Jump to content

-1=e^ipi

Member
  • Posts

    4,786
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by -1=e^ipi

  1. Indeed you have 2 definitions of racist. The traditional definition meaning someone or something that discriminates based on race (in the sense that nazis or affirmative action are racist) and the 'progressive' definition of racist, meaning someone that disagrees with me or criticizes Islam, which isn't a race, so I'm going to label them as racist. But yes, I'm glad you agree with me that the meaning of words changes based on context and who uses them. That's why I felt it necessary to give an explanation of Pat Condell's definition of 'progressive' so people could better understand the video (as people were misunderstanding it in the previous thread).
  2. Sorry, my mistake for not identifying your comments as sarcasm. can you also define (for Condell... for yourself?) what limited/reserved/cautionary multiculturalism is?Sure. It is a form of multiculturalism which allows the immigration primarily from / mixing of cultures that are pluralistic (i.e. not supremacist) and are compatible with liberal democratic values. In particular, it advocates immigration from countries with cultures that are highly compatible with the host country's culture (ex. Western Europe and East Asian immigration to Canada) vs those countries with cultures that are not very compatible with the host country's culture (ex. Pakistani and Somali immigration to Canada). It does not advocate that one should only allow immigration from the 'compatible' countries, but rather that culture should be a significant deciding factor when determining if an individual should be allowed to immigrate. 'Limited' multiculturalism (if you want to use the word limited) isn't just restricted to immigration, but also to do with cultural accommodation; an individual who supports 'limited' multiculturalism might be okay with people wearing some religious clothing items, but take issue with the niqab because it covers the face and with the kirpan because it is a weapon that can be used to kill people. 'Limited' multiculturalism is often contrasted by 'unlimited' multiculturalism (more commonly just called multiculturalism) as advocated by cultural relativists and western apologists. But really, the best way to understand 'limited' multiculturalism is to give examples because it a concept that is primarily relevant in western countries in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It is also very difficult to talk about 'limited' multiculturalism without talking about Islam because Islamic supremacism is the primary concern of critics of 'unlimited' multiculturalism as advocated by 'progressives' (again, using Pat Condell's definition of progressives here). The EDL (English Defence League) could be (I say could be because there are still some skin-heads that try to hijack the organization) considered an organization that advocates limits to multiculturalism (advocates lower immigration from Islamic countries and less cultural accommodation to islamists, while being very inclusive in that the EDL consists of gays, atheists, christians, hindus, jews and people of all races). Advocates of 'limited' multiculturalism should not be confused with xenophobes, racists and other bigoted groups that prefer uniculturalism and no or extremely limited immigration (though 'progressives' will often try to label them as such). I'll give a more personal example. In my life I have gone to many schools in Canadian cities (and in other countries), all of which had student populations where the majority are either immigrants or children of recent immigrants. For the vast majority of students, there were no issues retaining a foreign culture while adopting Canadian culture or with assimilating and mixing with everyone else. When it came to academic performance and extra-curricular activities, people of East Asian or Indian decent usually did the best (often due to strong influence from parents); in general, immigrants or children of immigrants performed better than Canadians that have families that have been in Canada for a longer period of time. However, in one case I went to a school where Somalian Muslims made the.largest cultural group. In this school, which had many hijab-wearing (not the more colorful hijabs worn by more moderate muslims, but the conservative ones worn by those that follow Wahabbi Islam) allah-swearing muslims, gender segregation was common, muslim girls were submissive to muslim boys, bullying of non-muslims was common, female teachers often were not respected by students, students did not value education (as more value is placed on allah & the koran) and reciting of the Qu'ran and/or mentioning Allah were common in the classroom. From my experience, it just seems to me that it would make more sense to increase the amount of immigration from China while reducing the immigration from Somalia and that cultural compatibility should play a role in immigration. Now to be fair/to clarify, the above example certainly isn't representative of all Muslims and there is much cultural variation between Muslim countries (I've known many secular, non-practicing, alcohol-drinking muslims that integrated very well and performed very well academically. Generally I have had no issues with Iranian-Canadians either). Yeah, progressive racists are primarily progressives that engage in race-baiting ad hominems. Though one could be a progressive racists without ad hominems (ex. if one supports affirmative action cause one feels that other races are inferior so need the help, or again if one criticizes Mormonism but not Islam because of the racial make up of the followers of the different religions). Well, perhaps other videos will help. Here is a different Pat Condell video which more clearly defines terms like 'progressive' and 'liberal' than the previous video given: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU And here are some videos that criticizes the BBC and the Guardian for bias and Orwellian progressivism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOgV6Fvc8wc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFOubJ4vJ2Y While I will admit that other political groups may use similar tactics of using euphemisms or redefining words for political gain (US conservatives are particularly good at this), it doesn't make what 'progressives' do any more acceptable. Family values" "Patriot."I do not know if I would consider these words as euphemisms, but I guess it depends on perspective. Family values or traditional values seems to be a fairly neutral term; I can not consider it a euphemism (maybe it is to conservatives?). Patriotism is irrational, so I do not consider Patriot as a euphamism.
  3. This is a follow up thread to the now locked 'there's no racist like a liberal racist' thread. The title of this thread is the debatable question "Does 'progressive racism' exist?", but feel free to debate related topics such as "Is 'progressive racism' moral?", or "Are some policies/ideas that some may argue to be supported by 'progressive racism', such as affirmative action, reserve system in Canada, or silencing 'islamophobes' justified?". Now, it may be helpful to some to clearly define the meaning of 'progressive racism' as well as different definitions of some words like 'progressive', to avoid confusion over the meaning of people's arguments. The video by Pat Condell that started the initial thread can be found in the link below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz4PjxSmtoI&feature=player_embedded Edit: Please watch this video as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU Edit2: Video link that shows Pat Condell believes the left has become corrupted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk For those that do not know, Pat Condell is a popular youtube atheist who criticizes a number of different topics including Islam, christianity, other religions, the EU, progressivism, multiculturalism, attacks on freedom of speech, and other topics. A number of forum members on this site misunderstood what Pat Condell was trying to say because they are not familiar with his videos and are not aware that he uses a different definition of the word 'progressive'. An example is the quote below: Moonlight Graham: To which I responded: -1=e^ipi: Unfortunately, that wasn't a good enough explanation to make it clear to others what Pat Condell was arguing in his video. I'll post a few more exchanges from the previous thread to help clarify things: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: I hope that I have provided sufficient explanation such that everyone now understands the concept and definition of progressive racism. I also gave the example that Justin Trudeau would be considered a progressive, where as Martha Hall Findley would be considered a liberal by Pat Condell's definitions. There is certainly a distinction between progressive racism and racial supremacism (such as that advocated by the nazis); the two types of racism are quite different. However, racism is still racism and it is wrong to judge people by their race (or have race-based laws). Progressive racism (despite the good intentions of progressive racists) leads to people supporting policies that are racist and/or bad for society. Examples would include support for race-based affirmative action, support for the clearly failed reserve system in Canada & Indian Act, support for institutions that hinder free speech (such as human rights commissions), and the desire to label those that criticize Islam as racists. Now, it may be helpful to some to clearly define the meaning of 'progressive racism' as well as different definitions of some words like 'progressive', to avoid confusion over the meaning of people's arguments. The video by Pat Condell that started the initial thread can be found in the link below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz4PjxSmtoI&feature=player_embedded Edit: Please watch this video as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU For those that do not know, Pat Condell is a popular youtube atheist who criticizes a number of different topics including Islam, christianity, other religions, the EU, progressivism, multiculturalism, attacks on freedom of speech, and other topics. A number of forum members on this site misunderstood what Pat Condell was trying to say because they are not familiar with his videos and are not aware that he uses a different definition of the word 'progressive'. An example is the quote below: Moonlight Graham: To which I responded: -1=e^ipi: Unfortunately, that wasn't a good enough explanation to make it clear to others what Pat Condell was arguing in his video. I'll post a few more exchanges from the previous thread to help clarify things: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: Bleeding Heart: -1=e^ipi: I hope that I have provided sufficient explanation such that everyone now understands the concept and definition of progressive racism. I also gave the example that Justin Trudeau would be considered a progressive, where as Martha Hall Findley would be considered a liberal by Pat Condell's definitions. There is certainly a distinction between progressive racism and racial supremacism (such as that advocated by the nazis); the two types of racism are quite different. However, racism is still racism and it is wrong to judge people by their race (or have race-based laws). Progressive racism (despite the good intentions of progressive racists) leads to people supporting policies that are racist and/or bad for society. Examples would include support for race-based affirmative action, support for the clearly failed reserve system in Canada & Indian Act, support for institutions that hinder free speech (such as human rights commissions), and the desire to label those that criticize Islam as racists.
  4. Cupping and chiropractics might have some merit (in terms of improving blood flow and easing back pain). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupping_therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractor
  5. No because I said usually. Learn reading comprehension. I do not understand what this means. Can you please rephrase things in an intelligible way? Well then I guess Pat Condell suffers from heterosexual guilt cause he strongly supports gay rights and condemns Islam. *sarcasm* Pat Condell isn't suggesting that soviets suffer from Russian guilt, gay rights advocates suffer from heterosexual guilt or that anyone who opposes anything suffers from some sort of guilt complex; you are making a strawman argument. He is talking about a specific group of people, racist progressives, and criticizes them for being racist. No, you misunderstand the video completely. Pat is criticizing a group of people that he identifies as progressive (under his definition of progressive, not the Orwellian progressive definition of progressive). He isn't criticizing all those who self identify as progressive, only those that fit his definition. More specifically, he is criticizing those who try to silence him when he criticizes Islam (specifically islamic misogeny, treatment of apostates, treatment of kaffir, barbaric practices such as severing of limbs, desire to silence free expression), especially when they call him a racist islamophobe. Pat mentions that many so called progressives are more than willing to criticize Mormonism, but never dare criticize Islam and identifies the reason as their inherent racism for not wanting to criticize the religion of 'brown people'. I would like to see your evidence that Pat suggests that all those that disagree with him are racists. Or is that merely self-projecting progressivism? It isn't a tit for tat thing, or a joke. He is criticizing the group of people that he identifies as progressive for being racist; as well as criticizes their use of ad hominem attacks and Orwellian language. It's a valid criticism. Pat Condell has many videos, some criticizing islam, some criticising christianity, some criticizing other religions, some criticizing the EU, some criticizing progressivism, some criticizing multiculturalism, etc. What is your point? Who should he criticize that he isn't criticizing? I occupy a moral high ground over racists, sure. But I do not occupy a moral high ground over all those who disagree with me. Anyway, if it helps clarify the distinction between liberal and progressive I'll give a Canadian example. Justin Trudeau is a progressive. Martha Hall Findlay is a liberal.
  6. Pat Condell is awesome. I'm a big fan. Pat Condell uses his own definition of progressive, rather than the progressive definition of progressive. He distinguishes very much between 'liberal' and 'progressive' (likes liberals, dislikes progressives). His definition and distinction are more clear in other videos, but basically progressives are usually people suffering from white guilt (though you can be 'progressive' without being white), who support multiculturalism without limit or without consideration of which cultures are involved (specifically Islam), who do not want to criticize certain things (usually to do with islam) for fear of offending people and for fear of being called racist, who would rather label people who disagree with them as racists rather than engage in intelligent debate, who support things like affirmative action which are clearly racist because they implicitly do not think that non-whites are equal so need help (though they will never admit this to themselves or others). Progressives tend to delude themselves into thinking that they occupy some sort of moral high-ground over those who disagree with them. The term 'progressive' and other terms progressives tend to use are somewhat Orwellian in nature in that their true meaning is hidden behind a euphemism (who isn't against progress?). Progressives have dominated the politics of most western countries (US is a good exception) for decades. Ironically, by calling Pat Condell a racist against progressives, you have done 2 things that support his point and indicate you are a progressive. First, you label someone as a racist with no evidence to back up your claim, most likely because he disagrees with you and it is easier in the progressive mind just to label those that disagree as racist. Secondly, progressives are not a race, so it is logically impossible to be racist against progressives. Please explain what you mean by 'garden variety retard' because a google search does not yield good results. Furthermore, can you please provide evidence to back up your claim? Or are you merely another progressive that uses ad hominem attacks to silence those that disagree with you rather than debate his arguments?
  7. Completely wrong. The Bank of Canada is a Private Crown Corporation; technically the minister of finance owns the bank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Canada The 12 banks you are referring to are not private for-profit banks, they are non-profit Federal Reserve District Banks that operate in 12 different districts that are headquartered in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco. They are responsible for a variety of tasks which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank That said, the banking systems in Canada, the US and the entire developed world are essentially the same. Ignorance or false claims caused by internet myths do not change this fact. Purchasing storage space costs money. Bandwidth costs money. Electronics cost money. Hiring people to oversee currency exchange and those transactions costs money, and time. Making consumers have to deal with multiple currencies is inconvenient to them and costs time. No matter how you spin it, there are transaction costs that result from having 2 currencies. Economists have estimated the size of these transaction costs in a number of ways. Do you need me to link you to some studies to show this, or are would you be too economically illiterate to understand them? Just because you want to live in a fantasy land where things you do not like become magically free to satisfy your political dogma, doesn't make it true. 1. If you want to make claims, could you at least justify them with evidence or argument? 2. I'd prefer not to use the term trade bottleneck (unless you want to clearly define it and justify its usefulness). The only thing that should matter is if something is damaging to trade and therefore ultimately damages the mean standard of living on both sides of the border. Regulatory trade barriers exist, and while they can be reduced (by harmonizing certain laws), they cannot be completely eliminated without a merger. My point still stands (refer to previous posts on examples I gave; no point retyping them just because you want to ignore them and pretend they do not exist). Again, random claim without any justification what so ever. If you tell yourself a lie enough times does it come true? Indeed it would, but that isn't an answer to my question. I asked if Canada and the US should remain separate, then why shouldn't Canada and/or the US split up into smaller countries? And if you do not think that Canada and the US should split up, then aren't you irrationally in favor of the status quo? I guess that the 49th parallel and some lines drawn on a map hundreds of years ago are somehow magically optimal. There are 2 very good reasons why this could change. 1. US has a huge and growing debt that needs to be addressed. 2. US public opinion is changing (if you read online opinions or polls). Just because there are two possibilities does not mean that they have equal probability. The US and Canada are far more likely to become more similar (politically) as time goes by. Why? Globalization and the internet is bringing everyone closer together. Americans and Canadians communicate with each other more then every before, share ideas with each other more then ever before, follow each other's politics more than ever before. The US is becoming slowly more democratic and the demographic trends do not favor traditional-conservatives at all. Heck in a few years Canada (along with Australia and New Zealand) will become a republic once the current monarch dies (going by opinion polls), making Canada more similar to the US.
  8. Canada has a 'nationalized' central bank? I'm not sure what you mean. Canada's central bank is independent of government control much like it is for the US, UK, EU, Japan and, the entire developed world and then some. This is done so that politicians do not abuse the Phillips curve to temporarily boost employment to get re-elected (at the expense of the long run inflation rate) by lowering interest rates. Canada's monetary system is practically identical to that of the US (though I believe the Bank of Canada's target long term inflation rate is half a percent. lower than the target of the US, correct me if I am wrong). Our monetary policy has been nearly identical for 20 years (do you need me to provide a link for nominal interest rates vs time for both countries for the past 20 years and perform a regression to prove very strong correlation?), as our economies are so interrelated and correlated. As a result, loss of the ability to independently set interest rates is not an issue when the other country has the same interest rates. Side: On the topic of optimal currency areas, a few Canadian economists are arguing that Canada might be better off with 2 currencies rather than 1 (one for eastern Canada, one for western Canada), to avoid the issues of dutch disease. While the costs of changing currencies can be reduced, they cannot be eliminated entirely for an economy over all. The banks will still charge a fraction of the value of the money when a currency is converted, it remains an inconvenience for many people, and as long as there are 2 currencies, Canada & US has economic resources allocated towards transaction costs that could be allocated elsewhere. Oh yay, a non-sense protectionist argument. You might as well be arguing the Earth is flat or that evolution is false. Reducing trade barriers allows countries to specialize production in where they have a comparative advantage, allowing both countries to be better off overall by producing more goods and services. Sure some inefficient unionized worker might be worse off (if they do not adapt), but that isn't enough to justify the benefits to consumers and to producers elsewhere in the economy. That said, the trade restrictions I was referring to are not ones that are intended to be there to 'protect inefficient domestic industries'. I was referring to regulatory trade barriers. Canada and the US have different domestic laws, meaning that if a company or individual in Canada or the US want's to export goods and services to the other country, they have to comply with the other country's laws; this costs time and money and results in many (usually small) companies staying on only one side of the border resulting in less competition. The fact that US spends more money per capita on military is not a problem inherent in the idea of a merger, it is a result of the current political situation in the United States. You keep referring to present political problems in the US today, as if those problems will always exist and as if there isn't going to be significant political and demographic change in the US in the coming decades. Canada, US and the entire world are becoming closer due to globalization and the internet. I'm not arguing for a merger to take place tomorrow, I'm arguing that something like a merger in 50 years time that takes place gradually with the democratic support of the people can be a good idea. There are inherent benefits to a merger (removal of regulatory trade barriers, taking advantage of economies of scale, reduced transaction cost, smaller overall government, etc.), while there are no inherent disadvantages in a merger that cannot be overcome in a few decades with political change. And because of these inherent benefits, there exist merger possibilities that can mutually benefit both countries (not saying all mergers are mutually beneficial, but some are). Economies of scale increasing the cost effectiveness of military remains an inherit benefit of a merger. The fact that a merger will not reduce the time/cost to cross the border in some cases doesn't mean that it will not reduce the time/cost to cross the border in all cases. Learn basic logic please. There remains situations where a merger will make it easier to cross the border, thus increased labour mobility remains an advantage of a merger. Again, Canada doesn't necessarily lose it's ability to control and/or benefit from its resources in a merger, that depends entirely on how the merger is done. Again, I refer to my example of Canadian provinces having some control over their resources despite all being in the same country; and this is not unique to Canada (ex. Scotland benefits from offshore oil revenue, etc.). Anyway, can you at least admit that there exist at least some possible ways to do a merger such that it is mutually beneficial for both countries given the inherent benefits of a merger that I listed? If not, can your arguments be applied to justify Quebec, Texas and California to become independent countries? If your insist that a merger can never be mutually beneficial and are also against Quebec, Texas and California separatism, aren't you just irrationally supporting the status quo?
  9. If you read my post earlier, I gave several benefits from a merger. The only one that could be done without the merger is the monetary union (and perhaps the military union as well). See the below quote. In addition, a merger doesn't necessary imply that Canada gives up it's natural resources. Do provinces within Canada not have some control over their natural resources? Alberta and Newfoundland over their oil, Quebec over hydro, etc.?
  10. May I contribute to this topic? It's not so much a question of if a merger will take place, but when. Most would oppose a merger that takes place tomorrow, but would many oppose a merger that occurs slowly over several decades with the democratic support of the peoples of both countries? A merger isn't feasible today, but why not in 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Many who would oppose a merger will cite differences in culture, history, politics and policy as reasons against merger. But many of these reasons are only applicable in the near future; for example, some may site the fact that the US is very conservative, religious, loves guns, is against gay marriage and has a poor health care system are reasons against a merger, but given the demographic trends in the US and the fact that younger Americans have more a more liberal perspective on politics, this is likely to change within a few decades. The internet is playing a large role in bringing our cultures and are peoples closer together; how many here do not commonly converse with Americans on the internet, play online games with Americans, buy and sell products with Americans or watch American media on the internet? In addition, how many of the reasons people give for not merging cannot also be used to justify Quebec separatism or California separatism (If Canada should be separate from the US, then should California also be separate given it's similar population and economy)? Ultimately, I think that some people just have an irrational attachment to status quo (probably due to the irrational idea of patriotism/nationalism). There isn't much long-run reason not to merge (except transition costs, which can be small if the merger is done slowly and properly and be outweighed by the potential benefits). Indeed there are many benefits for merging including: - Using economies of scale to have a smaller and more cost effective national government. We will not have to duplicate various government departments by having 2 countries instead of 1. - Merging of countries will significantly remove most regulatory trade barriers. While we have had a free trade agreement for decades, there are still many trade barriers that cannot be entirely removed simply due different regulations and the fact that we are different countries. Indeed price differences for various items are still quite high across the border (cross border shopping remains popular) and a lot of it has to do with retailers setting 1 price for Canada and 1 price for the USA. Also, how many times have you tried to watch an online video, only to be told you cannot watch it due to being in Canada? (ComedyCentral, HBO, Hulu, etc.) - Taking advantage of economies of scale should lead to a more cost effective military and better security. Admittedly though, the Americans really need to reduce their military expenditures if they want to get serious about the deficit. Also, i'm sick of how difficult it has become to cross the Canada-US border due to all the security checks. - Single currency will make transactions much easier. No longer will you have to go to a bank and exchange your currency when going to the other part of North America. - Single North American Citizenship should greatly increase labour mobility. This increased Labour mobility will allow people in low employment areas to move to high employment areas, therefore increasing North America's employment rate and GDP. In the immediate future, those that advocate eventual merger should focus primarily on obtaining a single North American Dollar. The benefits for a North American Dollar relative to the cost of implementation are very high and one can justify merging currencies without having to talk about political merger (which will be much harder to do). Indeed in Europe we have many countries with a single currency so it has been done before, and given that we have had free trade with the US for decades, a deal which so positively affects cross border trade isn't unprecedented. Furthermore, merger of the Canadian and American Dollars should be far easier to implement than what has happened in Europe. Canada and US are very similar culturally & economically (unlike say Greece and Germany) and if you compare Bank of Canada policy with Federal Reserve Fiscal policy, they have been almost identical for 2 decades (since the '93 recession in Canada). Finally, the fact that the Canadian Dollar and US Dollar are nearly at parity means that implementation of a single currency can be done quite easily: simply have the Bank of Canada and US Dollar control interest rates for a few years in such a way that 1 Canadian Dollar = 1 American Dollar. Next, peg these currencies to one another to boost market confidence such that 1 Canadian Dollar = 1 American Dollar. Then, pass laws in both countries such that they recognize the other country's currency as legal tender. Finally, replace the Bank of Canada and the Federal Reserve with the Central Bank of North America, and have the new central bank control monetary policy for the government. This method has very low implementation costs as one does not need to replace any pre-existing currency nor do people have to adapt to new prices. As for what will be on the new currency, we could have different provinces/states create different designs (to appease regionalism), and the central bank will determine what quantity of each design will be printed. Hopefully the new money would be more similar to what we have in Canada or Europe (braile and different sizes for blind people, different colours for easy recognition, multiple languages printed on money, polymer based notes, etc.). US also needs to give up the penny. Most difficult aspect of merger will be the political merger, especially given how messed up both government systems are. A new political system will need to be adopted (cause face it, the US electoral college system and the Canadian First past the post system + senate are pretty messed up); perhaps we can adopt the German system? North American wide parties will need to be established (Conservative Party of North America, Liberal Party of North America, Freedom Party of North America) maybe by merger of pre-existing parties (ex. CPC with republicans). Before a Fiscal merger can take place, both countries will definitely need to address their debt issues and some of their unsustainable policies (ex. social security in the US). Political will is unlikely to be sufficient in the US until a 3rd party manages to take power, since right now both the Democrats and Republicans are satisfied with their eternal duopoly on political power to make bad decisions. On the other hand, Canada will have to give up the monarchy and become a republic long before a merger takes place given the US's aversion to the British monarchy for historical reasons. As for what a United States of North America could look like... Official languages could be English, French and Spanish, with English having a status slightly higher than the other two official languages (no way you will be able to appease many Americans if English has same status as French and Spanish). The flag could be the current US flag with a maple leaf on the bottom right corner with a size equal to 1/10th the flag area (to represent the relative size of the Canadian Population). Capital will probably be Washington, but in the digital age, does a country even need a capital anymore? The government could be highly decentralized.
×
×
  • Create New...