Moonlight Graham

He's talking about how bizarre it sounds is to think its "heartening", not what you said above.

Works great too. As long as Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans and most other countries then we're dancing on rainbows. Yay! Please name one domestic US automaker that anyone in the world wants to buy a car from. But seriously, both countries have a mutually beneficial trade relationship. Actually, the US imports more from Canada more than they export, while Canada is the opposite. That means we win again right? Go ask the WHO. We can argue all the pieces like wait times vs 9-1-1 response time vs access to cheap meds, but it doesn't matter because when it's all added up the WHO (and pretty much everyone else) ranks Canada as healthier and with a better healthcare system than the US. End of discussion. Uhh, how does total population show which country is more "free"? As for who has more immigrants...who cares? Canada is generally considered a better place to live. We win. I don't want the 300 million people America has, or the smog/environmental pollution, massive urban metropolises, deforestation, crime, disease etc. that comes with it. I've been to Toronto, i didn't like it much. I can keep mopping the floor with ye but since most of the empirical evidence available (aka stats) ranking country vs country is in my favour, i'm not going to waste my time. But I can always use this thread as reference to the next stubborn/arrogant foreigner who would like to take a swipe at the content of my country's national anthem. ...THE TRUE NORTH STRONG AND FREE!!!!! ...OOOOOOOHHH CAAAAAAA-NAAA-DA, WE STAND ON GUUUAAARD FOOOOOOOOORRRR THEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean one filmed in Canada? I'm sure he'll do that, while you and your American friends/family download the album collections of The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, U2, and...

Kudos on catching that mistake, my apologies. If i can give credit to the U.S. on one thing its that if you want to be the next Donald Trump or Bill Gates then the US is the place to go. But if you are an average aka non-filthy-rich person then Canada is one of the very best places to live. USA's GDP per capita is higher, but i'm pretty certain who would be on top if you compared only those who make under 200k or 300k a year.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaahahaa!!!!... I guess that all depends on how you define "strong" and "free"? A typical American (not you of course!) would think of strength largely in terms of hard power/military kill capability. But hey, we'll got a wonderful attack dog sitting right underneath us so we can afford to put our money into more useful things like healthcare and education, while being quite well defended. Could also define strong in terms of economy. Canada's economy isn't doing too bad considering the global recession, how's yours? How's the GDP-per-capita down there too? Ours is great! Strong of mind? Canadians are better educated than Americans and score better on OECD standardized reading/math/science comprehension tests. Strong of body? Well, we have a better health care system according to the WHO, have less diabetes, better child mortality rate, have more olympic medals per capita, and we live longer. And how do you define "free"? Freedom for gay couples to get married? Freedom for women to choose to have an abortion? Freedom of privacy? Freedom from gun crimes, murders, crime in general, environmental pollution, poverty, terror attacks, war, unemployment, contracting HIV??? Canada wins them all, yay!! CANADA! CANADA! CANADA! Thems vague words thems is, i reckon.

Where are you getting the %500m number? Does it include the actual building of Parliament itself and its upkeep (i doubt it)? Or just people and institutions that function within Parliament?

The video in the OP was disgusting. Kind of chilling. Great to see raging bigotry is a live and well. And speaking of bigots...you are almost as bad as the people in these videos.

Haha, true dat.

Unless your MP is the party's leader or an independent, they are a party hack. This is the way the House seems to function, and i don't see this changing any time soon. Paul Martin tried to loosen party discipline when he was PM, but he wasn't around long lol. Any MP can be an independent thinker, they just can't act publicly on those thoughts . An MP can rarely do or say anything publicly that goes against the party line. This is one of the biggest flaws of the Canadian system. I admire the U.S. system for the fact that MP's can vote and speak independently on behalf of their constituents, not the party. However, MP's towing the party line is in large part a result of having responsible government, which is something i admire about the Canadian system over the U.S. system because we can bring down a corrupt government so much easier than in the U.S. So strong party discipline is a double-edged sword i guess. But overall, i think its undemocratic.

Maybe you're talking about Cabinet meetings? I mean, voters have absolutely no idea what goes on during those meetings, unless something is leaked. Cabinet members must remain silent about the meetings and tow the party line, and the meeting minutes are kept secret from the public for 30 years (according to wiki). Maybe that's what you're talking about? Dunno. But i wouldn't exactly call that a "power".

I dont understand the conflict of interest. An Officer of Parliament yes, but an appointed person with no accountability to the PM or any other MP and isn't a member of Parliament herself, only makes reports to the House. However, isn't the AG's job to audit the activity of the federal government, i didn't think the AG audits what other MP's not in the acting government does? I may be wrong. Anyways, if the AG doesn't look at MP expenses, i think someone else should. Unless there is a threat to national security or real issues of privacy maybe in the realm of international diplomacy, what's the problem with looking at the books?

Hasn't the gov been saying this since, like, 9/11? I do believe.

"IOW, anyone alive today had a Boomer parent." - i dont get what you're saying here. When i said "...my generation that will have to take care of them..." i was talking mostly about literally taking care of them when they are aging seniors, not able to find a room at the inn at long-term care or at the hospital, so i may have to take them in to my place for an extended period if they can't find an opening for long-term. This could occur to countless other boomer kids, not just me. I don't have issues with just my parents, but their entire generation and whomever else is responsible for this mess. That could include me too, though in less of a sense, as i've been able to vote for several elections, but not nearly as many as my parents.

Well said, although i disagree that the motivations of 9/11 weren't religious. They were based on American foreign policy as you stated, particularly the US stationing military bases in Saudi Arabia near the 2 holiest sites in Islam, however radical fundamentalist interpretations of Islam (such as Qutbism and the idea of "offensive jihad") were also a large factor. But these interpretations of Islam are as they are described: radical, and not what most Muslims believe. People fear what they do not understand. This is, in my opinion, the primary source for most bigotry, racism etc. From her statement, it seems Rosemary is quite likely a bigot. I'd also make a fare wager that she knows very little about Islam or Muslims in general. Instead of resenting Islam and the Muslim population for what happened on 9/11, Rosemary (assuming i'm right about her) and people like her should make an effort to attend a Mosque and/or mingle with the Muslim population and realize that the vast majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world are not bad, scary people who believe in bad, scary things. If people want to expand the war on terror into a war against Islam, uhhm good luck with that. We aren't at war with Islam. Islam did not attack the U.S. on 9/11. If most of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world aka over 20% of the global population hated the West and wanted to kills us, we'd sure as heck be feeling it a a lot harder than a few rogue groups/individuals trying to blow up planes. Equating Islam to 9/11 would be similar to Muslims equating Christianity to the Iraq War. During his State of the Union speech in early 2003 (2 months before the Iraq invasion) which he used largely to make his case for the war, George Bush, in classic neoconservative rhetoric, said: "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity." Among many other examples of referencing God with the Iraq War & the war on terrorism, it's quite clear that Bush framed the invasion & the war vs terror at least partly in the name of God/religion/Christianity. But does that mean that the Muslim population should blame the Iraq War and all of Bush's foreign policies in the middle-east on all Christians? Or should they rather place the blame on those actually responsible? This same logic can be compared to blaming/equating Islam to terrorism and 9/11. People need to get out more, meet new people, read more books, and stop being so freaking STUPID. Unless Westerners actually want to continually "clash" with 1.5 billion people and vice-versa, we're going to have to learn to live with each other. Ending the asinine missile drops and getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan (in a responsible manner) would be a great start on our part.

Argus, yes this is a hugely important issue. Not just senior care, but healthcare overall (among many other things, like gov`t pensions) will crumble as the babyboomers keep aging. As you said, politicians think short-term (on almost anything) so it hasn't been getting dealt with properly. However, its also the fault of voters. Politicians react to what voters demand, and seemingly everyone seems keenly aware of what the future holds as the babyboomers age, yet there has been little voter demand on this issue. Its the babyboomer's fault and they will suffer for it, as will my generation that will have to care for them and pay the tax hikes & service cuts to everything while my children pay off the massive debt that will be racked up to keep the country afloat. Hurray for the stupidity of human nature.

Muslim hate.

Because Mormons are Christians. I'm pretty sure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes in Jesus Christ.

Some people on here clearly don't know the difference between the Islam that most Muslims believe in, and the strains of radical Islamic fundamentalism (such as Qutbism) that call for offensive jihad that the extremist terrorists who plotted and/or executed 9/11 follow. Heck, the vast majority of Islamic fundamentalists and Islamists do not involve themselves in violent jihad. To blame Islam itself is completely ignorant. The blame must be on the actual jihadi extremists who were involved in the crime and follow a twisted version of radical Islamism, and a completely perverted version of Islam that uses "loopholes" in the Qur'an/Hadith to justify killing innocent people. It is the same with equating Christianity and most Christians with the infamous polygamtist Christian freaks that lived in the "Yearning for Zion" ranch ( which was owned/operated by the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints") that the Texas authorities raided in 2008. Remember those freaks? Before casting blame on a religion or passing judgement on it or anyone else for that matter at least pick up a freakin' book people. Or at least do some extensive wiki reading. here's a start: Qutbism. Pick up ANY book about al-Qaeda and/or bin Laden and you will find a significant portion of it referring to Qutbism and its influence on their ideology/actions. It is impossible to understand al-Qaeda and 9/11 without it.

I never said anything about money. There are a lot of things you can do that don't cost a cent, like volunteering your time, or clicking on the link in my signature everyday and letting site sponsors/advertisers pay the cash. I've clicked on those links in my sig everyday i had access to the internet for the last 4 years, and 2 seconds of my time everyday means so far i have given approximately 1400 cups of food to the hungry without paying a cent (along with the other buttons you can click on, like for child healthcare, education, women's breast exams etc.). If you want to give money, i'd say good reasons are one that Michael pointed out. I don't know anything about your life or your problems, but for the average person who can read this their problems likely pale in comparison to most of those living in the 3rd world, especially sub-Saharan Africa. As i said, about 50% of the world lives on $2.50 a day or less. In 2001, 1.1 billion lived on $1 a day or less. That's an annual income of $365 or less, which is disgusting. But this is an improvement, as in 1981 1.5 billion lived on $1/day or less despite a growing population. One of my fav things to say is instead of buying yourself a 42" plasma TV, why not buy yourself a 27" LCD TV and give the $1000 difference or whatever to a good charity. Is your life going to be that much better with a TV that's 15" bigger, compared to literally saving quite a few number lives of people in extreme poverty with that same cash? Corrupt governments are no doubt one of the foremost reasons, but i would argue that colonialism/imperialism and its legacies is the #1 reason for third world underdevelopment (and also one of the contributing factors to corrupt governments and political instability in the first place). Let me just ask you these questions to consider: 1) Of all the "underdeveloped" countries in the world, how many of them were former colonies of European powers (with the not-so-coincidental exception of colonies that were permanently settled by white euros with a now-white majority ie: U.S./Canada/Austrailia/New Zealand)? 2) What % of the world's "underdeveloped" countries consist of non-white majority populations vs white majority pops? 3) What % of the world's "fully developed" countries consist of white majority populations compared to non-white majority pops?

This just in: Obama farts into the wind, annoys nearby friends, family. Shady calls for Fed investigation, possible impeachment.

No. But people should do more to try to fix the problem. Idealistic twaddle. Empirical evidence (ie: thousands of statistics) disagree with you. Overthrow them and replace them with what? Another corrupt government? Corrupt governments are only one factor among many which explain poverty in the developing world. Colonialism/imperialism, tendencies of global capitalism, trade laws, ethnic conflicts, political instability, third world debt (which in itself has many causes), certain polices by the IMF/World Bank (ie: structural adjustment policies), aid dependency etc.

Well, i'll certainly agree with this. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being a woman or non-white etc. And yes my observations are based on statistics, meaning they are generalizations with many exceptions as i've made clear. I mean, Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey have it a hell of a lot better than i do! And yes i would say much of my observations are economics and job opportunities, hence my original claim that "i hit the jackpot", a reference to winning the lottery.

So groups like women, blacks, aboriginals etc. have been fighting for generations/centuries for equality against the oppression of white males, and yet the moment one actually agrees with them you get a little offended? I never said non-white non-males can't live decent lives, i said that statistically they are at a general disadvantage in attaining the same income, positions of power etc. Check the sensitivity at the door and wake up and smell the facts, jack.

Well, about 50% of the human population lives on $2.50 a day or less (in US dollars, at "purchasing power parity"), so living in a rich, developed country like Canada (or the US) makes me extremely lucky. Being a white male means i am at an even greater advantage. Simply compare income levels in Canada or the U.S., or virtually any other developed country, of whites to non-whites or between men and women and this fact is quite clear. Same with the % of white men who are CEO's, or who are elected to political office etc. etc. I'm not trying to be sexist or racist or nationalistic. It is simply a fact that a white male living in a rich, developed country is at an advantage unmatched by any other group (at least that i can think of). It should be noted that i am a feminist and a strong proponent of equal rights for many groups, and am quite passionate about poverty reduction and improving development in less advantaged countries. So i would argue strongly that white males living in a rich countries have it far too well-off, and equality among all groups improved greatly, even at the expense to my particular demographic.

I disagree again. You don't necessarily have to be a horrible person to get rich. Smarts, a ton of hard work, and some luck can get someone to the top, its been proven time and again. But i'll definitely say that many of the people at the top of the economic food chain are a-holes. But you know what? There's a lot of greedy middle-class and lower-class a-holes as well.