Halfempty

I never called the US nazis lol, I'm stretching what a favour America did for the world by helping to kill them off. Weren't the Soviets down on man-power from the initial Axis attack on Russia? The Russian front fell apart after the Soviets took Romania as far as I know, and by then troops were already be redivereted to the West.

The Nazi's came into power because of the French and English directed Treaty of Verseilles, which crippled Germany's economy and moral by making this state pay heavy reparitions. Facism did not directly come about because of America's intervention. I was only refering to USAs positive actions during WW2, I was not speculating whether or not it "existed" to act during WW1 or WW2. If America did not send a force to Normandy, Russia would've most likely fallen, afterwords Britain would have as well. I don't see how it is simplistic to assume that Europe would be dominated by Germany; all European states would've either been conquered or ruled by a puppet leaders loyal to Hitler.

I don't remember where I heard this phrase, but it went something like "China is the saving power of the world while America is the spending power". Having said that they pretty much need eachother, and China's economic growth and mass production continues only to meet the consumer depand of people in America. If the two powers were to go to war, well, China would lose it's biggest client and it's economy would suffer. What Canada can do is...just trade with everyone and prosper while the major powers try to gain superiority over eachother.

Very true. I suspect that you've read Fatherland as well? If America didn't land at D-day Hitler would've only had one major war front to deal; the one with the Soviets, and late in the war Stalin was literally begging the allies to open up a western front to take the pressure off his borders. In a nut shell, Russia would've fallen fast without the US assult on Normandy. Britain, the last major Euro power, would've been next on the hit list, and seeing how effective German U-boats were at destroying the British navy (Britain's one key advantage) the war would've been over quickly. Once this happened all (not most) of Europe would've fallen before facism, and the world would've been much more fudged up then we know it today. Most people don't realize how close the world came to this terrible outcome. The U.S. many not be a perfect superpower, but they're still better then Nazis.

Yes, clearly that's what I am, as well as everyone else on this thread besides you lol. I'll leave you to your deluded thoughts.

You realize GGs don't have any real power right? It's a ceremonial position and we only still have GGs and LGs to keep tradition. They represent the queen, who has no power over Canada anymore, so obviously her representatives wouldn't have any real power either. Yes, one of the few powers GGs have is to suspend parliament, which Harper advised her to do to save himself. It wouldn't have mattered whether GG Michelle Jean was elected by the people or appointed by Harper though, the same outcome would have still happenned. This is because the GGs HAVE to "take the advise" of the Prime Minister, it's their job to listen to whatever the PM says, and this would happen whether they are elected or appointed.

By "told everything" I ment that there should be a more or less equal distribution of airtime, research, and so on devoted to each side of the arguement to ensure fairness. Nowadays you only really see global warming believers on the air, scientists are paid large amounts to do research which indicates that man-produced global warming is happening, and so on. Likewise, skeptics of man-produced global warming are being discouraged whether their findings are valid or not. There is enough of a divide in the scientific community over this issue to raise the possibility that maybe global warming is not caused by us, yet this voice is not really heard because the other side of the arguement has a monopoly over the discussion. Once again, I believe in man-produced global warming, but I dislike the means which my side is using to get the population "sold" on this theory. Yes, some people do their own research when making up their minds, but your mindset is overly optimistic if you believe that the marjority of the population would do this. Most people just turn on their TVs or maybe read newspapers for their facts, and if those happen to be bias (which most are), then those people will be sold on a theory without even hearing the other point of view. If you control the mob (population) you control all lol. To get back to the topic, that's why I support CBC for putting on Rex Murhy; I don't agree with him, but at least he represents another viewpoint.

Well, when one thinks of "identity" one usually thinks of cultural identity, which Canada doesn't have much of; seeing as how we're such a diverse nation with immigrants from all over the world. We have some cultural aspects by which we are known for, like our mounties, the maple leaf on our flag, and being good at hockey, but besides that I can't find much. I don't think Canadians try to be "un-american though", in fact during the last century we were heavily culturally influenced by America to the point that today we are more like Americans then the British; which was not the case prior to WW1. Almost every company in Canada is American, we have a huge border with them, our population is 10% of theirs, and all of our media comes from Hollywood, so the fact that Canada is so "american-ized" isn't really surprising. If there's one aspect where Canadians try to be different then Americans it's government. We're pretty socialist up here, as a contrast to the capitalistic americans, and no offence intended here but i've heard everyone from 5th grade kids (my cousins), adults, and old timers making fun of Bush and the people who, not once but twice, elected him to lead their country lol.

I really don't see anything wrong with Rex Murhpy's comments; in fact I support him (and CBC for allowing him to speak) because while his views may or may not be correct, at least they represent an alternative to the mainstream theory of man-produced global warming. I actually believe in global warming and do not personally agree with Murphy. I have another belief however, which is that we, as citizens, should be told ever single aspect of the arguement so that we'll be able to make our own, informed decisions. When one side of the arguement has a total monopoly on the discussion and research it's borderline propoganda; getting constantly blasted with one side of the arguement is not a good thing imo.

Ah, but what makes it okay for two hot chicks to be married but not two guys (besides the fact that it's hot lol)? Also, the definition of marriage has changed many times throughout history, so why not change it again (to not discriminate against gay people) for the sake of equality?

Hmm, this is the kind of corruption that one would expect from politicians and businessmen, but I guess even scientists have their own hidden agendas. Troubling news anyways. Ideally scientists and the research they do are supposed to help us advance as a species, but when greed comes into the picture it has the opposite effect. If we only have one sided, bias research it's impossible to find the real truth to anything.

I strongly agree with your last two statements haha, as with the rest of your points. All humans are born equal and die equal, regardless of what sexual preferences they have. Likewise, all humans should have the right to marry a partner whom they love, and IMO it is irrelevant whether this partner happens to be of the opposite sex or the same sex. It's also funny how many people who are still opposed to gay marriage try to defend their position by claiming that "it's definition is sacred and should not change to accommodate gays", or something along those lines...I bet many of those same people would still be opposed to any sort of homosexual union even if it had a name other then marriage; it just displeases them to any sort of gay "partnership".

The justice system in Canada is primarily focused on rehabilitation, and so far it's having good results in helping make former criminals fully functionning members of society. Keeping someone in jail forever, or even invoking capital punishment like they have in the states, won't lower crime rates. Focusing our justice system around deterence and punishment does not work, if you want a real world example just look at the population in prison per capita in U.S.A. compared to Canada; they have a much harsher justice system and yet it's not as effective. It may seem morally correct to have harsher punishments for hardened criminals, but in the long run morals mean nothing, they're just ever changing views shared by society and this is one decision we shouldn't base on them, as it doesn't even achieve the result we're looking for (lowering crime). IMO we need to help even the most disturbed pedofile/murderer/whatever "try" to become a fully functionning member of society, maybe by using psychologists and such...? That's just my two cents though, to each his own thoughts!

Uhm, aren't the vast majority of scientists who are actually studying this saying that global warming is highly probable? Moreover, the scientists saying that global warming is a fraud are slowly but surley shifting to the other side of the arguement, as I understand. I've read and watched many works that talk about how the earth goes through a natural cycle of heating up and cooling down (and other evidence debunking global warming), which seems possible to me, but at the end of the day i'll believe the side supported by the majority of scientists. Anyways, even if global warming isn't the catastrophe that Al Gore keeps whining about I still don't see what harm it can possibly do to invest more in alternative energy technologies and such; it will reduce pollution, lower dependence on fossil fuels, provide "green" jobs in the future, and so on...

First off, hello all, i'm new here and t'is my first post. Personally, I don't think Obama is as concerned with the situation in Iran as many are speculating. I'm sure that sounds like a fairly bold statement, but when it comes right down to it Iran will still be enriching uranium and financing it's enrichment sites whether the current regime holds controll or not. I believe that's why he's taking such a neutral stance on this particular issue, because no matter what happens America still loses it's main objective in this case. I'm sure Obama would love to see Ahmadinejad out of power so that the U.S. can try to re-start relations with Iran, but I guess that's not enough reason for him to actually take a bigger stance then he already has.