What Makes Canada a Great Place to Live?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Canada Life
AI Thread Summary
Life in Canada, particularly in Vancouver, is appealing due to its beautiful scenery, clean air, and a liberal social environment that values personal freedoms, including the decriminalization of marijuana and acceptance of diverse lifestyles. The healthcare system, while not perfect, offers free treatment for non-life-threatening issues, and crime rates, including homicides, are relatively low compared to the U.S. Canadians are known for their friendliness, and the multicultural atmosphere, especially in cities like Toronto, enhances the quality of life. However, potential newcomers should be prepared for cold winters and the need for patience in healthcare wait times. Overall, Canada presents a welcoming alternative for those seeking a change from the current political climate in the U.S.
  • #151
Cepheid does not represent me.

(while I may not know when the Confederation was founded I can tell you anything you want to know about Canadian Military history. Oh and after WW1 we gained control of our Foreign Relations and Policy. As did Australia.)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Smurf...can you please elaborate on what you meant? I am vehemently against the war in Iraq, and the current Bush administration, and the new trend towards imperialism, and the new phenonmenon of the religious right imposing its doctrine on the populace, and trying to make discriminatory laws that impinge on people's rights. I am also against insulting people needlessly. Finally, I believe in free speech. That's what I was trying to get across in my post. So, if my views are not representative of yours at all, then I guess that means you are:

pro war
pro Bush
pro religious extremism
pro insulting Americans for no good reason
anti free speech.

:confused: Clearly NOT...we share the same views. I was simply advocating keeping an OPEN mind, so that we are not guilty of same arrogance that we accuse Americans of displaying...why are you speaking out against me?
 
Last edited:
  • #153
Smurf said:
Blasphemous Heretic! Thou Shalt Be Destroyed by My Mighty Hockey Stick!

Try me
Hockey sucks He He He He, big time! :wink:
 
  • #154
cepheid said:
This thread seems to have an inordinate amount of perpetuation of Canadian stereotypes,

If you're referring to all the HOC-KEY comments then I don't think it's necessarily perpetuating a stereotype. It's been my experience as a Canadian, that a very large number of Canadians are fanatical about HOC-KEY. Hell, even the majority of my friends who weren't born here have grown to become fanatical about HOC-KEY. I think it's something in the water...
 
  • #155
It is matter of weeks before first signs of Hockey withdrawall will show up in generall population.(beatings,riots, etc,)
Even when NHL is playing I'm sometimes scared to go outside,imagine no hockey for a whole of winter. :bugeye:
 
  • #156
This is straying even further off topic but.. considering the new smoking ban in bars, and the lack of a hockey season. I wonder how terrible of an effect this is going to have on sports bars in Toronto and the GTA.
 
  • #157
revelator said:
If you're referring to all the HOC-KEY comments then I don't think it's necessarily perpetuating a stereotype. It's been my experience as a Canadian, that a very large number of Canadians are fanatical about HOC-KEY. Hell, even the majority of my friends who weren't born here have grown to become fanatical about HOC-KEY. I think it's something in the water...



Dude...I AM Canadian...and the hockey stuff was just in good fun, but it doesn't make you look very intelligent if you say that you'd trade in your freedom for beer...and other stereotypes I was referring to was the incredible display of unity we Canadians put on in this thread...the Quebec guy insults the BC school system and implies that all Albertans are rednecks, and that they must all agree with Republican views by default (nooooo thank you) Next thing he knows, he's being faced with some anti-french statements and being told that no, actually, it's the Quebec students who are dumb...sheesh! Then there's the Toronto guy who seems bent on proving our superiority to Americans in every possible way, thus perpetuating the embarassing fact that a large part of our national pride stems from the fact that we are *not* like Americans...we don't have enough of a national identity to state what we are, but only what we are not? You see what I meant now...we were perpetuating all of the stererotypes about each other. I just think we didn't come across as very intelligent refined, or enlightened, despite our claims to the contrary.
 
  • #158
revelator said:
This is straying even further off topic but.. considering the new smoking ban in bars, and the lack of a hockey season. I wonder how terrible of an effect this is going to have on sports bars in Toronto and the GTA.

Maybe hockey fans start to read books. :smile: just kidding.
 
  • #159
cepheid said:
Dude...I AM Canadian...and the hockey stuff was just in good fun, but it doesn't make you look very intelligent if you say that you'd trade in your freedom for beer...and other stereotypes I was referring to was the incredible display of unity we Canadians put on in this thread...the Quebec guy insults the BC school system and implies that all Albertans are rednecks, and that they must all agree with Republican views by default (nooooo thank you) Next thing he knows, he's being faced with some anti-french statements and being told that no, actually, it's the Quebec students who are dumb...sheesh! Then there's the Toronto guy who seems bent on proving our superiority to Americans in every possible way, thus perpetuating the embarassing fact that a large part of our national pride stems from the fact that we are *not* like Americans...we don't have enough of a national identity to state what we are, but only what we are not? You see what I meant now...we were perpetuating all of the stererotypes about each other. I just think we didn't come across as very intelligent refined, or enlightened, despite our claims to the contrary.

Sorry dude, never meant to imply your not Canadian! When you mentioned stereotypes, the hockey one was the only one that came to mind, and I responded with that mind.

Still there's a difference between insulting a school system and criticizing. Also, I don't recall anyone saying that all Albertans are rednecks and must support republican policy, although I have said in another thread that support for Bush runs highest in Alberta. Neither do I remember reading anything anti-French, just criticism of their system.

Then there's the Toronto guy who seems bent on proving our superiority to Americans in every possible way

Which guy? How?
 
  • #160
revelator said:
I don't recall anyone saying that all Albertans are rednecks and must support republican policy, although I have said in another thread that support for Bush runs highest in Alberta.

You know what was beautiful? when USA stopped importing Canadian beef.
Alberta's farmers those same pro war rednecks and biggest Bush supporters got screwed really good by their best friend.Since then I started believing in Karma Man!
 
  • #161
cepheid said:
and implies that all Albertans are rednecks
revelator said:
I don't recall anyone saying that all Albertans are rednecks
tumor said:
Alberta's farmers those same pro war rednecks

D'oh! [slaps self in head]

Serious though, I do hope the beef and softwood lumber disputes can be resolved soon.
 
  • #162
Remember what Ralph Klein(premier of Alberta) said about what farmers should do with cows who have BSE - "shot, shovel and shut up"! Brilliant! simply Brilliant! :smile:

PS.And who said Canadians are boring?
 
Last edited:
  • #163
cepheid said:
Smurf...can you please elaborate on what you meant? I am vehemently against the war in Iraq, and the current Bush administration, and the new trend towards imperialism, and the new phenonmenon of the religious right imposing its doctrine on the populace, and trying to make discriminatory laws that impinge on people's rights. I am also against insulting people needlessly. Finally, I believe in free speech. That's what I was trying to get across in my post. So, if my views are not representative of yours at all, then I guess that means you are:

pro war
pro Bush
pro religious extremism
pro insulting Americans for no good reason
anti free speech.

:confused: Clearly NOT...we share the same views. I was simply advocating keeping an OPEN mind, so that we are not guilty of same arrogance that we accuse Americans of displaying...why are you speaking out against me?

I am:
Anti-Violence
Anti-Bush
Pro-Extremism
Anti-Religious
Pro-Direct Action
Anti-Indirect Action
Anti-Democracy
Anti-'Capitalism'
Pro-Free Market
Anti-Insulting Americans for no good reason
Pro-Good humour
Pro-Criticizing American Economics/Politics
Pro-Human Rights
And in the middle with the whole Freedom of Speech thing.

I think that covers everything.

I didn't think you reflected my views accuratly in your post, so I thought I'd mention that (especially the last paragraph - the one people always remember the most).
 
Last edited:
  • #164
cepheid said:
Dude...I AM Canadian...and the hockey stuff was just in good fun, but it doesn't make you look very intelligent if you say that you'd trade in your freedom for beer...and other stereotypes I was referring to was the incredible display of unity we Canadians put on in this thread...the Quebec guy insults the BC school system and implies that all Albertans are rednecks, and that they must all agree with Republican views by default (nooooo thank you) Next thing he knows, he's being faced with some anti-french statements and being told that no, actually, it's the Quebec students who are dumb...sheesh! Then there's the Toronto guy who seems bent on proving our superiority to Americans in every possible way, thus perpetuating the embarassing fact that a large part of our national pride stems from the fact that we are *not* like Americans...we don't have enough of a national identity to state what we are, but only what we are not? You see what I meant now...we were perpetuating all of the stererotypes about each other. I just think we didn't come across as very intelligent refined, or enlightened, despite our claims to the contrary.

I think you worry too much about your image. I don't think I have ever flat out insulted someone for no reason (and I'm very sorry if I have). If someone's going to judge Canadians by the way they talk on a forum then they can do that, I don't care if one more person thinks we are all dumbasses living in igloos, god knows there's plenty of them already.
 
  • #165
^^^Smurf you make an excellent point there. Maybe its time I stopped derailing the thread further. However, I still do not understand what it is about my last paragraph that you so disagree with. Isn't that the one in which I gave that quote about defending people's rights to free speech? Or was it the part where I mentioned Bush's reign of fear? Oh well, whatever it was, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :smile:

Edit...D'OH!...now I see it...It was probably the part about how I said Canadians have a "whopping inferiority complex". That was harsh...and is itself a stereotype. Indeed I have been overly critical about my fellow Canadians here...I hope there are no hard feelings guys. revelator..my comments were not directed right at you, or any specific "Toronto guy". I was just trying to convey my impressions, but I see now that I jumped to conclusions, mistaking honest discussion for disparaging remarks.

Whoever was planning on moving here...do you still want to after all of our antics? :wink: (juuuust kidding...chill)
 
  • #166
Please continue. I couldn't ask for a better way to get some perspective.
 
  • #167
I've got a question about Canada:

I hear lots of people talking about a "minority government" in Canada. What the hell is that about?
 
  • #168
wasteofo2 said:
I've got a question about Canada:

I hear lots of people talking about a "minority government" in Canada. What the hell is that about?

The Liberals, who are in power, have less than 50% of the MPs in the House.

More than 50% -> Majority Government.
Less than 50% -> Minority Government.

I don't know exactly how it impacts what goes on but it just means the Government is less powerful and can't do as much. Or it needs another party to form a coalition (easier said than done) to become a Government with Majority powers.

What exactly those Majority powers are I can't tell you.
 
  • #169
Is there a party that has a greater % of MP's (I'm assuming this means Representative of some sort...) than the Liberals, or do the Liberals have the greatest %? Is it something like the Liberals have 45%, the Conservatives have 30%, the Mooses have 15% and the Beavers have 10%?

Do you guys have General Elections for a chief executive officer (like our President), or is he decided in some other manner (like voted on by representatives or something)?
 
  • #170
Waste,

Here’s some election results from the last election, in case you’re interested.
http://www.elections.ca/pas/38e/38official.pdf

Yes, as of right now the Liberals have the most seats, followed by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP. However, the Liberal’s do not have a majority of the seats, so they cannot get things passed without support from other parties. This is called a minority gov't.

The country is divided into 301 electoral districts and the people (Members of Paliment) vote for which they want to represent their district in Parliament. The leader of the party with the greatest number of seats is Prime Minister. The PM is the head of government while the Queen is the head of state, but she really doesn’t matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #171
So there's no Nation-wide election for a governmental leader?

Ya'll mofo's are a craaaaaaaaaazy bunch...

That'd be like having Bill Frist as our President, what a scary thought...

I can't imagine having the leader of my country being a guy who got elected by one small section of the country, and only has to convince a few dozen people to like him to get to the highest position of power. Plus, it seems like the only people who get to be the Prime Minister are people in the Parliment, right? Is there any way for local governors or anything to become PM? Also, what actual powers does the PM of Canada have?
 
Last edited:
  • #172
It’s not a silly system. In fact, it’s pretty similar to how your electoral college works except each electoral district is worth the same and there are 251 more of them.
As for not directly voting for the Prime Minister, it doesn’t bother me, nor does it bother most Canadians I think. Provincial "premiers" can become PM, but they'd have to switch to federal politics. I'm not sure how many premiers have been PMs. I don't think that many. But yeah, at the Provincial level, the government works almost the same as at the federal level. The Premier is the one who's party has the most seats in that province.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Prime-Minister-of-Canada here’s a good article about what a Canadian PM is and what he/she can and can’t do.
 
  • #173
cepheid said:
Edit...D'OH!...now I see it...It was probably the part about how I said Canadians have a "whopping inferiority complex". That was harsh...and is itself a stereotype. Indeed I have been overly critical about my fellow Canadians here...I hope there are no hard feelings guys. revelator..my comments were not directed right at you, or any specific "Toronto guy". I was just trying to convey my impressions, but I see now that I jumped to conclusions, mistaking honest discussion for disparaging remarks

No worries dude!

This is a little off topic, but I recall reading about comments made by Paul Celucci regarding our decriminilization of marijuana. Apparently, if we keep on going in this direction, the US administration is going to need to have even more delays at the border, so that the young'ns won't be smuggling pot into the states.

This is apparently a direct quote.

Paul Celucci said:
"Why, when we're trying to take pressure off the border, would Canada pass a law that would put pressure on the border?" he asked.

I figure, because it's more important to not give our teenagers and other citizens a criminal record over something so paltry as minor possession of marijuana. Who knows, maybe more stringent border rules would keep American guns out of here. I for one would sooner have us keeping our dope here, and the guns elsewhere..
 
  • #174
It’s not a silly system.

The minority system is indeed a silly system. It is highly unstable as they last for a very short period. In fact, the average minority government in Canada only lasts about a year and a half. According to Mapleleafweb.com, 1 year, 5 months and 27 days.
 
  • #175
check said:
I'm not sure how many premiers have been PMs. I don't think that many

no provincial premier has ever become prime minister. the closest was robert stanfield (nova scotia) in the 70s sometime; he was leader of the pc party & thay had 2 seats less than the liberals.

re: pot
trudeau was famous for saying "there's no room for te state int he bedrooms of the nation" but the sentence before that says a lot more: "...we're just bringing the laws of the land up to contemporary society i think..." laws are passed to reflect the views of the society, not the other way around, at least if we live in a democracy. & if bush or cellucci or whoever, doesn't like our 21st-century freedoms they can go %^&* themselves; if they don't lead my government they should butt out.
 
  • #176
Dagenais...many of the governments in Europe are almost always minority governments due to the fact that they operate on a system of proportional representation...which means that the percentage of seats for a party is quite analogous to the percentage of the popular vote they received, as I'm sure you know. Those governments are not necessarily on the verge of collapse, and in my opinion...such as system would be far more democratic...because the party in power would not be able to act with impunity, thereby increasing their accountability and reducing the chances of corruption. They are now forced to cooperate with opposition parties in many matters, ensuring that all views are brought to the table, more views are represented...issues are thoroughly discussed/debated. It may be slower, but who knows...it might be better in the long run.

The government has to be careful not to lose sight of it's main purpose...ie acting for the good of Canadians...if it goes astray...it may fall. Horrible bungling like the sponsorship scandal (which I know Quebec was particularly outraged about) arose because of the liberal's 10 yr iron clad grip on the gov't. Don't get me wrong...I wouldn't want to see any other party holding the reins right now, but I prefer this situation...it introduces added checks and balances.
 
  • #177
How many of your retirement benefits would follow you if you moved to another country and took up citizenship there? Presumably you could get your IRA to tag along, possibly minus some up-front taxes due before it transfers to some institution outside of the U.S. But would you forfeit all of the Social Security benefits you had coming to you?
 
Last edited:
  • #178
It appears that by maintaining dual citizenship, and since we are both entitled to benefits now, we can still collect. If we were to renounce our US citizenship I have no idea yet. Obviously you can't collect if you leave while still inelegible for benefits.
 
Last edited:
  • #179
As you can see Ivan, it's pretty much Quebec vs the rest of the country :smile: . (this is accually one area I think is reflected accuratly in this thread)
 
  • #180
^^Yeah, it's unfortunate, but here's one of the reasons why there is such a rift (see link below)...there was a time when I was proud of Canada's diverse/dual nature and wanted to try keep a such a culturally rich heritage within the country...it was part of our identity...proof that as a country we had (more or less) achieved an unprecedented level of social and political harmony and tolerance. But after hearing about incidents like these...I cannot help thinking..."fine, if they have such disdain for the rest of us, why don't they just get the hell out, and see if I care!" :-p It's immature, but check it out:

http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_041109.html

Oh...and what I said about minority governments...I guess I didn't know what the hell I was talking about:

http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_041022.html

Edit: wow. These are very a propos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #181
I want Canada to become a Proportional Representation Government. Or even better: Anarchosyndicalism
 
  • #182
What's your take on Jack Layton?
 
  • #183
cepheid said:
^^Yeah, it's unfortunate, but here's one of the reasons why there is such a rift (see link below)...there was a time when I was proud of Canada's diverse/dual nature and wanted to try keep a such a culturally rich heritage within the country...it was part of our identity...proof that as a country we had (more or less) achieved an unprecedented level of social and political harmony and tolerance. But after hearing about incidents like these...I cannot help thinking..."fine, if they have such disdain for the rest of us, why don't they just get the hell out, and see if I care!"

You were naive to think that harmony and tolerance between nationality in Canada. You should should have a look at Canadian history in the last 50 years.

Your are also basing your opinion on an group that contains memeber that are extremestist in their view. They do not necessary represssent a majority but the taught you express part of the reason people from quebec have disdain with mostly ontario. Also, did you ever wonder why the montreal hockey is calle the Canadien.

You should also think about the Canadian identity and if there any person that repressent the this identity in english Canada. When I was in ontario, one of teacher ask if anyome could come up with a person No one could answer the question.
 
  • #185
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #186
Smurf said:
I am:
...
Pro-Extremism
Anti-Democracy
...

These two caught my attention, so I'm curious : what about Muslim extremists whom are often associated with terrorism?

What is it about Democracy that you don't like? How should the government be chosen?

And how do you reconcile "Anti-'Capitalism" and "Pro-Free Market"?

Just wondering.
 
  • #187
Gonzolo said:
These two caught my attention, so I'm curious : what about Muslim extremists whom are often associated with terrorism?

What is it about Democracy that you don't like? How should the government be chosen?

And how do you reconcile "Anti-'Capitalism" and "Pro-Free Market"?

Just wondering.

The muslims that attacked on 911 are trying to send a message.

Does anyone even know what that message is?

Note: They aren't doing this because Americans have freedom. That's bull**** talk from the Bush Administration. If you know, then you would understand why the Bush Administration didn't say anything about it.
 
  • #188
JasonRox said:
The muslims that attacked on 911 are trying to send a message.

Does anyone even know what that message is?

Note: They aren't doing this because Americans have freedom. That's bull**** talk from the Bush Administration. If you know, then you would understand why the Bush Administration didn't say anything about it.


According to bin Laden, the message was:
1. Get out of the Muslim holy land (Saudi Arabia)
2. Convert to Islam.
 
  • #189
HEY!

Jack Layton? :shy:

Also, I've been exploring job possiblilties at hospitals... Why are their shifts 7 hours and 42 minutes long? (42 minutes? That's a little odd to me. :biggrin:)
 
  • #190
JasonRox said:
The muslims that attacked on 911 are trying to send a message.

Does anyone even know what that message is?

Note: They aren't doing this because Americans have freedom. That's bull**** talk from the Bush Administration. If you know, then you would understand why the Bush Administration didn't say anything about it.

oo! pick me pick me!

from a whole article on 9/11/01 in particular:
Of course it's not America the terrorists hate; it's American foreign policy. It's what the United States has done to the world in the past half century -- all the violence, the bombings, the depleted uranium, the cluster bombs, the assassinations, the promotion of torture, the overthrow of governments, and more.

The terrorists -- whatever else they might be -- are also rational human beings; which is to say that in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions. Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political, or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United States.

There's no need to wonder about the possible motivations of those from the Middle East or other Muslim countries to commit terrorist acts against the United States. Consider these actions of American foreign policy during the last 20 years:
The shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981; the bombardment of Beirut in 1983 and 1984; the furnishing of military aid and intelligence to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 so as to maximize the damage each side would inflict upon the other; the bombing of Libya in 1986; the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in 1987; the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988; the shooting down of two more Libyan planes in 1989; the massive bombing of the Iraqi people in 1991; the continuing bombings and sanctions against Iraq; the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, the latter destroying a pharmaceutical plant which provided for half the impoverished nation's medicine; the habitual support of Israel despite the devastation and routine torture it inflicts upon the Palestinian people; the condemnation of Palestinian resistance to this; the abduction of "suspected terrorists" from Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Albania, who are then taken to places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where they are tortured; the large military and hi-tech presence in Islam's holiest land, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region; the support of anti-democratic Middle East governments from the Shah to the Saudis.
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/sep11.htm

or better still...
We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers -- women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of our hostages and that is what has precipitated some of the terrorist attacks. - Jimmy Carter, after he left office

& from a debate on US foreign policy...
>> Attempting to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments.
>> Unprovoked military invasion of some 20 sovereign nations.
>> Working to crush more than 30 populist movements which were fighting against dictatorial regimes.
>> Providing indispensable support to a small army of brutal dictatorships: Mobutu of Zaire, Pinochet of Chile, Duvalier of Haiti, Somoza of Nicaragua, the Greek junta, Marcos of the Philippines, Rhee of Korea, the Shah of Iran, 40 years of military dictators in Guatemala, Suharto of Indonesia, Hussein of Iraq, the Brazilian junta, Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Taliban of Afghanistan, and others.
>> Dropping powerful bombs on the people of about 25 countries, including 40 consecutive days and nights in Iraq, 78 days and nights in Yugoslavia, and several months in Afghanistan, all three of these countries having met the first requirement as an American bombing target -- being completely defenseless. And not once ever has the United States come even close to repairing the great damage caused by its bombings. Afghanistan and Iraq are of course the latest examples.
>> Increasing use of depleted uranium, one of the most despicable weapons ever designed by mankind, which produces grossly deformed babies amongst its many endearing qualities, and which, in a civilized world not intimidated by the United States, would be categorically banned.
>> Repeated use of cluster bombs, another fiendish device designed by a mad scientist, which has robbed numerous young people of one or more limbs, and some of their eyesight, and continues to do so every day in many countries as the bombs remain on the ground.
>> Assassination attempts on the lives of some 40 foreign political leaders.
>> Crude interference in dozens of foreign democratic elections.
>> Gross manipulation of labor movements.
>> Shameless manufacture of "news", the disinformation effect of which is multiplied when CIA assets in other countries pick up the same stories.
>> Providing handbooks, materials and encouragement for the practice of torture.
>> Chemical or biological warfare or the testing of such weapons, and the use of powerful herbicides, all causing terrible effects to the people and environments of China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and elsewhere.
>> Encouragement of drug trafficking in various parts of the world when it served the CIA's purposes.
>> Supporting death squads, particularly in Latin America.
>> Causing grievous harm to the health and well-being of the world's masses by turning the screws of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and other international financial institutions, as well as by imposing unmerciful sanctions and embargoes.
>> Much of the above has led to millions of refugees wandering homeless over the earth.
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/debate.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #191
selfAdjoint said:
According to bin Laden, the message was:
1. Get out of the Muslim holy land (Saudi Arabia)
2. Convert to Islam.
Actually, the message is:
Stop messing with Muslims and meddling in their affairs.
 
  • #192
This link answers quite well what bin Laden wants :
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Thanks to russ_watters from the boards.

Relating this back to the topic ... I believe the people who dissaprove of US foreign policy etc. have a somewhat more positive view of Canada, even though US-Canada relations are generally good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #193
Dagenais said:
The minority system is indeed a silly system. It is highly unstable as they last for a very short period. In fact, the average minority government in Canada only lasts about a year and a half. According to Mapleleafweb.com, 1 year, 5 months and 27 days.

You're so anti-Canada it's disgusting.

What kind of system do you propose we use? Let me guess, the American one?

:rolleyes:
 
  • #194
With a parliamentary system, minority governments are bound to happen. Yes, they may be unstable but it gives parties a chance regroup and reform strategies and policies. If a ruling party suddenly goes from majority to minority after an election, it’s a sign that their polices weren’t working as well now then they were in the past, so they have to reformulate their ideas. If a new party comes into power as a minority then it would be obvious to them that the people like something about their party as least a little more than anyone else’s and so they’ll try to build on that in order to achieve a majority when then feel like calling an election.

At least, that’s my own view of the system. Love it or hate it, when it’s a greater than two party system these things happen.
 
  • #195
Ok Tsu, I’ll take it.

Personally Jack Layton seems like a very nice, smart man. I truly believe he wants what’s best for the country and would probably make a good PM. HOWEVER, it’s the NDP party that has some issues. I don’t trust them with the economy at all. I’m for most of their policies but realistically; I don’t think there’s anyway they could possibly pay for much of what they’re proposing. Perhaps a minority NDP government wouldn’t be such a bad thing though. Sort of a ‘try it before you buy it’ routine. :p
 
  • #196
Gonzolo said:
These two caught my attention, so I'm curious : what about Muslim extremists whom are often associated with terrorism?

What is it about Democracy that you don't like? How should the government be chosen?

And how do you reconcile "Anti-'Capitalism" and "Pro-Free Market"?

Just wondering.

Also on my list is Anti-Violence and Anti-Religion (gonna change that to organized religion). So obviously I don't support Islam or the bombing of the WTC (because it was violent).

I try not to associate myself with media terms like 'Muslim Extremist'. Besides, in my opinion Bin Laden and his group are more Fanatical than anything else.

What don't I like about Democracy? It denies the rights of the people to govern their own country, it is the single most inefficient Government I have ever studied. Is it better than Fascism? By all means. Is it the best we have? Not in a long shot. Is it the best we've tried? Yes, because we're too scared to try anything else that might deny Big Business control of our lives and minds.

I currently Support Anarchosyndicalism and one or two forms of Technocracy, but I expect this to change.

Free Market is the Idea that by not restricting prices (among other economic activity) the economy will flourish. This is a very good system and I think it is the best economic system implemented to date (I love Keynes though). However I do not support the Idea (unless i got the definition wrong) that this is the 'perfect' way to implement it and that a completely unrestricted economy will be the most fair, the most rich, in short, the best. Some would call me a Socialist.


Ivan - I'm the 'odd one out', don't get the idea that Canada is full of Radical Technates, most people here are just as naive about Political Theory as Americans.

Quote of the Day:
Harry Lime "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock!"
 
Last edited:
  • #197
Gawd, I can't believe this thread is still alive. I did some research and there aren't enough interesting facts about Canada to warrant 14 pages of posts. Wanna hear my interesting Canadian story?
I had a 4th grade teacher who was from Canada. He told the most interesting stories and hinted that he might take us to his Lodge up North on a field trip. We had a Christmas party on the last day of school before the holidays and my mom made two cakes (she's an amazing cake decorator) After the party this teacher comes up to me and explains that he had forgotten to serve the cakes, so he'd freeze them and we'd have them after New Years. then he took the two cakes to the teachers Christmas party. He quit during the break and we never saw him again.
 
  • #198
Maybe this is more of a testament to your mothers cake baking ability?
 
  • #199
or lack thereof
 
  • #200
check said:
Ok Tsu, I’ll take it.

Personally Jack Layton seems like a very nice, smart man. I truly believe he wants what’s best for the country and would probably make a good PM. HOWEVER, it’s the NDP party that has some issues. I don’t trust them with the economy at all. I’m for most of their policies but realistically; I don’t think there’s anyway they could possibly pay for much of what they’re proposing. Perhaps a minority NDP government wouldn’t be such a bad thing though. Sort of a ‘try it before you buy it’ routine. :p
Thanks, check. :biggrin: I'm still reading through the platforms of both parties. I find it very interesting that when you have elections, you are not only filling offices but sometimes choosing a whole new government! I read on the Liberal Party webpage that "Canadians elected a new Government on June 28th, the 38th in our nation’s proud history"! Do you not have term limits for your MP's? How often do you hold elections (and change governments :biggrin:)?

Can ANYONE shed some light on the lost 18 minutes in a work shift? In America, work shifts are typically 8 hours. Why are yours 7 hours and 42 minutes? This one is driving me BANANAS! :smile:

edit: WAIT! WE'VE GOT IT! They give you 18 minutes to get home before the hockey game starts. RIGHT? :smile: :smile: :smile: HOC-KEY!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top