? too late! There was no country called Canada back in 1812, it was a British colony, just like the other 13 colonies that became the United States. We do have the same News Media by the way, the same liberals that run the while show, providing favorable coverage for the liberals and unfavorable coverage for the conservatives, the Media has a lot of tentacles, and they have two puppets which they control right now, the United States - through the Presidency of Barack Obama, and Canada through the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Sounds like your Prime.

Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin said "The United States is our neighbour, not our nation." And there has been efforts by American press to control Canadian press. The first president of the CBC claimed executives from American media tried to give him orders. He just smiled and pointed out they don't own the CBC. The CBC was a bastion of Canadian culture, but has degenerated in recent years.
The Republican party strongly controlled the Conservative Party of Canada while Stephen Harper was leader. I met a group of former Progressive Conservative party members who jumped to the Liberal party when that party merged with the Reform party. The resulting merged party is simply called Conservative Party of Canada. One of those members told me the American Republican party paid for memberships to the Conservative party, and he still has the receipt for his membership to prove it. It's illegal for a foreign entity to interfere with Canadian politics. And party memberships are supposed to be paid by the member, not anyone else. That's a strict rule to prevent leadership candidates from buying delegates in the leadership campaign. And Conservative candidates and key campaign workers were sent to Conservative school in the United States. After all that there were attempts by the Liberal party to cozy up to the Democrat party, but they never were any good at it. Liberals in Canada are far too independent. Actually a lot of them are down right arrogant.
When Bill Clinton was president, some young people started to ask why Canada and the US are separate countries. I was scared at that talk. Then George W. Bush got elected. That showed them why; ended all such talk. Now there's Donald Trump. Some people are excited that Hillary is a woman, but others like me are very concerned that she's such a hawk. The US definitely needs change, but Trump?

Hillary Clinton is a Hawk? In what way? Remember Benghazi, she abandoned four men to their deaths, because acknowledging that they needed help by sending in a rescue force would have been to admit failure and imperil Obama's reelection, so she did not send anybody, and those four men were killed by terrorists. Now the question about "hawkishness" comes to this: Do you want to be a victim just like they were? Do you want a government that abandons you like they did those four men in Libya? What does a European government do when hundreds of their citizens are killed by middle east terrorists? They wait to see what the United States does, that's what! Rather unsatisfactory isn't it. What if you, a Canadian citizen, were kidnapped by ISIS terrorists, and a Bunch of US Marines come to your rescue, because there were some American hostages too? American taxpayers paid for those US Marines, they paid for their equipment and all their high tech stuff and guns. Hillary Clinton didn't send those Marines into Benghazi, I wouldn't exactly call that "Hawkish."

Why not Trump? He opposes unending illegal immigration into this country! Would you want Canada to be swamped with millions of illegal aliens from Mexico? How about Millions more from Syria? Donald Trump is a Nationalist just like you are! If you were not a Nationalist, Canada being absorbed by the United States wouldn't be a big deal to you, in fact it would allow Canada to have an even bigger government in Washington, and politicians who crave power would like that. Bet you there are a lot of liberals in Canada who would just love to be President of both the United States and Canada, because then they would have even more power to tax and spend! Do you think Justin Trudeau wouldn't just love the extra power he's have if the United States and Canada were one country and he was the President? I'll bet you Justin Trudeau could probably beat Hillary Clinton in a head to head race for the Presidency of both our nations were combined. Hillary Clinton has such a reputation for dishonesty, that I doubt there are many people in the United States or Canada who could stomach her, and Democrats like to over rule states in the United States, I'm not sure what Justin Trudeau would do about the Provinces, what if a conservative province out west wanted to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, and doesn't allow marriages between two men or two women, wouldn't the Canadian government overrule such a province?

There have been efforts by many in the United States to absorb Canada. Primarily American corporate executives who want to treat Canada as part of the US. Walmart bought Wolco, a major Canadian retailer. Hudson's Bay Company aka HBC aka "The Bay" is an iconic Canadian company, originally a fur company since the 1600s. They're now owned by NRDC Equity Partners, parent company of Lord & Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue. Zellers was a large budget retailer owned by HBC; they were bought by Target who promptly failed and closed. I don't think any of these companies are "liberal"; big "L" or small "l".
No, US media does not control Canadian media.

You'd be surprised. Walmart supported Obamacare. The United States and Canada are one people and two countries, we speak the sam language, so its not surprising that there is cultural overflow. Those Canadian Nationalists are such because they do not feel they could compete in combined US-Canadian elections if our countries were ever to merge. Canada has the population of California, I think if our two countries were combined, Canada would have at least the same amount of influence as California does, with such leaders as Ronald Reagan for instance. Canada even has its own version of "Hollywood" in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-09-15 08:35:04)

RobertDyck · 2016-09-15 12:19:18

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Actually that war was between the United States and the United Kingdom, and the UK was fighting to keep her colony, which Canada was at that time. So tell me, do you want to keep your right as a British citizen? too late! There was no country called Canada back in 1812, it was a British colony, just like the other 13 colonies that became the United States.

In 1776 American revolutionaries tried to convince all 16 colonies to sign the Declaration of Independence. Yup, I said 16 colonies. There were 16 British colonies and 3 French ones. The revolutionaries didn't bother even trying to talk to the French colonies. 13 British colonies did sign, but 3 did not. The ones that didn't sign were Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Upper Canada. The last colony was later renamed Ontario. In 1812 the United States tried to conquer, subjugate, and annex Canada the same way Iraq did to Kuwait in 1990. They thought it would be easy, one American general said it would just be a matter of marching. They were wrong.

Canadians do not want an unnecessary fight, do not want to start a war. However, if attacked we will defend ourselves. Some Americans thought they would like to be free of British rule, willingly accept American rule instead. Nope, will not. Officers of the British military at the time were aristocracy, arrogant and condescending. They thought Canadian militia was incompetent. At the start of the American war of independence, professional British soldiers kicked American ass. But eventually American soldiers learned how to fight. At the end of the war of independence, American soldiers could be out numbered 10-to-1 and still win. To do that the fight to be in forest, if in an open field the British still tended to win. So if they could defeat British soldiers so effectively, and Canadian militia is a joke, then they should be a push-over right? Wrong! You forget that assessment was the same arrogant condescending aristocracy you were fight for independence from. Why would you trust them? They found Canadian militia used the same tactics as American soldiers, effectively used cover. While British soldiers wore bright red coats with bright white leather ammunition bags and gleaming gold buttons, making excellent targets, the Canadian militia wore forest green coats, brown leather ammunition bags, and buttons make of bone. That was camouflage of the day. Furthermore, British foot solders were draftees from Scotland, Ireland and Wales, who really didn't want to be there and hated British aristocracy as much as Americans. They only reason they fought is they were drafted (British word is conscripted), they would be executed if they didn't fight. But Canadian militia were defending their homes, they were just as motivated as any American. In fact, when an American soldier fought against a Canadian, he may as well be fighting against himself. Oops! They didn't expect that.

Many citizens of the 13 colonies did not want to separate. They saw themselves as British citizens. And they certainly didn't want to fight a war. So many citizens from the colonies moved north. Many moved to the mainland portion of Nova Scotia. Most citizens of Nova Scotia lived on the peninsula, there were only a handful on the mainland. But over 100,000 refugees from the 13 colonies flooded in. So many that the mainland was made a separate colony, it became New Brunswick. Many more moved to Ontario. After the wars America played games with the border, drew a big cut north into Canadian territory. British didn't want another war, so let America have it. Canadians were highly upset the British were so gutless. So the northern half of what is now the state of Maine was originally part of New Brunswick. Was populated by citizens who didn't want to be American. But after it became part of Maine, most didn't move again, they just stayed.

When Canada separated from Britain, we did it the Canadian way. Through negotiation, not war.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

We do have the same News Media by the way, the same liberals that run the while show, providing favorable coverage for the liberals and unfavorable coverage for the conservatives

Canada does have Sun media and a website called "The Rebel". It's very very very Conservative. The Sun had a TV news channel for a while, many called it Fox new north. But its ratings were not enough to stay on the air. Sun media does publish a tabloid newspaper every day; tried to be a major newspaper, not as bad as most American tabloids, but definitely isn't a broadsheet newspaper. The Sun is very biased in favour of Conservatives, and Conservative values. So don't assume all media is Liberal. Down south you certainly can't call Fox news "Liberal".

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Hillary Clinton is a Hawk?

Oh yea. She is. When Bill was president, Bill and Hillary tried to get the former Soviet republic of Georgia to join NATO. Very provocative. That ended with Russia playing games with treaties so that Russia could invade northern Georgia and the US did nothing. Just so Georgia would remain part of the Russian "sphere of influence". That war wouldn't have been necessary if the Clintons hadn't messed with a former Soviet republic. Did you see the New Hampshire debates during the 2008 primaries? That was the first debate, when all candidates for both major American parties were still in the race. Hillary was the only Democrat more hawkish than Obama. She supports military intervention in Syria, Iraq, others.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

You'd be surprised. Walmart supported Obamacare. The United States and Canada are one people and two countries, we speak the sam[e] language, so its not surprising that there is cultural overflow. Those Canadian Nationalists are such because they do not feel they could compete in combined US-Canadian elections if our countries were ever to merge. Canada has the population of California, I think if our two countries were combined, Canada would have at least the same amount of influence as California does, with such leaders as Ronald Reagan for instance. Canada even has its own version of "Hollywood" in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Canadian and American culture is not the same. It isn't readily apparent from watching TV, but any Canadian who has spent any time living in the US, more than just vacation, will tell you there is significant differences. I've heard Canadian reports who moved to the US to cover American politics comment that American culture is more different than you would think. So it's not just me.

One Canadian political reporter pointed out that if Canada joined the United States, it would all vote Democrat. It would be so Democrat that the Republicans would have difficulty electing a president. Even Alberta, the heart of oil country and cowboys, a province called "Texas with snow". Calgary elected mayor Naheed Nenshi. The first Muslim mayor of a major North American city. Born in Toronto, raised in Calgary, so he is all Canadian. But he's Muslim, and his politics are left-wing.

By the way, movies are produced in Toronto as well. The movie "Suicide Squad" based on Batman bad guys was filmed in Toronto. Even Winnipeg has some movies filmed here.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-09-16 03:44:28)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-18 06:53:06

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Actually that war was between the United States and the United Kingdom, and the UK was fighting to keep her colony, which Canada was at that time. So tell me, do you want to keep your right as a British citizen? too late! There was no country called Canada back in 1812, it was a British colony, just like the other 13 colonies that became the United States.
In 1776 American revolutionaries tried to convince all 16 colonies to sign the Declaration of Independence. Yup, I said 16 colonies. There were 16 British colonies and 3 French ones. The revolutionaries didn't bother even trying to talk to the French colonies. 13 British colonies did sign, but 3 did not. The ones that didn't sign were Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Upper Canada. The last colony was later renamed Ontario. In 1812 the United States tried to conquer, subjugate, and annex Canada the same way Iraq did to Kuwait in 1990. They thought it would be easy, one American general said it would just be a matter of marching. They were wrong.

You are overlooking the fact that James Monroe wasn't Saddam Hussein, and he was a Democrat by the way! (Republicans didn't com onto the scene until the 1850s.)

Canadians do not want an unnecessary fight, do not want to start a war. However, if attacked we will defend ourselves. Some Americans thought they would like to be free of British rule, willingly accept American rule instead.

Canada was mostly full of conservatives in those days, unlike yourself. Bet you there were some liberals who were in favor of joining the United States, but they were outvoted! I wonder what you would do if you were suddenly transported back in time to 1812, bet you your fellow Canadians would have a hard time figuring you out.

Nope, will not. Officers of the British military at the time were aristocracy, arrogant and condescending. They thought Canadian militia was incompetent. At the start of the American war of independence, professional British soldiers kicked American ass. But eventually American soldiers learned how to fight. At the end of the war of independence, American soldiers could be out numbered 10-to-1 and still win. To do that the fight to be in forest, if in an open field the British still tended to win. So if they could defeat British soldiers so effectively, and Canadian militia is a joke, then they should be a push-over right? Wrong! You forget that assessment was the same arrogant condescending aristocracy you were fight for independence from. Why would you trust them? They found Canadian militia used the same tactics as American soldiers, effectively used cover. While British soldiers wore bright red coats with bright white leather ammunition bags and gleaming gold buttons, making excellent targets, the Canadian militia wore forest green coats, brown leather ammunition bags, and buttons make of bone. That was camouflage of the day. Furthermore, British foot solders were draftees from Scotland, Ireland and Wales, who really didn't want to be there and hated British aristocracy as much as Americans. They only reason they fought is they were drafted (British word is conscripted), they would be executed if they didn't fight. But Canadian militia were defending their homes, they were just as motivated as any American. In fact, when an American soldier fought against a Canadian, he may as well be fighting against himself. Oops! They didn't expect that.

Same was true of the South during the American Civil War, the Southerners were told they were defending their homes, when they were actually fighting to defend slavery, those Southern propagandists were very good, getting all of those non-slave owners to fight for their slaves by telling them they were defending their homes and southern honor instead, Suckers! 750,000 Americans lost their lives because of that stupidity, because of that propaganda that told Southerners that they were fighting for their homes instead of slave owners slaves, it served their purpose just the same, its just that Abraham Lincoln was a more competent leader than James Monroe. I don't get it, James Monroe was a member of the same party as Hillary Rodham Clinton, I don't know how you could support anyone like her!

Many citizens of the 13 colonies did not want to separate. They saw themselves as British citizens.

And they were called Tories, aka conservatives.

And they certainly didn't want to fight a war. So many citizens from the colonies moved north. Many moved to the mainland portion of Nova Scotia. Most citizens of Nova Scotia lived on the peninsula, there were only a handful on the mainland. But over 100,000 refugees from the 13 colonies flooded in. So many that the mainland was made a separate colony, it became New Brunswick. Many more moved to Ontario. After the wars America played games with the border, drew a big cut north into Canadian territory. British didn't want another war, so let America have it. Canadians were highly upset the British were so gutless. So the northern half of what is now the state of Maine was originally part of New Brunswick. Was populated by citizens who didn't want to be American. But after it became part of Maine, most didn't move again, they just stayed.

Unlike the French Revolution, we didn't have a reign of terror! They had no reason to leave, unlike so many French Aristocrats!

When Canada separated from Britain, we did it the Canadian way. Through negotiation, not war.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
We do have the same News Media by the way, the same liberals that run the while show, providing favorable coverage for the liberals and unfavorable coverage for the conservatives
Canada does have Sun media and a website called "The Rebel". It's very very very Conservative. The Sun had a TV news channel for a while, many called it Fox new north. But its ratings were not enough to stay on the air. Sun media does publish a tabloid newspaper every day; tried to be a major newspaper, not as bad as most American tabloids, but definitely isn't a broadsheet newspaper. The Sun is very biased in favour of Conservatives, and Conservative values. So don't assume all media is Liberal. Down south you certainly can't call Fox news "Liberal".
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Hillary Clinton is a Hawk?
Oh yea. She is. When Bill was president, Bill and Hillary tried to get the former Soviet republic of Georgia to join NATO. Very provocative. That ended with Russia playing games with treaties so that Russia could invade northern Georgia and the US did nothing. Just so Georgia would remain part of the Russian "sphere of influence". That war wouldn't have been necessary if the Clintons hadn't messed with a former Soviet republic. Did you see the New Hampshire debates during the 2008 primaries? That was the first debate, when all candidates for both major American parties were still in the race. Hillary was the only Democrat more hawkish than Obama. She supports military intervention in Syria, Iraq, others.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
You'd be surprised. Walmart supported Obamacare. The United States and Canada are one people and two countries, we speak the sam[e] language, so its not surprising that there is cultural overflow. Those Canadian Nationalists are such because they do not feel they could compete in combined US-Canadian elections if our countries were ever to merge. Canada has the population of California, I think if our two countries were combined, Canada would have at least the same amount of influence as California does, with such leaders as Ronald Reagan for instance. Canada even has its own version of "Hollywood" in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Canadian and American culture is not the same. It isn't readily apparent from watching TV, but any Canadian who has spent any time living in the US, more than just vacation, will tell you there is significant differences. I've heard Canadian reports who moved to the US to cover American politics comment that American culture is more different than you would think. So it's not just me.
One Canadian political reporter pointed out that if Canada joined the United States, it would all vote Democrat. It would be so Democrat that the Republicans would have difficulty electing a president. Even Alberta, the heart of oil country and cowboys, a province called "Texas with snow". Calgary elected mayor Naheed Nenshi. The first Muslim mayor of a major North American city. Born in Toronto, raised in Calgary, so he is all Canadian. But he's Muslim, and his politics are left-wing.

You know that a bomb just went off in New York City? Just read about it this morning, and I think its going to help out Trump. If Canada became a part of the United States, they would become just as much a target as we are. I think a Muslim would have a hard time becoming mayor of New York City, and its not because New York City is a Right Wing bastion, rather is because those Muslim Jihadists keep on coming here and reminding us that they want to kill us, and people don't take kindly to that! New York City I one of their primary targets, so I guess Muslims are not going to be well liked in New York so long as that is happening. Its funny that Muslims are left wing, they are perhaps the only religious group that is, most left-wingers are not religious except the Muslims, and many Muslims don't agree with other parts of the liberal agenda except the anti-American part, they tolerate homosexuals because they have to, they don't comment about the feminists and the left-wing feminists don't comment about the way Muslims treat women, and the Jews in the Democratic Party just eat their bagels and cream cheese and don't have much to say about Israel anymore, lest they have conflicts with the Muslims in their party. Are there many Canadian Jews or are they moving south these days? Truthfully, I wouldn't mind Canada joining the Union, population wise it would be like adding another California, and we can always compensate by letting in Cuba. Cuba would make a nice addition as well, once they overthrow those Communists. A post Communist Cuba would be in dire economic straights, just like East Germany was before joining the Federal Republic of Germany. Trump had said he was an admirer of Putin, what has Putin done but add territory to Russia, I think Trump wouldn't be against adding territory to the United States, I mean illegal immigrants is one thing, but if they come with territory, that's a whole different kettle of fish. I think the Democrats want Mexicans, they just don't want Mexico. Having Mexico joining the Union would solve a long standing problem, mainly that of the South Western states that used to be part of the old Mexican Empire, once the number of Mexican-Americans reach a critical mass, and certain number of tem may want to be part of Mexico, if Mexico joins the United States, that problem is eliminated. Manifest Destiny was a Democratic Platform anyway.

There was never a set of principles defining manifest destiny, therefore it was always a general idea rather than a specific policy made with a motto. Ill-defined but keenly felt, manifest destiny was an expression of conviction in the morality and value of expansionism that complemented other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism and Romantic nationalism. Andrew Jackson, who spoke of "extending the area of freedom", typified the conflation of America's potential greatness, the nation's budding sense of Romantic self-identity, and its expansion.[10][11]
Yet Jackson would not be the only president to elaborate on the principles underlying manifest destiny. Owing in part to the lack of a definitive narrative outlining its rationale, proponents offered divergent or seemingly conflicting viewpoints. While many writers focused primarily upon American expansionism, be it into Mexico or across the Pacific, others saw the term as a call to example. Without an agreed upon interpretation, much less an elaborated political philosophy, these conflicting views of America's destiny were never resolved. This variety of possible meanings was summed up by Ernest Lee Tuveson, who writes:
A vast complex of ideas, policies, and actions is comprehended under the phrase "Manifest Destiny". They are not, as we should expect, all compatible, nor do they come from any one source.[12]
John L. O'Sullivan, sketched in 1874, was an influential columnist as a young man, but he is now generally remembered only for his use of the phrase "manifest destiny" to advocate the annexation of Texas and Oregon.
Journalist John L. O'Sullivan, an influential advocate for Jacksonian democracy and a complex character described by Julian Hawthorne as "always full of grand and world-embracing schemes",[13] wrote an article in 1839,[14] which, while not using the term "manifest destiny", did predict a "divine destiny" for the United States based upon values such as equality, rights of conscience, and personal enfranchisement "to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man". This destiny was not explicitly territorial, but O'Sullivan predicted that the United States would be one of a "Union of many Republics" sharing those values.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
I figure that when robots start displacing human labor, there will be more support for economic redistribution anyway. Problem is Democrats are doing that now. You can't after all have free medical care when you need to pay human doctors to provide it! When AI gets developed, that is a different story, but right now liberals are proposing things that are premature!

By the way, movies are produced in Toronto as well. The movie "Suicide Squad" based on Batman bad guys was filmed in Toronto. Even Winnipeg has some movies filmed here.

Which goes to show you, as far as liberal Hollywood is concerned, Canada is America, Batman, the Joker, and the Suicide Squad are American characters, and they figure Canadian actors can play them just as well as Americans can, that shows you the difference between Canadian and American culture. Canadian culture is defined negatively as meaning "not the United States" by folks like you. Are there cultural differences between places like New York and Texas? Sure, and that is about the same difference as between the United States and Canada. I hate to tell you this, but most of the people that wanted Canada to stay in the British Empire during the American Revolution were not Liberal! They were fairly Conservative in fact, that is why they were called Tories! Do you call yourself a Tory? Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a Tory, and so was Margaret Thatcher, both members of the Conservative Party otherwise known as Tories. Back in the day, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were Liberals! That was before So called "Liberals" took that Marxist turn with ole Karl! Before the French Revolution, the Liberal Movement was represented by those American Revolutionaries I talked about, that was before some people like Maximillian Robespierre and Karl Marx got the idea of subverting Liberalism towards tyranny and dictatorship, before them, America was at the forefront of real liberalism, not the phony kind that Karl Marx offered. But people being of average intelligence quickly fell for the gimmicks of class struggle and redistribution and envy. The American Revolution wasn't about that, it was about geographic separation and a rejection of Monarchy towards freedom.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-09-18 09:36:26)

RobertDyck · 2016-09-18 13:47:59

You're an idiot, Tom. We've had this discussion before. You keep repeating the same mistakes. You will never learn.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-18 23:38:01

I find it interesting that your a Nationalist about Canada, yet you expect me not to be about the United States of America. You expect the United States of America not to have any borders that are enforced, let all the illegal aliens come right in and give them all citizenship and voting rights, and we are not supposed to defend our country, yet when I suggest you do away with your own country, so you can become part of a much larger one, you get all upset! Well which way is it going to be? I have no problem at all with letting millions of Mexicans immigrate to the United States and become US citizens, but my price for this is that Mexico become part of the United States. If the Mexican People aren't willing to pay that price, then I'm not willing to let them all come here whenever they want, and become US citizens or even have legal status and compete with Americans for jobs, I'm just not! If you want to work for NASA and you want to compete equally for NASA jobs, then my price is that Canada become part of the United States. Why should you get something without giving something? That is called trade! I think the United States should stop giving things away to foreigners for free, does that sound reasonable?

RobertDyck · 2016-09-19 06:02:34

To be a reasonable human being, you should be proud of your country. But do not denigrate other countries. You are not a "nationalist" about the United States. What you're doing is threatening war on Canada. What you just said about Mexico is also threatening war on Mexico.

Tom, all of us outside the United States have had to deal with Americans demanding free access to our markets. We have had to deal with American corporations demanding business within our countries change to be the American way. We have had to deal with corporations killing iconic domestic business. And we have had to deal with American citizens demanding they can freely enter our country, to work or vacation. All these things work two ways. If Americans can do that to our country, then we can to yours. If you don't like it, tough! It's far too late. Both Mexico and Canada have been part of NAFTA for decades. Canada and the US signed a bi-national free trade agreement in the 1980s. There has been benefits, but there has also been massive damage. In Winnipeg, Canada has lost many entire industries. Winnipeg had the largest meat packing industry in all of Canada; it's all gone, taken over by a company in North Dakota. Yes that's right, not Mexico or some overseas country, to the United States. When Stelco succeeded, American companies bitched and got the United States to blatantly violate the terms of the bi-national free trade agreement in order to kill Stelco. NAFTA was supposed to ensure that never happens again, but it did. The United States blatantly violated NAFTA over soft wood lumber.

And yet you demand the Canada surrender, accept rule by the United States. No! We suffered a hell of a lot of damage over blatant violations of trade treaties. We have no patience for some dumb-ass American citizens who bitch every time a Canadian company succeeds at trade with the United States. We certainly have no patience with an idiot who demands the United States annex our country simply because of that same trade.

The United States federal government did really stupid things that lead to the collapse of your banking system in 2008. According to Paul Martin, when he was Prime Minister of Canada, representatives from the United States came to Canada to recommend Canada do those same dumb things. Paul Martin did not, and warned the United States not to do it. But the Americans were arrogant. Yes, we can say "told you so". The American banking system collapse caused a massive recession, and almost caused a full world-wide depression. When the United States saw Canada weathered the recession better than the US, they decided to raid Canada for everything they could take.

No Tom. You are not reasonable.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-19 09:15:14

RobertDyck wrote:

To be a reasonable human being, you should be proud of your country. But do not denigrate other countries. You are not a "nationalist" about the United States. What you're doing is threatening war on Canada. What you just said about Mexico is also threatening war on Mexico.

Did I say that? No did not! Did the Federal Republic of German wage war on and invade East Germany? Did it ever occur to you that there are other ways to achieve national unification other than by war and invasion? No it did not! As far as Mexico is concerned, if they really liked Mexico the way it is, then why do they come here looking for employment? All I am saying is if they really want jobs in the United States and don't want to live in the shadows and have their employers take advantage of their illegal immigrant status, then the people of Mexico should consider having their country become a part of the United States. I did not make any threat of invasion, nor did I state that invasion is how we would go about adding Mexico to the United States, you suggested that, not I. So the question I ask you is why did you bring it up? You don't like the idea, so naturally you wish to present it in the most unpalatable way you can think of, namely achiving national unification through military force at the point of a gun, because you don't like the idea period! Yet you come here looking for a Job with NASA. That job you are looking for is paid for by US taxpayers, if you want to compete for that job on an equal footing, your people should be among those taxpayers. What I'm suggesting is entirely reasonable, I did not suggest war or invasion, you did!

Tom, all of us outside the United States have had to deal with Americans demanding free access to our markets. We have had to deal with American corporations demanding business within our countries change to be the American way. We have had to deal with corporations killing iconic domestic business. And we have had to deal with American citizens demanding they can freely enter our country, to work or vacation. All these things work two ways. If Americans can do that to our country, then we can to yours.

Again, you are letting your emotions get the better of you, you like to divide us into "Us" and "Them," I don't know what useful purpose that serves or how it serves the Canadian people to think of US citizens as the "Other!" If you look at it rationally, you will see we are not that much different from you, no more so than a Texan is different from a New Yorker, it is simply an accident of history that we live in different countries. What does Canada stand for other than not being part of the United States? That is a silly reason to have a country. The United States is based on an idea, that the government exists to serve he people, so what is in the best interests of your people and mine? Would Californians be better served if they lived in a separate country? I don't see it.

If you don't like it, tough! It's far too late. Both Mexico and Canada have been part of NAFTA for decades. Canada and the US signed a bi-national free trade agreement in the 1980s. There has been benefits, but there has also been massive damage. In Winnipeg, Canada has lost many entire industries. Winnipeg had the largest meat packing industry in all of Canada; it's all gone, taken over by a company in North Dakota.

So what's stopping those Canadians from moving to North Dakota so they can have those jobs? Ah yes, the National Border that's what! Please tell me how has that national border between the US and Canada ever helped you? Seems to me it is an obstacle, you can't get that job with NASA because of it. Americans have moved from place to place in search of employment all the time, perhaps some towns in Canada would prosper if it weren't for that national border preventing US citizens from moving there. National borders impede travel, so why would you want one between the US and Canada? From the purely selfish point of view of an individual looking for work, I don't see how that border actually helps, do you? Canadians are people and so are Americans, they have a similar standard of living and they speak the same language, so how does having a border between us help us as individuals? You haven't made your case for that? Because of some war in 1776 or 1812? What does that have to do with us in the here and now?

Yes that's right, not Mexico or some overseas country, to the United States. When Stelco succeeded, American companies bitched and got the United States to blatantly violate the terms of the bi-national free trade agreement in order to kill Stelco. NAFTA was supposed to ensure that never happens again, but it did. The United States blatantly violated NAFTA over soft wood lumber.

If we were living in one country, you wouldn't be complaining about these problems, you are still dealing with "Us" and "Them". If we were both part of the same country companies within that country would compete with each other, without some government going to bat for one or another and playing the game of national competition and which company is Canadian and which one is American. I think that is a silly game, don't you think? How does a divided continent serve our people? Can you think of a single advantage it has brought? Mexico at some point, when it gets strong enough is going to try and take back the American Southwest, what's wrong with nipping that in the bid as well, by having Mexico itself become part of the US? We already took part of Mexico, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California were all once part of Mexico, I wonder why we only took the northern half back in the 19th century? Wanted the land to make slave states out of I suppose, but didn't want the people? You know how Texas became part of the United States? It all started with mass migration of Americans into Texas, the Mexican Government encouraged that migration, and guess what happened after a critical mass was achieved? Right now Mexicans are flowing over the border into the United States, instead of having the US and Mexico wrestle over some territory, how about use uniting our two countries together once and for all, so we don't have these territorial disputes in the future? Does that sound like a good idea?

And yet you demand the Canada surrender, accept rule by the United States.

Does the United States "rule" California? No California is a part of the United States, they have input in how the United States is government just as Canada would if it was part of the United States, what is wrong with that? Does Canada "Rule" Alberta? Why is not Alberta a separate country? The problem is you think of us in terms of "Us" and "Them" don't you see it doesn't have to be that way? Canada has more people than my state of Connecticut, you don't see me worrying about that, do you? Are we going to be "ruled" by Canada? I don't think block voting between national groups, especially when they are so similar is inevitable, and it won't necessarily result in one exploiting the other because one is more numerous than the other. What are you worried about, or are you just looking for reasons not to have national unification?

No! We suffered a hell of a lot of damage over blatant violations of trade treaties. We have no patience for some dumb-ass American citizens who bitch every time a Canadian company succeeds at trade with the United States. We certainly have no patience with an idiot who demands the United States annex our country simply because of that same trade.

Don't you see, this is an artificially generated conflict, you expect to rally behind your flag and for me to rally behind my flag and for my country to take away stuff from yours, but don't you see, it doesn't have to be that way. What really matters is not our flags but our people, and how would our people be best served! Do you think rallying behind the flag and having national competition between our two countries best serves them? Please explain how that is. is a continent divided into three countries really better off than one continent united as one country? Would you propose dividing up Australia?

The United States federal government did really stupid things that lead to the collapse of your banking system in 2008.

And maybe if Canada was a part of the United States it wouldn't have done so. California is a pretty significant state after all, imagine if the United States had another "California" that was Canada, the electoral dynamics would be different now wouldn't it! If you think Canadians would know better, than maybe having Canada as part of the United states would lead to better decisions, ever consider that?

According to Paul Martin, when he was Prime Minister of Canada, representatives from the United States came to Canada to recommend Canada do those same dumb things. Paul Martin did not, and warned the United States not to do it. But the Americans were arrogant. Yes, we can say "told you so". The American banking system collapse caused a massive recession, and almost caused a full world-wide depression. When the United States saw Canada weathered the recession better than the US, they decided to raid Canada for everything they could take.
No Tom. You are not reasonable.

The Banking System collapsed because Democrats pressured banks to underwrite mortgages to minorities who would not otherwise qualify, they couldn't pay back those mortgages and so the banking system collapsed. Now do you have minorities in Canada? I agree it was a stupid decision, and the Democrats thought they could rectify it by forcing banks to make loans to them when they shouldn't instead of dealing with the real problem which is income disparity! So are you saying that the United States and Canada shouldn't be united because you claim that American citizens are mentally deficient? Is that your reason? Do you claim to have superior intellect over us and that you wouldn't make stupid mistakes like that? It seems like arrogance on your part them. the Truth is your country is full of liberals just like mine, and they from time to time make stupid decisions just like in my country, whether we were two countries o one wouldn't change that?

Void · 2016-09-19 11:01:50

Perhaps this will entertain or irritate you.
This site used to have a message board, but now is just more or less static.
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/index.htm

Americalex took over the message board:
http://www.annexation.ca/

I used to be an active member of both UNA and annexation, but was never an advocate of union or specifically against it (Just some proposed forms of it).

They don't seem to have much excitement these days, but I think you can likely have more liberty for political discussions there, if that is what you want.

And they can probably furnish you with quite a lot of factual information about various conflicts which are obscured by tinted views on various sides.

Null

Last edited by Void (2016-09-19 11:05:21)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-19 11:49:26

Colonizing Mars is all about creating a new society. Naturally if one is open to creating one on Mars, one should not reject out of hand the idea of creating one on Earth. RobertDyck makes a bunch of emotional arguments against, based on the notion that we're "Us" and they are "Them", and that somehow because we have a higher population than they do, that we would want to exploit or ruin them. Canada used to be a bastion of British Imperialism, it is that no longer, but what is it now?

Imagine an alternate history if you will, one where the South won the Civil War and became a separate country called the Confederate States of America, they have their own flag, national anthem, and a Capitol in Richmond, Virginia, but they have since abolished slavery, so for them its no longer an issue, Yet they still have "Dixie" as their National Anthem, they have their own Senate and House of Representatives, a President and Vice President, just like we do. Now imagine I am having this discussion with GW Johnson - an Ardent Confederate Nationalist, and I bring up the subject that since slavery is no longer an issue, why should we reunite out two countries the USA and CSA. And GW Johnson starts talking about Southern Honor and how you "Yankees" want to exploit us Confederates. I could have a similar sort of conversation with him in that parallel universe that I'm having now with RobertDyck. I could argue for instance that a country like the CSA no longer stands for anything other than not being a part of the USA, and he might make a bunch of emotional argumens supporting Southern Independence, and he might mention the banking collapse. etc. I would then mention that when the CSA was founded, it wasn't by a bunch of liberals.

That is a funny thing, you establish a bunch of borders and people seek to justify them. The United States was established for a specific purpose, and I think it was a good one, it wasn't established t maintain slavery or as a bulwark of British Empire, those other two causes have gone by the wayside, but not that of the United States of America. The Confederates lost their bid for independence while the Canadians remained within the British Empire for a time. I think we are lucky to be in a country that still stands for something other than not being a part of someone else.

Void · 2016-09-19 12:09:32

I didn't intend to continue beyond what I provided, but I will say this. Borders are kind of an imposed method of understanding where you belong, and what is yours (Sort of, actually I think I am entitled to die, but not much else. What I get away with is another thing)

Don't minimize what we have inherited as firmware from the history of our "Creation", that is the origins of the pattern we replicate and continue.

Also, don't back someone in a corner, or take away their teddy bears, unless you have to for some moral reason.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-19 12:45:48

Void wrote:

I didn't intend to continue beyond what I provided, but I will say this. Borders are kind of an imposed method of understanding where you belong, and what is yours (Sort of, actually I think I am entitled to die, but not much else. What I get away with is another thing)
Don't minimize what we have inherited as firmware from the history of our "Creation", that is the origins of the pattern we replicate and continue.
Also, don't back someone in a corner, or take away their teddy bears, unless you have to for some moral reason.

So you agree that had history gone a little different, I could have had this conversation with a Confederate Southern Nationalist. History would not have had to have been much different, a little thing like an order not getting lost and found in 1862 could have done the trick. The tricky thing is that borders also cause wars, where there is two countries, there could be a war between them in the future. Politicians and leaders who want power often drive their nations to war! Putin does this for instance. If you get two leaders, two countries and a disagreement between the two, you can have a war, the borders are he fault lines between such things and the more borders there are, the more likely there is to be a war. If the British Empire still existed and it included the United States, World War II would have been unlikely to break out, cause Hitler would not have seen away he could have won. If he had bombed London, the resources of North American would have landed on him like a ton of bricks. Large states tend to discourage small aggressors from attacking them.

I figure one way towards a world government is to coalesce a large state, making it bigger until it covers the globe, I would do it voluntarily based on mutual interest, and if people refuse, and they get picked off by a future Hitler, I would say, "I told you so!"

Void · 2016-09-19 12:59:00

What you say is what you say. What I think is what I think.

Terraformer · 2016-09-20 09:21:37

Actually, now that the tea tax is no longer an issue...

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-20 12:33:33

The American Revolution represents a missed opportunity, the missed opportunity was Britain's they had the opportunity to spread their country to the New World, but instead they chose to make colonies of them and exploit them for immediate gain, part of the attempt to do this was the Tea Tax which sparked the Revolution. the Revolution should have been throughout the Empire, instead it was limited to the 13 colonies. The UK's other colonies, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand broke off, so where is the British Empire today? It could have been a republic bigger than the United States, it could have kept Nazi Germany and the Russians in check, but it broke apart instead because of petty rulers that wanted power!

RobertDyck · 2016-09-21 01:34:48

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

So are you saying that the United States and Canada shouldn't be united because you claim that American citizens are mentally deficient?

No, I'm saying Canada should be separate because it's our country. And Canada has different values, and different culture. It's hard to realize just how different from watching TV or chatting on the internet. You have to live in both countries to understand. I have.

However, a more flippant answer is that American citizens are not mentally deficient, just your government. Our government has it's problems too, but don't appear nearly as large as yours. I heard psychologists claim any group acts according to the lowest common denominator. Perhaps the sheer size of the United States explains the mental deficiency of your politicians.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

the Truth is your country is full of liberals just like mine

You say that like it's a bad thing. But the "Liberal Party of Canada" isn't as "liberal" as Republicans think when they use that word. The Liberal Party of Canada believes in balanced budgets, lower taxes, sound management. Or it did. Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien with his Finance Minister Paul Martin, and later Prime Minister Paul Martin, believed in reducing government spending, reducing the number of individuals hired to the federal civil service, eliminating the deficit, reducing the debt, and reducing taxes. Current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is doing a lot of things right, but his government has increased spending and increased the deficit. I'm concerned.

But compare to what your politicians are doing. The previous Canadian Conservative administration inherited a $17.4 billion surplus from Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. The Conservatives squandered it, ran the deficit up to $55.6 billion in 2009. They shrank the deficit to $3 billion by the election last year. The current Liberal administration promised to run a $10 billion deficit. I thought that was bad, but when they came out with a budget last March, the deficit was $30 billion. But the American deficit for this year is $427 billion. And Canadian figures are in Canadian dollars, while America's deficit is in American dollars. Canada's federal debt is $727.5 billion, again in Canadian dollars. This is projection for fiscal year 1-April-2016 to 31-March-2017, without deducting non-financial assets, according to the last budget. America's federal debt is currently $19.5 trillion, in US dollars. Your problem is an order of magnitude worse!

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-21 12:49:34

And for the last 8 years, our economic growth has averaged around 2% while over the same period, part of which Canada was under a conservative government, its economy grew faster, but then Canadians looked south of the border, and they saw America's economy struggling, and they said, "Hey, our economy is growing too fast! There are too many jobs up here, we got to slow it down to 2%!" and so they elected a liberal government to fight excessive growth in the Canadian economy so it could be more like the USA! And Candians saw those riots in Chicago on television and they said, "Hey, where are our riots! How come there are no race riots in Canada? We got to fix this!"

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-09-21 12:50:07)

Terraformer · 2016-09-21 13:59:06

Plus, the US government has made it pretty clear that joining is permanent. If you try to change back to being independent, they will invade you and set up a puppet government until they're sure you won't try again.

Void · 2016-09-21 22:11:38

Do not wake the dead. Let them sleep in peace.

I actually mean it.

RobertDyck · 2016-09-22 11:05:48

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
Same thing happens in Canada: Conservatives talk about reducing the size of government, balancing the budget, reducing the debt, reducing taxes. But once they're elected, they do the opposite.
You mean pseudo-conservatives like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? I believe what you are referring to is career politicians.

Excuses, excuses. I mean all Republicans. Especially those who call themselves "Conservatives".

RobertDyck wrote:

Parliamentarian systems seem to encourage career politicians as you have to be a member of parliament to be elected Prime Minister. If you don't already draw a salary as a Parliamentarian, then you can't run for Prime Minister!

Wrong. The leader of which ever party has the greatest number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons is Prime Minister. Usually. That is someone the party chose as their leader, so it could be an individual who is not an elected MP. There are rules to deal with a Prime Minister who is not an elected MP. He (or she) is not allowed to sit in the House of Commons, but is allowed to stand. He (she) is not allowed to vote on anything, but can answer questions or make speeches. Normally the Prime Minister gets an MP salary plus an additional salary for Prime Minister. The salary as Prime Minister is equal to the salary of an MP, since the Prime Minister normally gets both he (she) is normally paid twice what a "back bench" Member of Parliament gets. But if the Prime Minister is not an elected MP, he (she) only gets the Prime Minister's salary. There is an official residence for the Prime Minister; not as large or lavish as the official residence of the Governor General. The Prime Minister's residence was originally built by a rich businessman, the government acquired it during the 1800s. Its name is the one the original owner gave it; he was an immigrant from Whales so he gave it a Welsh name. No one can pronounce it, so its normally referred to by its address: 24 Sussex Drive. The Prime Minister does not have to pay for this house, it's a perk that comes with the office, just like your White House.

There is another rule. Normally if Parliament votes non-confidence in government, that causes an election. But if a non-confidence vote is soon after an election, then the Governor General is required to ask the leader of the official opposition if he/she can form a coalition that will hold confidence of majority of Parliament. If so then that leader is appointed Prime Minister without an election. This rule was established when members of Caucus elected their leader. Since the 1920s it has been general party members in a national convention. One reason is to ensure an election isn't forced the first day Parliament sits after an election. Another reason is so the Prime Minister doesn't try to coerce Parliament into passing bills by threatening an election if they don't.

This rule was tested in 2008. The Prime Minister wanted to take money away from all parties but his own. He declared the bill is a confidence measure, meaning if it doesn't pass it forces an election. He said that before the parliament sat the first day. That year voters elected a minority government, meaning no single party had more than 50% of the Members of Parliament. All parties other than his said they would vote against this bill. Since this would be a confidence vote, and since you can't get more "soon" than the first day Parliament sits after an election, this means the Governor General would be required to go to the leader of the Official Opposition. That means the leader of the party that has the second most Members of Parliament. Furthermore, leaders of all parties other than the Prime Minister's held a press conference in which they signed a document pledging confidence in the leader of the Official Opposition. The Official Opposition would form a coalition with the third party. The 4th party would not be part of the coalition, but the document stated the 4th party would not vote non-confidence for at least 6 months after change of government. Oops! The Prime Minister got himself fired. All this was before Parliament sat the first day after the election. So the Prime Minister begged the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. That means it would it in recess for a few months, and all bills that were in process are cancelled. If anyone really wanted a bill that was in process, it would have to be re-introduced, start over from the beginning. So that meant the bill to take away other party's money, the one that was about to get the Prime Minister fired, would be simply cancelled. The Governor General agreed. So the Prime Minister save his job through a technicality. He never again tried to force through a bill by declaring it to be a confidence measure.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Everybody in Parliament is...all about keeping their jobs!

How is this different than Congress?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Trump by contrast is an Amateur Politician, he never got elected to anything!

Every politician can say that, until they are elected. Make no mistake, Trump is out for his own interests.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

You know George H. W. Bush said he'd vote for Hillary Clinton, so that shows you what kind of conservative he is, that is, he isn't one! No big surprise there, he did after all call Reagan's tax cut plan, "Voodoo Economics".

Here is an info-graphic posted on Facebook by an American friend.
14264037_1303022969731636_1031709735669342045_n.png?oh=f86072e49de9500f3177d714424d2a22&oe=586D6855

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2016-05-09 12:53:27

Re: Politics

#177 2016-05-09 15:28:44

Re: Politics

#178 2016-05-10 08:47:59

Re: Politics

#179 2016-06-23 16:32:46

Re: Politics

#180 2016-06-23 16:52:29

Re: Politics

#181 2016-09-15 02:38:32

Re: Politics

#182 2016-09-15 08:24:13

Re: Politics

#183 2016-09-15 12:19:18

Re: Politics

#184 2016-09-18 06:53:06

Re: Politics

#185 2016-09-18 13:47:59

Re: Politics

#186 2016-09-18 23:38:01

Re: Politics

#187 2016-09-19 06:02:34

Re: Politics

#188 2016-09-19 09:15:14

Re: Politics

#189 2016-09-19 11:01:50

Re: Politics

#190 2016-09-19 11:49:26

Re: Politics

#191 2016-09-19 12:09:32

Re: Politics

#192 2016-09-19 12:45:48

Re: Politics

#193 2016-09-19 12:59:00

Re: Politics

#194 2016-09-20 09:21:37

Re: Politics

#195 2016-09-20 12:33:33

Re: Politics

#196 2016-09-21 01:34:48

Re: Politics

#197 2016-09-21 12:49:34

Re: Politics

#198 2016-09-21 13:59:06

Re: Politics

#199 2016-09-21 22:11:38

Re: Politics

#200 2016-09-22 11:05:48

Re: Politics

Board footer