Immigration, baby boomers & 'making whoopie.'

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

France is a strange example, as it's heavily socialized and this to me is intertwined with their general isolationist and anti-immigration trends. But - yes - it's possible for us to take women out of the workplace, and pay them a kind of welfare to have children but it sure seems to me like social engineering of the type that conservatives abhor.

[lictor616]

Those are good links.

I concur that things have got worse lately, especially during the crisis - however looking over longer term (20-30 years) and beyond the current crisis, the situation has been steadily improving. I don't accept the idea that the 3rd world is much worse off (the number of dependent and unviable people in the world is doubtless MUCH higher).

China alone has moved hundreds of millions of people from the 3rd world into western economies since the 1960s.

Again, doomsday scenarios always exist but we should recognize that the difference between real problems and irrational fears and phobias.

the percentage of arable soil has decreased since the 80's ... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...c832de29f1f9e25

61% of european arable land has been deemed "over fertilized"

The fact is our ability to increase food output will be capped in the next few years... and then what?! lol I simply cannot understand people's optimism in all of this... we'll soon be 7 BILLION people... 7 BILLION!

And btw china's Yang Tze river has been dubbed terminally polluted... meaning it will never become viable again... or at least in the next 400 years... and this type of terminal pollution is happening increasingly and with nearly irreversible effects ALL OVER THE WORLD.

The US already has 43% of its water surfaces that are unfishable unswimmable... and this too, will increase.

please view this:

Edited September 18, 2009 by lictor616

[Argus]

Many European countries have great child care subsidies, but they also have lots of DIFs (dual-income families) and therefore low birth rates.

It's very difficult to have 2 spouses in the workforce and also have more than 1-2 kids. If you ever want higher birthrates, you have to make it possible for more families to have a spouse at home...at least until all the kids are in school.

We can start with free pre-school and day care right there at work, at least in all large workplaces. We can make those economic incentives include more time off for primary caregivers, and more flexible work terms, letting young mothers/fathers work three days a week, for example, instead of five, perhaps with slightly longer hours, but child care right there on site so they can visit, clothing allowances for the children, and subsidies for housing for larger families.

[Argus]

Argus,

France is a strange example, as it's heavily socialized and this to me is intertwined with their general isolationist and anti-immigration trends. But - yes - it's possible for us to take women out of the workplace, and pay them a kind of welfare to have children but it sure seems to me like social engineering of the type that conservatives abhor.

Sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do. It's clear that the economic shift which no longer permits single-income families, in most cases, has had a lot to do with our declining birth rate. The only way to help make up for that is government incentives and subsidies. However, in most cases I'm not in favour of paying women to stay home and pop out babies. I would rather see them in a mixture of working and child rearing with some other income supports if they have more than 2 kids.

[Pat Coghlan]

We can start with free pre-school and day care right there at work, at least in all large workplaces. We can make those economic incentives include more time off for primary caregivers, and more flexible work terms, letting young mothers/fathers work three days a week, for example, instead of five, perhaps with slightly longer hours, but child care right there on site so they can visit, clothing allowances for the children, and subsidies for housing for larger families.

You're assuming that a family with 3+ kids has the time and energy to also keep 2 full-time jobs...even with flexible hours etc. It won't work.

We have 5 kids, so I know what I'm talking about...and my wife is working part-time, after being at home for 12 years.

If you want larger families, you need to help families have a spouse stay home...possibly for years. That means, for starters, stop taxing the wage earner essentially the same rates as a single person with zero dependents.

Show me 1,000 families with both spouses in the workforce, and I will show you 973 families with 2 kids or less.

[Argus]

You're assuming that a family with 3+ kids has the time and energy to also keep 2 full-time jobs...even with flexible hours etc. It won't work.

Both my parents worked full time and had 3 kids. They never had any government help in anything, and that was the norm.

But society has changed, and young people want more. They want toys my parents never even thought about, and women want something outside the house.

Tax incentives, housing help for larger families, daycare on site, and subsidies so that one of the caregivers can work shorter hours or fewer days would have a very strong impact, I think.

[Michael Hardner]

lictor

please view this:

This is too simplified... the gumball analogy isn't necessary to anybody who can master high-school level math.

[lictor616]

lictor

This is too simplified... the gumball analogy isn't necessary to anybody who can master high-school level math.

well when addressing the mainstream average voter, you have to dumb down your spiel quite a bit, but it put things clearly.

[lictor616]

Those are good links.

I concur that things have got worse lately, especially during the crisis - however looking over longer term (20-30 years) and beyond the current crisis, the situation has been steadily improving. I don't accept the idea that the 3rd world is much worse off (the number of dependent and unviable people in the world is doubtless MUCH higher).

China alone has moved hundreds of millions of people from the 3rd world into western economies since the 1960s.

Again, doomsday scenarios always exist but we should recognize that the difference between real problems and irrational fears and phobias.

Let us remember that ours is a world in which 3 billion people live with less than a dollar a day, where the richest 2 percent of adults in the world own more than half the world's wealth and where by contrast, the bottom 50 percent of the world's adult population owns barely 1 percent of the world's wealth. (according to a new study released by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University). The world wealth gap and its consequent ills have all been borne out of the WW2 and liberal ideology- an ideology supposedly based upon equality (human and otherwise). These regrettable developments and further inequities and life quality index drops have increased dramatically since the 40’s, and demographers and scientists alike, are predicting that these problems will continue to worsen, and what is more, overpopulation, nuclear proliferation, pollution and other environmental problems may very well end humanity or “species survivability” in this century. The study's authors say their work is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken. They found the richest 1 percent of adults owned 40 percent of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10 percent of adults accounted for 85 percent of the world's total.

[Wild Bill]

No, Bill, that's too simplistic. There've been studies, but really, you don't need to read them for you know this - the size of a family is rarely related to the size of that family's income. Find me a couple whose joint income is $70,000 and then one whose joint income is $250,000, and you're as likely to find both of them having 1 or 2 kids as anything else.

Do wealthier families have 4, 5 or 6 kids like people used to have? Absolutely not. Young men are spoiled today, but so are young women. Young women don't want to go through the pain and discomfort of repeated pregnancies and repeated child births. They don't want to have to be run ragged around the house by multiple pre-school children. They want to have careers, and then come home to relax and watch TV, or maybe go out dancing or to a pub.

Flawed logic, Argus. A joint income of $70K and one of $250K are two different situations! Apples and oranges.

First off, demographics suggest that there are far more at that hypothetical $70k level of yours than at $250K. So if you want more babies it doesn't make sense to target the higher but smaller income group.

Also, the higher group would likely consist more of professionals. Professional women tend to be less interested in raising a large family, no matter how much money they make. You can scold them all you want but you're not likely to change their minds. Thus, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

So at that lower income level, what are the family options? This is what I mean by real world choices. Perhaps the father should go out and take an oil sands job while the wife gives up her job in Ontario and tends the family? Not bloody likely! Ask the Newfoundlanders how pleasant is that option, for a father to rarely see his family ever again. Relocation costs money, money that usually a family in Ontario just doesn't have put aside. With no contacts or support network out West, relocation is literally a shot in the dark. If you miss, your kids go hungry.

The devil is always in the details and things always sound easy to the man who doesn't have to do it himself! Or if he did it himself, to expect that someone with a completely different lifestyle in a completely different situation several thousand miles away can do the same as him.

If our governments want to increase the birthrate they could start by lowering taxes and giving families more tax incentives. I'm not talking a couple of thousand dollars a year here. It would need tens of thousands before it would have a worthwhile effect.

[Michael Hardner]

Lictor,

Let us remember that ours is a world in which 3 billion people live with less than a dollar a day, where the richest 2 percent of adults in the world own more than half the world's wealth and where by contrast, the bottom 50 percent of the world's adult population owns barely 1 percent of the world's wealth. (according to a new study released by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University). The world wealth gap and its consequent ills have all been borne out of the WW2 and liberal ideology- an ideology supposedly based upon equality (human and otherwise). These regrettable developments and further inequities and life quality index drops have increased dramatically since the 40’s, and demographers and scientists alike, are predicting that these problems will continue to worsen, and what is more, overpopulation, nuclear proliferation, pollution and other environmental problems may very well end humanity or “species survivability” in this century. The study's authors say their work is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken. They found the richest 1 percent of adults owned 40 percent of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10 percent of adults accounted for 85 percent of the world's total.

Life quality has worsened since the 40s worldwide ? I find it hard to believe that in a world where hunger has decreased by almost 60% in 40 years.

The GAP isn't as important as how the poorest are doing, and they're doing better.

Sorry but you need a cite for this.

[wyly]

I don't think infinite population growth is as important to sustain an economy as you seem to think. Canada was a reasonably nice place to live when it had 20 million people. Do you really think it's more pleasant at over 30 million, and will be more pleasant still when we reach 40 million? Ultimately, you need to have a stable population, not one which continues to expand. If the economic model requires ever larger numbers of people to sustain it then the economic model needs to be changed.

The way to address demographic problems is not through replacing the current population with one culled from a variety of third world countries, but by addressing the social and economic factors which depress native child birth.

for our economy to sustain itself as it is now we need constant growth, consumerism drives our growth, more houses more cars more everything, slow any any consumer demand down to replacement levels and you put hundreds of thousands of people out of work...no free market government especially a conservative one such as we have will ever address that, our entire system of economics is one gigantic Ponzi scheme that must one day fail...

I agree ultimately we will need a stable population but the economic and social problems caused by such a change will not be easy, and will require a revolutionary change in economic and social thinking...

[Pat Coghlan]

If our governments want to increase the birthrate they could start by lowering taxes and giving families more tax incentives. I'm not talking a couple of thousand dollars a year here. It would need tens of thousands before it would have a worthwhile effect.

I agree almost 100% with this statement...although I disagree with the amount of tax incentive that would be needed. An extra $500/month of after-tax income would tip the balance for MANY families to keep a spouse at home.

I'd be happy with ANY tax incentive to encourage more families to have a spouse stay home. Can you think of ONE tax advantage that has been given to families that use an at-home spouse to look after their kids in the past 25 years? ONE?

Forget tax ADVANTAGES; the government doesn't even want to tax families with at at-home spouse THE SAME as their dual-income counterparts. No, in fact they pretty much always pay more...up to $5K-$9K more, depending on income.

The government is hell bent on treating everyone as an individual in all aspects of the tax system...unless you try to apply for 50% of available child tax benefits as an INDIVIDUAL who happens to be married. In that case, you are forced to combine your income with your spouse's and apply as a FAMILY.

Government policy is not about increasing the birthrate. It's about keeping both parents in the workforce and handing out childcare goodies to capture working women's vote. The remaining 30% of families with an at-home spouse can go to hell and be happy with their $100 "beer and popcorn" extravagance for each under-6 child.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Pat Coghlan

[dlkenny]

dlkenny

What are you talking about ? What runaway trains ?

Sure you're entitled to your opinion, but why would you stick to it in the face of the facts I've presented ? You appear to me to be irrationally pessimistic.

To recap - I just showed that as the population of the earth doubled, hunger fell. What makes you think that we're still bound towards catastrophe ? Perhaps this is a hunch you have or intuition - let me know...

Corrections happen, and then progress continues and the forward march resumes. Your ideas that famine, disease, war are causing some kind of correction seem to me to be intuitive ideas.

Sure, hunger fell because of of the way that wealth has been redistributed. Globalization has had that effect and maybe that's the answer to many problems. Globalization spreads wealth from a handful of nations and puts major manufacturing and production in the hands of some of the worlds emerging economies. What I'm concerned with though is the need for capitalism to consume. While wealth has been redistributed it has given rise to greater consumption, and it is this consumption that I speak of when I talk about runaway trains...consumption is growing exponentially and the planet cannot sustain the current levels of growth. The human population is growing exponentially as well and as wealth spreads it also creates strong demands for commodities such as gold, oil, food, land and water. The increased demand makes prices rise and creates a further gap between the rich and the poor.

My point is that exponential growth is unsustainable, our financial system is weak and there are going to be changes and it is my personal opinion (call it intuition if you like) that there are going to be some very significant changes. In terms of the financial system I think it's a house of cards with more and more money being printed with no assets to back it up. There are many countries in the world that are already in a state of bankruptcy (Japan & Italy are two very good examples) and I do think that there is going to become a day when we see the system restructured. There will be another collapse, it will be painful for many people and it won't be simply not going on vacation or having our cable vision cut off.

Imagine losing your job and standing in a lineup along with 30% of the population looking for a job. Imagine being out of work and not having any money to buy groceries for your family or to pay the mortgage. Nevermind traveling or watching hockey, survival becomes an everyday battle and breadlines take up a large part of your day. If the financial system isn't fixed, eventually this will happen. You cannot issue unlimited numbers of IOUs because eventually someone has to pay for it. It's an unfortunate truth that bad things must happen before changes are made. A collapse of our financial system would certainly lead to more good times, we

would recover and charge forward hopefully smarter.

[Goat Boy©]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dkenny, any predictions for what happens to the USD? It can't stay up forever, it just can't, they've printed so much money with nothing to show for it. My thought is that, when it comes down, oil spikes again, and things go to hell again.

[Bonam]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dkenny, any predictions for what happens to the USD? It can't stay up forever, it just can't, they've printed so much money with nothing to show for it. My thought is that, when it comes down, oil spikes again, and things go to hell again.

It will come down some, as it already has, but it certainly won't be severely devalued and it will not collapse. People talk about the US economy as "in ruins" or "nothing to show for it" or whatever, but the fact is it's only diminished by a few % from its uttermost peak in 2008. The current recession is nothing more than a tiny blip on the grand scale of things. Just take a look at this kind of graph for example:

http://www.investorsfriend.com/Dow%20Earni...s%20GDP%202.png

Or this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/images/chart24.jpg

Note how even the great depression is just a slight and temporary dip.

US GDP has been growing exponentially for over 100 years, and the effect of prior recessions has been only tiny and temporary compared to the overall trend. So too will be the case with this one. The underlying exponentially accelerating technological progress completely drowns out all other factors.

Every time that times get a bit tough there come out all the doomsayers like the above few posters, but the reality is our societies are headed for ever greater prosperity.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

My point is that exponential growth is unsustainable, our financial system is weak and there are going to be changes and it is my personal opinion (call it intuition if you like) that there are going to be some very significant changes. In terms of the financial system I think it's a house of cards with more and more money being printed with no assets to back it up. There are many countries in the world that are already in a state of bankruptcy (Japan & Italy are two very good examples) and I do think that there is going to become a day when we see the system restructured. There will be another collapse, it will be painful for many people and it won't be simply not going on vacation or having our cable vision cut off.

dlk,

Your opinion is interesting, albeit based on intuition. I agree that we should continue to monitor the financial system as well as world hunger, economic conflicts, and the environment.

[dlkenny]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dkenny, any predictions for what happens to the USD? It can't stay up forever, it just can't, they've printed so much money with nothing to show for it. My thought is that, when it comes down, oil spikes again, and things go to hell again.

I don't think we're going to see it go to zero anytime in the near future. That said, because of the amount of money printed in the last couple of years we're already seeing significant devaluation. The key to this is to watch the price of gold both in comparison to the dollar and in comparison to everything else. There's a good chart in the book Rich Dad's "Increasing your financial IQ" where it shows the value of the Dow Jones vs Gold and vs. Dollars, and while the Dow's value increased in dollars it decreased relative to gold.

When I look at this I see not that the value of paper assets are increasing but that the value of the dollar is decreasing. Gold's relative value always stays basically the same, one ounce of gold today has roughly the same purchasing power as it did 10 years ago. Some will disagree with me on this point, but remember that the value of gold was artificially devalued for about 40 years from 1931 through 1974 where it was held at $60 an ounce. In reality it's the only commodity to outpace inflation for over 5000 years, a pretty good track record if you ask me.

I can't predict what will happen. I do know that the price of gold has risen $200 over the past year and we've seen world food prices rise faster than they have since the 1960s. This tells me that inflation is rampant. I read an article this morning on Money Central that wages and hours of work are stagnant and another regarding Obama wanting to raise taxes to cover his medicare plan. To me this says that people are making no more money but their hard earned dollars aren't going as far, and now the government wants to take more of them as taxes. People's paycheques are already slowly being eroded. You're right too about the price of oil (same with all commodities) that as inflation erodes the dollar oil will get more expensive.

I do not know what will happen long term. It is something I've been talking to many people about and something that is incredibly difficult to envision. My intuition is to look at the past though because Germany went through this before WWII and after the "Turnip Years" wound up with a new form of money that was tied to the value of gold (on the gold standard). It is possible that the US currency may follow a similar path.

[whowhere]

No, I think you can reasonably state that a society's birth rate being BELOW replacement numbers is a problem in that it will ultimately result in the end of that society.

Actually you have hit the nail on the head. Canada is a lost cause and blight to the world and ought to be obliterated out of existence for the boomers and their parents selfishnesss. They allowed Canada to become the cultural shithole at the hands of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Fact, Rome expanded Rome by taking new land, the people, and their wealth. The Romans made slaves out of the people. The slaves had an opportunity to become Romans after paying their dues to Rome. Rome lasted a 1000 years under this succesful model. Because Canada stems from judeo christian dogma it is actually an abmonition to defile yourself with other countries people, it's a sin. So really, the boomers have insulted history, Religion, and have insulted the future Generations of Canada with their selfish greed.

Canada is a nation of Garbage politicians and the people who support them. As is the way of garbage you are all headed for the incinerated to be extinguished out of the book of life. Count on it.

I have looked at history, Religion, and economics to know the people of Canada will get what they deserve. Nothing, but that will not stop the garbage form driving Canada to the cultural gutter to continue to satify their selfish vanity.

[ToadBrother]

Every time that times get a bit tough there come out all the doomsayers like the above few posters, but the reality is our societies are headed for ever greater prosperity.

Well, it seems everyone has abandoned the Second Great Depression line. Now they're on to us all dying from H1N1.

Modern journalism lives by two things; scandals and doom. Either some politician or celebrity has done some icky and/or illegal thing, or we're all going to die from melting ice caps/viruses/Internet pedophiles/economic collapse. Modern journalism has become addicted to sensationalism.

I thought the proclamations last year of the global economy collapsing, everyone having to grow their own vegetables and whatever other absurdities they could come up with were over the top. Yes it's going to be hard, but everyone got out of hand.

[ToadBrother]

Fact, Rome expanded Rome by taking new land, the people, and their wealth. The Romans made slaves out of the people. The slaves had an opportunity to become Romans after paying their dues to Rome. Rome lasted a 1000 years under this succesful model. Because Canada stems from judeo christian dogma it is actually an abmonition to defile yourself with other countries people, it's a sin. So really, the boomers have insulted history, Religion, and have insulted the future Generations of Canada with their selfish greed.

A thousand years? Hardly. If you count the post-Punic Wars Republic (when the Romans began conquering Africa and Greece), that puts the date of real empire building to 146BC. The Western Empire fell in 476 AD, although the decline had been going on for over a century, and I consider the withdrawal from in 410 Britain as the final abandonment of any notion of Roman expansionism. That leaves us with just over 600 years (closer to 700 if you insist on including the final days up until Romulus Augustulus being deposed).

As to enslavement, while slavery persisted in Rome long after the Edict of Milan, all freemen in the Empire automatically became citizens in 212 AD, though citizenship had been doled out pretty liberally even before that.

[whowhere]

A thousand years? Hardly. If you count the post-Punic Wars Republic (when the Romans began conquering Africa and Greece), that puts the date of real empire building to 146BC. The Western Empire fell in 476 AD, although the decline had been going on for over a century, and I consider the withdrawal from in 410 Britain as the final abandonment of any notion of Roman expansionism. That leaves us with just over 600 years (closer to 700 if you insist on including the final days up until Romulus Augustulus being deposed).

As to enslavement, while slavery persisted in Rome long after the Edict of Milan, all freemen in the Empire automatically became citizens in 212 AD, though citizenship had been doled out pretty liberally even before that.

The fact is, the pure bred, pure lain Canadian is of Roman Lineage and Judeo Christian Dogma. It's not hard trace ancestory records to know who is of Europe and Rome. My point is that today's garbage politicians have no reference for their defilement and prostitution and sellout of Canada. Rome operated by taking wealth and enslaving people for the benefit of Romans.

What is Canada doing? It is Canabalizing its people. Canada's politicians have sold out Canada and Canadians to feather their own nests. Not only have the boomers and their parents are a blight to Canada's Roman and Judeo Christian history they are also an insult to the pure lain Canadians great ancestors. Canada's Ancestors struggled and toiled to build up Canada only for the trash generations of the last fourty years to piss Canada away for their vanity and selfish greed.

If there is divine justice I believe the boomers and their parents will have to be judged by their parents, our great grand parents the generations before them to hold them to account for what they have allowed to happen to Canada.

Putting foreigners and newcomers to Canada above Canadians is excusable to history and Canadians ancestory. It is up to Canada's politicians to insulate Canadians from the fallout of their policies. Dumping a torrent of immigrants onto Canada to fuel what exactly is nothing more than a recipe for depressed wages and working conditions. The conservatives have given employers a lever to repress Canada. The Conservative do this because they hate Canadians and they hate Canada and they will not stop until they have destroyed everything Canada once was. All is never lost but Canada has to stop the cultural free fall and embrace who we are.

Step #1 get rid of the Cancerous Conservatives.

[ToadBrother]

The fact is, the pure bred, pure lain Canadian is of Roman Lineage and Judeo Christian Dogma. It's not hard trace ancestory records to know who is of Europe and Rome.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

My point is that today's garbage politicians have no reference for their defilement and prostitution and sellout of Canada. Rome operated by taking wealth and enslaving people for the benefit of Romans.

The Roman economy did not rely on slavery, not as such. It relied on taxes. Slaves didn't pay taxes, citizens did, and after the Edict of Milan, when all freemen became citizens, they got to pay taxes to.

What is Canada doing? It is Canabalizing its people. Canada's politicians have sold out Canada and Canadians to feather their own nests. Not only have the boomers and their parents are a blight to Canada's Roman and Judeo Christian history they are also an insult to the pure lain Canadians great ancestors.

Most of the people I know are either in one way from the British Isles (Celtic or English) or from Northern and Eastern Europe. While it's true that for a time a fair chunk of British Celts were Roman citizens, my Anglo-Saxon and German ancestors were not very likely ever subject to Rome. I guess if you count French Canadians, and still insist that because Gauls (who were Celts, but Romanicized), maybe you've got something of a point, but a pretty weak one. As to the Judeao-Christian bit, well, my ancestors were Odin-worshipping pagans who, on top of leaving behind some pretty good stories, also passed on the wonderful Common Law legal system.

Canada's Ancestors struggled and toiled to build up Canada only for the trash generations of the last fourty years to piss Canada away for their vanity and selfish greed.

Uh huh.

If there is divine justice I believe the boomers and their parents will have to be judged by their parents, our great grand parents the generations before them to hold them to account for what they have allowed to happen to Canada.

Putting foreigners and newcomers to Canada above Canadians is excusable to history and Canadians ancestory. It is up to Canada's politicians to insulate Canadians from the fallout of their policies. Dumping a torrent of immigrants onto Canada to fuel what exactly is nothing more than a recipe for depressed wages and working conditions. The conservatives have given employers a lever to repress Canada. The Conservative do this because they hate Canadians and they hate Canada and they will not stop until they have destroyed everything Canada once was. All is never lost but Canada has to stop the cultural free fall and embrace who we are.

Step #1 get rid of the Cancerous Conservatives.

You know, you sound just like those ludicrous bigots who didn't want the Irish coming in, or the Ukrainians, or the Germans, and so on and so forth. Every generation seems to produce people so utterly ignorant of their country's past and its makeup that they make this moronic statements.

Heck, you don't even know anything about how Rome functioned, so don't talk to me about how the Romans did things.

[whowhere]

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

Canada was first established, settled, and Named Canada by France. Canada was captured by the British and defended against US independence in 1774 and the US invasion of 1812. After 1812 Canada saw an influx of millions of British settlers to Canada which became the English population foundation. This was done in part to counter the rise in population of the French population in Quebec.

This is the Thrust of settlement in Canada prior to the World Wars. If you have other types of immigration occuring produce a refererence. The French were Catholics, the English were protestants based on the King James book commission and transcribed by English Scholars and masoretic Jews. England for whatever reason broke from the vatican and established the church of England.

Case and point, Canada was established and settled as a Christian Country. Rome became Christian and was eventually superceded by Christian Europe. Canada's Heritage is Christian and Roman.

The Roman economy did not rely on slavery, not as such. It relied on taxes. Slaves didn't pay taxes, citizens did, and after the Edict of Milan, when all freemen became citizens, they got to pay taxes to.

I suggest you read more. Roman Soldiers invaded new territories, extracted their wealth, and enslaved those regions people to begin producing goods and farming to be shipped back to rome. Rome was an indeed an imperial power.

Most of the people I know are either in one way from the British Isles (Celtic or English) or from Northern and Eastern Europe. While it's true that for a time a fair chunk of British Celts were Roman citizens, my Anglo-Saxon and German ancestors were not very likely ever subject to Rome. I guess if you count French Canadians, and still insist that because Gauls (who were Celts, but Romanicized), maybe you've got something of a point, but a pretty weak one. As to the Judeao-Christian bit, well, my ancestors were Odin-worshipping pagans who, on top of leaving behind some pretty good stories, also passed on the wonderful Common Law legal system.

Actually those of the british regions were subjugated by Rome and were treated accordingly. Christian Missionaries in the 5th century AD introduced the Roman Alphabet to the British. As for your common law legal system I suggest you look at what the Charter has done to that system.

Uh huh.

Yeah that's right. The generations preceding the boomers and their parents struggled to build and shape Canada into a good Country. Then the Garbage generations in the span of 40 years of undone and unraveled Canada to cultural and economic obliteration.

You know, you sound just like those ludicrous bigots who didn't want the Irish coming in, or the Ukrainians, or the Germans, and so on and so forth. Every generation seems to produce people so utterly ignorant of their country's past and its makeup that they make this moronic statements.

If you subscribe to Judeo Christian doctrine foreigners are an abomination. You should read the King James. Lots in there. But then you stated you are pagan. Not sure how that works given the British were subjects to the Queen or King up until 1950. The King James Bible was commisioned by the same king who established The United Kingdom. So sorry buddy you do not escape what is written in that book. Furthermore every want to be immigrant to Canada for some reason swears allegiance to Canada's Christian Queen. In my mind doing so makes them beholden to the consequences of their ill gotten attitudes and views.

Heck, you don't even know anything about how Rome functioned, so don't talk to me about how the Romans did things.

Watch the movie, Fall of the Roman Empire. Read the New Testament. Watch the countless documtaries out their on Rome. I watched and Read enough to know what I say is quite accurate.

I also know enough to say Canada is in Contempt of Judeo Christian Doctrine and is also in Contempt of Roman principals of Nation building.

[ToadBrother]

Canada was first established, settled, and Named Canada by France. Canada was captured by the British and defended against US independence in 1774 and the US invasion of 1812. After 1812 Canada saw an influx of millions of British settlers to Canada which became the English population foundation. This was done in part to counter the rise in population of the French population in Quebec.

This is the Thrust of settlement in Canada prior to the World Wars. If you have other types of immigration occuring produce a refererence. The French were Catholics, the English were protestants based on the King James book commission and transcribed by English Scholars and masoretic Jews. England for whatever reason broke from the vatican and established the church of England.

Case and point, Canada was established and settled as a Christian Country. Rome became Christian and was eventually superceded by Christian Europe. Canada's Heritage is Christian and Roman.

And lots of other things. The legal system everywhere but Quebec is Common Law, which has its roots in Germanic tribal law. Our legal system is directly descended from pagan sources.

I suggest you read more. Roman Soldiers invaded new territories, extracted their wealth, and enslaved those regions people to begin producing goods and farming to be shipped back to rome. Rome was an indeed an imperial power.

And I'm telling you that the Edict of Milan made every freeman in the Empire a Citizen. Rome's chief problem came to be the unhealthy reliance on the army to hold the borders of the Empire, and that military's unwholesome influence on the Roman government. Becoming Christian did not solve that problem, indeed it marked the final decline of the West.

Actually those of the british regions were subjugated by Rome and were treated accordingly. Christian Missionaries in the 5th century AD introduced the Roman Alphabet to the British. As for your common law legal system I suggest you look at what the Charter has done to that system.

The Anglo-Saxons seized England after the Roman departure, and largely remained pagan until the 7th century. Scotland took quite a while to be Christianized, and was never held by the Romans. Ireland was converted by Celtic Christian missionaries, but was pretty divergent from the Roman variety, which caused a bit of a fuss when the Irish and Latin Churches were reunited. Things are a lot more complex than you think.

Yeah that's right. The generations preceding the boomers and their parents struggled to build and shape Canada into a good Country. Then the Garbage generations in the span of 40 years of undone and unraveled Canada to cultural and economic obliteration.

Whatever you think of the Boomers and what came afterwards, those first generations were immigrants.

If you subscribe to Judeo Christian doctrine foreigners are an abomination. You should read the King James. Lots in there.

That would be the Old Testament. By the New Testament it was pretty much every Christian's duty to convert as many Gentiles as possible.

But then you stated you are pagan.

You need to read. I said my ancestors were pagans. I'm an atheist.

Not sure how that works given the British were subjects to the Queen or King up until 1950. The King James Bible was commisioned by the same king who established The United Kingdom.

WTF? The United Kingdom didn't come into existence until the Act of Union, 1707, a hundred years after James I succeeded Elizabeth I. Prior to 1707, Scotland and England were still separate countries with their own Parliaments.

So sorry buddy you do not escape what is written in that book.

Is this some sort of cheap religious threat?

Furthermore every want to be immigrant to Canada for some reason swears allegiance to Canada's Christian Queen. In my mind doing so makes them beholden to the consequences of their ill gotten attitudes and views.

The Monarchy long ago stopped insisting that everyone within their domains be Christian, or even a particular brand of Christian. Catholic Emancipation happened earlier in Canada than in the UK, but by 1829, Catholics pretty much enjoyed the same rights as all other British subjects (save for becoming King).

Watch the movie, Fall of the Roman Empire.

I could always read a rather large number of books on the subject instead. I am not unfamiliar with Roman history.

Read the New Testament.

Which wouldn't be terribly instructive on Roman History, or on the history of religious freedom in Great Britain, its former colonies and dominions.

Watch the countless documtaries out their on Rome. I watched and Read enough to know what I say is quite accurate.

Apparently not.

I also know enough to say Canada is in Contempt of Judeo Christian Doctrine and is also in Contempt of Roman principals of Nation building.

I think you know enough to string words together into sentences, but not much more.