Future of Canada

[ToadBrother]

Then you're just using the word fascism to mean "something I don't like".

And that's my problem. Fascism is used to define a particular type of governing system, sort of like how Communism or multi-party democracy or Absolute Monarchy define governing systems. If the US and Britain are fascist nations, then what word would we use to describe Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy? Clearly these states were run considerably differently than the US or the UK have ever been run, so now that fascism means "any Western government", I guess we have to come up with a new word.

[ToadBrother]

A direct democracy solves some of these issues. It is my favorite system.

Until everyone votes to make you drink the hemlock tea.

[whowhere]

And to call the Canadian or American system Fascism is such hyperbole that you define yourself as a poster who makes antagonistic or inflammatory statements for effect.

A typical such statement is to say democracy is Fascism wearing a mask. Those are two systems of government that are diametrically opposed in most ways, so to equate them and to add "wearing a mask" is nonsense. If you do that, you imply that you can add the phrase "wearing a mask" to one of two opposites and the subsequent statement will still make sense.

Good is just evil wearing a mask.

Up is just down wearing a mask.

A dog is just a cat wearing mask.

See ?

huh? Don't put mud into my water.

[fellowtraveller]

Ahem....the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of

God

and the rule of law

Also...best do some homework on Catholic and Protestant school provisions in Canada. Praise Jebus!!

Nice dodge, but doesn't it sadden you to see the Godbotherers completely hijack your country?

[Michael Hardner]

And that's my problem. Fascism is used to define a particular type of governing system, sort of like how Communism or multi-party democracy or Absolute Monarchy define governing systems. If the US and Britain are fascist nations, then what word would we use to describe Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy? Clearly these states were run considerably differently than the US or the UK have ever been run, so now that fascism means "any Western government", I guess we have to come up with a new word.

It`s the dilution of language. I remember them calling Nixon, Mulroney, Mike Harris, George Bush Sr. fascists... it`s just another lame adjective now I guess.

[Michael Hardner]

huh? Don't put mud into my water.

Water is just mud wearing a mask !

[Wilber]

del

Edited February 1, 2010 by Wilber

[maple_leafs182]

The problem with that theory is that when a company doesn't become useful fascist states usually arrest the heads and throw them in prison and then sell off the other company. Just because business interests and state interests are similar doesn't mean the government doesn't has control of the entire process. I also didn't mean socialism in the case of AIG, but actual rich members of governments owning companies who also get government contracts.

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

You mean like that?

I'm just going to bring up this corporation just for the sake of bringing it up.

Blackwater Worldwide

Just look into it, how do companies like this exist.

It's a private military company.

Theoretically, it's possible but it's never happened. In the end, even a "one party state" doesn't evevn really matter that much. What really matters is the dictator essentially having the ability to legislate just by talking. Despite in you scenario the parties being controlled by the same people, you're essentially bringing more people into a conspiracy; people that are going to want something. The more deals you have to cut to keep people with you, the more power you essentially give up which is why there's never been an example of a multiparty fascist state. People point to Russia. Authoritarianism yes, but fascism no. Putin is a powerful man but nowhere neear where he needs to be.

I disagree, I think it is happening right now. The US is a perfect example.

Hitler did not work alone in running Nazi Germany, he had generals, soldiers and civilians helping him.

You really would not have to bring many people into the conspiracy. In the US you would really only have to corrupt the president and a few other top officials, maybe some generals.

You would not even have to notify the people you corrupt of the conspiracy.

If you had an agenda like Hitler did.

You would just have to create a problem and then you would offer the public what seems like the only solution to the problem.

But the solution really would just be advancing the agenda.

Just as Hitler did.

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise." -Adolf Hitler

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - George W. Bush

All you would need is a little propaganda.

Not true, they have a specific vision of society and kill whoever opposes it.

That is people protesting the G20 summit in Pittsburgh last year.

These people aren't just people who are lazy and don't want to work, it is people who know that how our society is run now isn't very good and it isn't the only way. They oppose society, look what happens to them.

The G20's coming to Toronto this year June.

Yeah, but you need continuous example. Yes, fear is an essential part but of course it has to be used as intimidation. How else would it be used. Even if you just had fear from being arrested on speaking out against the government, that isn't enough for fascism. Random, indiscriminate arrests for no reason. Not even speaking out against the government.

A continuous example, kinda like the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism.

And to call the Canadian or American system Fascism is such hyperbole that you define yourself as a poster who makes antagonistic or inflammatory statements for effect.

A typical such statement is to say democracy is Fascism wearing a mask. Those are two systems of government that are diametrically opposed in most ways, so to equate them and to add "wearing a mask" is nonsense. If you do that, you imply that you can add the phrase "wearing a mask" to one of two opposites and the subsequent statement will still make sense.

Good is just evil wearing a mask.

Up is just down wearing a mask.

A dog is just a cat wearing mask.

See ?

Germany was a democracy.

Democracy can become corrupt.

First off, why do you love democracy so much. I'm not saying debate is bad, I think debate is important for society to stay healthy, but what is so great about democracy.

Anarchist freedoms, governments war, poverty still exist.

All the major societal decisions are made still made by a small % of the population.

Without out leaders there would be no peace and no justice.

There already is no peace and no justice.

It would be better if it was just us.

and I'm not saying society should end.

The leaders aren't the glue that hold society together, the people are.

[whowhere]

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

You mean like that?

I'm just going to bring up this corporation just for the sake of bringing it up.

Blackwater Worldwide

Just look into it, how do companies like this exist.

It's a private military company.

I disagree, I think it is happening right now. The US is a perfect example.

Hitler did not work alone in running Nazi Germany, he had generals, soldiers and civilians helping him.

You really would not have to bring many people into the conspiracy. In the US you would really only have to corrupt the president and a few other top officials, maybe some generals.

You would not even have to notify the people you corrupt of the conspiracy.

If you had an agenda like Hitler did.

You would just have to create a problem and then you would offer the public what seems like the only solution to the problem.

But the solution really would just be advancing the agenda.

Just as Hitler did.

All you would need is a little propaganda.

That is people protesting the G20 summit in Pittsburgh last year.

These people aren't just people who are lazy and don't want to work, it is people who know that how our society is run now isn't very good and it isn't the only way. They oppose society, look what happens to them.

The G20's coming to Toronto this year June.

A continuous example, kinda like the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism.

Germany was a democracy.

Democracy can become corrupt.

First off, why do you love democracy so much. I'm not saying debate is bad, I think debate is important for society to stay healthy, but what is so great about democracy.

Anarchist freedoms, governments war, poverty still exist.

All the major societal decisions are made still made by a small % of the population.

Without out leaders there would be no peace and no justice.

There already is no peace and no justice.

It would be better if it was just us.

and I'm not saying society should end.

The leaders aren't the glue that hold society together, the people are.

One of two things happens the people have a say who is the leader of the country or the leader appoints himself that. It is always better for you to get your 2 cents in. Perhaps may want to relocate to china, North Korea, or cuba.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nice dodge, but doesn't it sadden you to see the Godbotherers completely hijack your country?

No more than they hijacked yours.....in writing (Constitution). Doesn't it "sadden" (LOL!) you that equal education funding is still an issue in Ontario? Gotta love taxpayer dollars for "Godbotherers".

[nicky10013]

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

You mean like that?

I'm just going to bring up this corporation just for the sake of bringing it up.

Blackwater Worldwide

Just look into it, how do companies like this exist.

It's a private military company.

Al Gore isn't in government anymore. No one in Blackwater is in Congress.

I disagree, I think it is happening right now. The US is a perfect example.

Hitler did not work alone in running Nazi Germany, he had generals, soldiers and civilians helping him.

You really would not have to bring many people into the conspiracy. In the US you would really only have to corrupt the president and a few other top officials, maybe some generals.

Those Generals and politicians all did what Hitler told them until the end. He was god to them. They even killed themselves when Hitler did.

In the end, you can disagree all you want, it doesn't change the fact that fascism is what it is. The problem with politics and freedom of speech is everyone believes that everything political is an opinion. It isn't. Political Science isn't the study of how to lie to people. It's the study of the structures, economics and the social nature of governance. There are set definitions of the multiple forms of governance and fascism is no different. Like I said, you can disagree all you want but it doesn't change the definition of what fascism really is.

You would not even have to notify the people you corrupt of the conspiracy.

If you had an agenda like Hitler did.

You would just have to create a problem and then you would offer the public what seems like the only solution to the problem.

But the solution really would just be advancing the agenda.

Just as Hitler did.

All you would need is a little propaganda.

That is people protesting the G20 summit in Pittsburgh last year.

These people aren't just people who are lazy and don't want to work, it is people who know that how our society is run now isn't very good and it isn't the only way. They oppose society, look what happens to them.

The G20's coming to Toronto this year June.

Though I don't agree with their treatment, it's not fascism. Not even close.

A continuous example, kinda like the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism.

Sorry. Not buying it.

Germany was a democracy.

Democracy can become corrupt.

First off, why do you love democracy so much. I'm not saying debate is bad, I think debate is important for society to stay healthy, but what is so great about democracy.

Anarchist freedoms, governments war, poverty still exist.

All the major societal decisions are made still made by a small % of the population.

Without out leaders there would be no peace and no justice.

There already is no peace and no justice.

It would be better if it was just us.

and I'm not saying society should end.

The leaders aren't the glue that hold society together, the people are.

German Democracy wasn't corrupted because of the values of democracy. It was corrupted by hyper-inflation and nearly permanent depression after the First World War. As stable and hearty as democracies are, instability in democracy is caused primarily through economic decline. Things get bad and the people that hold society together turn to radical means. Germans had to use a billion marks to buy a loaf of bread so they turn to a guy promising to punish the people who caused that economic catastrophe.

For the rest, what's the answer? Direct democracy? Representative democracy in states of millions is pretty much the only option. The people are the glue but don't kid yourself...the leader of societies do have responsibilites to hold people together. Just not in ways you'd think. Creating the optimal environment for job creation is one. Providing government services is one. The list goes on.

[maple_leafs182]

Where do banks get their money from that they loan to the people, no where. They just give you a cheque and charge you interest on it while you labor to pay it off. Banks in Canada have 4 billion dollars in their vaults, but they have lent out 1.5 trillion dollars. The banks are then collecting interest on those loans, interest on money created out of nothing.

Its a fraud.

If all the citizens went to the banks and said we want our money, we would run into a credit crisis and the system would crash. They don't have the money because 95% of the money in circulation is money they created out of thin air.

As of 1992, the Bank of Canada had only loaned 37 billion dollars to the Government which was used on goods and services. Due to compound interest we owed 423 billion dollars. We now owe what, 600 billion?

Nationwide through Provincial and Federal debt, we pay 160 million dollars a day on interest.

What could we do with 160 million dollars a day.

Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. - William Lyon Mackenzie King, 10th Prime Minister of Canada

[nicky10013]

Where do banks get their money from that they loan to the people, no where. They just give you a cheque and charge you interest on it while you labor to pay it off. Banks in Canada have 4 billion dollars in their vaults, but they have lent out 1.5 trillion dollars. The banks are then collecting interest on those loans, interest on money created out of nothing.

Its a fraud.

If all the citizens went to the banks and said we want our money, we would run into a credit crisis and the system would crash. They don't have the money because 95% of the money in circulation is money they created out of thin air.

As of 1992, the Bank of Canada had only loaned 37 billion dollars to the Government which was used on goods and services. Due to compound interest we owed 423 billion dollars. We now owe what, 600 billion?

Nationwide through Provincial and Federal debt, we pay 160 million dollars a day on interest.

What could we do with 160 million dollars a day.

The way banks work is thus. You give the bank 100 dollars. The bank can then take a percentage of that and loan that money on to someone else for business reasons or personal reasons at interest. The person that has the money presumably spends it and it goes into other people's hands or accounts. The money isn't in the bank vault but it does exist. The person who takes out a loan just doesn't create the money to give back to the bank. People go out and work to earn money that isn't in the bank but in circulation to pay off the bank.

If the banks need money, they get it from the central bank. The central bank benchmark lending rates determines how much interest banks charge.

Just because there are so many billions of dollars accounted for in personal accounts rather than actual reserves, the money does exist, just not in the bank.

[ToadBrother]

German Democracy wasn't corrupted because of the values of democracy. It was corrupted by hyper-inflation and nearly permanent depression after the First World War.

This certainly helped the Nazi party in the early 1920s, but by the latter part of the period, Germany was doing reasonably well. The world-wide depression kicked the crap out of Germany, but certainly no worse than anybody else. The key causes was a lingering belief that Germany had been cheated out of victory, that it had in fact stood a chance in the planned 1919 offensives, and that certain groups; the Communists and the Jewish bankers (and by extension all Jews) had sold Germany out. It was this mixture of resentment, economic downturn, German xenophobia and, though no one likes to talk much about it nowadays, unified Germany's youth (there were plenty of Germans alive when Germany had been unified), and the overt militarism that had typified Germany for half a century.

As stable and hearty as democracies are, instability in democracy is caused primarily through economic decline. Things get bad and the people that hold society together turn to radical means. Germans had to use a billion marks to buy a loaf of bread so they turn to a guy promising to punish the people who caused that economic catastrophe.

The problem with the German democracy was that it wasn't really a German democracy at all. It was a constitution forced upon a prostrate nation, in utter disarray from internal revolution and the Prussian regime's collapse. Churchill went into this in great detail in his history of WWII. He felt that one of the key mistakes of the Allies (among many absurd and tragic errors) was the creation of the Weimar Republic, which represented in the starkest possible terms Germany's humiliation. Rather the allies should have found a suitable replacement for Wilhelm II and set up a constitutional monarchy that could have lead the German people into a proper and domestic democracy. Instead, the aging and remarkably unremarkable Paul von Hindenburg ended up as its second and last president, and proved pretty much incapable of leading the German people.

The Americans, fortunately, would take the lessons of the Weimar Republic to heart when they defeated and occupied Japan, wisely retaining the Emperor, even if utterly stripped of any executive power, thus retaining a unifying and pacifying symbol in the midst of an imposed constitution.

There were fascist types in many nations with many of the same ideas as the Nazis, but the governing systems of places like the US and Great Britain (and Canada) were such that while some terrible things (like eugenics programs) were developed, by and large, we managed to maintain the notion of individual liberties even as places like Germany and Hungary collapsed into militaristic fascist dictatorships.

And that, folks, is why fascism either means something, or it's an epithet devoid of any meaning at all, other than as a general and hyperbolic slander.

For the rest, what's the answer? Direct democracy? Representative democracy in states of millions is pretty much the only option. The people are the glue but don't kid yourself...the leader of societies do have responsibilites to hold people together. Just not in ways you'd think. Creating the optimal environment for job creation is one. Providing government services is one. The list goes on.

Direct democracy worked in Athens and the Roman Republic, but in both cases became unpredictable and easily manipulated as their empires began to grow. In Athens it ultimately lead to the disaster of the Peloponnesian War and Athens occupation and humiliation by the militaristic might of Sparta. In Rome, of course, it lead to the overthrow of democracy at the hands of ambitious dictators and politicians, the creation of a new Patrician class, and ultimately the rise of an Empire ruled by men who were declared gods (even if in the very Italian sense of the word).

Edited February 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

Banks in Canada have 4 billion dollars in their vaults, but they have lent out 1.5 trillion dollars.

Well that's an out and out lie. Our capitalization ratios are nearly a million times better than that.

[nicky10013]

This certainly helped the Nazi party in the early 1920s, but by the latter part of the period, Germany was doing reasonably well. The world-wide depression kicked the crap out of Germany, but certainly no worse than anybody else. The key causes was a lingering belief that Germany had been cheated out of victory, that it had in fact stood a chance in the planned 1919 offensives, and that certain groups; the Communists and the Jewish bankers (and by extension all Jews) had sold Germany out. It was this mixture of resentment, economic downturn, German xenophobia and, though no one likes to talk much about it nowadays, unified Germany's youth (there were plenty of Germans alive when Germany had been unified), and the overt militarism that had typified Germany for half a century.

I can't disagree with any of this. However, one has to ask, would that overt militarism, xenophobia and humilition be there if Germany wasn't destitute? I doubt it. Furthermore, just like for the Germans, the depression didn't really end until the war started. A lot more people were working, but conscripts really aren't paid that well

The problem with the German democracy was that it wasn't really a German democracy at all. It was a constitution forced upon a prostrate nation, in utter disarray from internal revolution and the Prussian regime's collapse. Churchill went into this in great detail in his history of WWII. He felt that one of the key mistakes of the Allies (among many absurd and tragic errors) was the creation of the Weimar Republic, which represented in the starkest possible terms Germany's humiliation. Rather the allies should have found a suitable replacement for Wilhelm II and set up a constitutional monarchy that could have lead the German people into a proper and domestic democracy. Instead, the aging and remarkably unremarkable Paul von Hindenburg ended up as its second and last president, and proved pretty much incapable of leading the German people.

I don't know if a constitutional monarchy would've worked but the theory is sound. In the end if you want democracy work, you've got to let the people voting chose. It's like what the west is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. As long as troops are on the ground, those governments and even the structure of governance is going to be illegitimate.

There were fascist types in many nations with many of the same ideas as the Nazis, but the governing systems of places like the US and Great Britain (and Canada) were such that while some terrible things (like eugenics programs) were developed, by and large, we managed to maintain the notion of individual liberties even as places like Germany and Hungary collapsed into militaristic fascist dictatorships.

Bingo. Though, if we want to be completely fair, Hungary was only a fascist dictatorship for about 2 months. Horthy was a Hitler ally but much less crazy. He was overthrown by Arrow Cross right before the occupation of Hungary by the Soviet Union. Anyways back to the original point. The strength and more importantly history of democracy in the west was able to weather the instability of economic depression. What I find most fascinating is that even the rights of the fascists who were plotting to overthrow our governments no doubt, were given their full freedoms as well (of course until the war started.) A testament to the strength of pluralistic institutions.

And that, folks, is why fascism either means something, or it's an epithet devoid of any meaning at all, other than as a general and hyperbolic slander.

Finally, someone with common sense.

Direct democracy worked in Athens and the Roman Republic, but in both cases became unpredictable and easily manipulated as their empires began to grow. In Athens it ultimately lead to the disaster of the Peloponnesian War and Athens occupation and humiliation by the militaristic might of Sparta. In Rome, of course, it lead to the overthrow of democracy at the hands of ambitious dictators and politicians, the creation of a new Patrician class, and ultimately the rise of an Empire ruled by men who were declared gods (even if in the very Italian sense of the word).

The main reason is that direct democracy is just too large to succeed. You need a relatively well educated base of people that can thoughtfully weigh out the benefits and consequences of legislation. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't exist in today's society. A lot of people are, but in the words of Winston Churchill, "the best argument against democracy is spending 5 minutes with the average voter." If and when the nation-state system of governance breaks down back into a city-state type of structure - maybe...but a direct democracy, not for the sake of corruption even, but just due to the burdensome nature of getting 15 million people to vote every day just can't work.

[nicky10013]

Well that's an out and out lie. Our capitalization ratios are nearly a million times better than that.

It's not a lie, he just doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Smallc]

Maybe you're right.

[maple_leafs182]

The way banks work is thus. You give the bank 100 dollars. The bank can then take a percentage of that and loan that money on to someone else for business reasons or personal reasons at interest. The person that has the money presumably spends it and it goes into other people's hands or accounts. The money isn't in the bank vault but it does exist. The person who takes out a loan just doesn't create the money to give back to the bank. People go out and work to earn money that isn't in the bank but in circulation to pay off the bank.

If the banks need money, they get it from the central bank. The central bank benchmark lending rates determines how much interest banks charge.

Just because there are so many billions of dollars accounted for in personal accounts rather than actual reserves, the money does exist, just not in the bank.

I'm sorry you are wrong.

Banks don't have that money that they loan out, or at least they only have a small fraction of that money, usually 1:9. The money they loan is created out of nothing, it never existed prior to the loan.

We then work to pay off those loans and we pay interest on those loans. The banks created the money they loan us out of thin air, and we labor to pay those loans back. We are getting screwed over.

We should be loaning from ourselves, via the bank of Canada, so all the interest we pay would go back to us, instead we loan from private banks instead of ourselves.

We now live in a debt based economy.

That Bank act section 457.

(1) Subject to this section, a bank that was in existence immediately prior to the day this section comes into force shall maintain a primary reserve in the form of

( a ) coins with a face value of two dollars or less that are current under the Currency Act;

( B ) Bank of Canada notes; or

( c ) deposits in Canadian currency with the Bank of Canada.

(2) Subject to subsection (4), the primary reserve referred to in subsection (1) shall not be less on average during any prescribed period than an amount equal to the average of the monthly levels of required primary reserves calculated for the month in which this section comes into force and for the preceding 11 months, as determined under section 208 of the Bank Act, being chapter B-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985.

(3) Where a bank to which this section applies has been, on the day this section comes into force, in existence for less than 12 months, the primary reserve referred to in subsection (1) shall not be less on average during any prescribed period than an amount equal to the average of the monthly levels of required primary reserves calculated for the month in which this section comes into force and for the preceding months it has been in existence, as determined under section 208 of the Bank Act, being chapter B-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985.

(4) On the first day of the first month following the month this section comes into force, the primary reserve referred to in subsection (2) shall be reduced by 3 per cent, and thereafter on the first day of the first month of each of the next three succeeding six month periods, the primary reserve as modified by this subsection shall be reduced by 3 per cent, and on the first day of the twenty-fifth month following the month in which this section comes into force, the primary reserve referred to in subsection (1) shall be nil.

The primary reserve referred to in subsection (1)shall be nil, banks do not need to have a penny in their reserves to loan out money.

If they do not have the money to loan us, where do they get it from? Thin Air.

It's kind of ridiculous that we aren't taught how the banking/monetary system works in our country in school, but I guess if they did people would realize we are getting fucked over.

The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity. The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln

Edited February 2, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[ToadBrother]

I can't disagree with any of this. However, one has to ask, would that overt militarism, xenophobia and humilition be there if Germany wasn't destitute? I doubt it. Furthermore, just like for the Germans, the depression didn't really end until the war started. A lot more people were working, but conscripts really aren't paid that well

Well, Hitler's massive rearmament program did indeed make Germany something of an "economic miracle" in the mid-1930s, even as the Allies remained mired in economic problems. Hitler had a considerable number of admirers at the time, even many American and British politicians who seemed to have the rather disturbing idea that the Nazis were creating a model for economic recovery (well of course, ramping up industry in preparation for invading your neighbors has that effect).

The Americans, in particular, in the 1920s, put a lot of effort in getting Germany back on its feet. Very favorable reparation payment terms were instituted during that period, easing the German government's domestic economic woes. One might say the Americans gave Germany the mortgage it needed to begin the rearmament. As Churchill and others observed, some of the money that countries like France and Great Britain owed American bankers was flowing out of their countries and into Germany. To a great extent, the Allies ended up paying for the 1939-1945 party.

I don't know if a constitutional monarchy would've worked but the theory is sound. In the end if you want democracy work, you've got to let the people voting chose. It's like what the west is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. As long as troops are on the ground, those governments and even the structure of governance is going to be illegitimate.

One difference between Germany and Japan was that in Japan there was no lingering doubt after the unconditional surrender that Japan was beaten. The Japanese had their defeat demonstrated in the most graphic terms. Even without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan's capacity to carry on the war was over, it's navy wiped out, its industry bereft of raw materials, the Allies could simply have bombed the place into the stone age.

In Germany, there was no absolute moment when, for the German people, the war became unwinnable. To many Germans, it was felt that the country had been sold out, that 1919 would have seen victories on the field. Because it never really sunk in psychologically that Germany had been beaten by 1918, that there was no way in hell that Germany could have carried, it allowed the entire nation to take part in one big vast conspiracy theory. It might almost have been better if the Allies had invaded and occupied Germany in proper fashion to drive home the point that Germany was finished.

[fellowtraveller]

No more than they hijacked yours.....in writing (Constitution). Doesn't it "sadden" (LOL!) you that equal education funding is still an issue in Ontario? Gotta love taxpayer dollars for "Godbotherers".

Yeah, the primary education system in America is the envy of the developed world.....the public schools in the US are a disgrace and a shambles.

[M.Dancer]

Yeah, the primary education system in America is the envy of the developed world.....the public schools in the US are a disgrace and a shambles.

Such a shambles that the US and Canada both have the same literacy rate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

Mind you, still better than Italy, Spain, Greece, Portuga and many others from modern, progressive nations...

[nicky10013]

Such a shambles that the US and Canada both have the same literacy rate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

Mind you, still better than Italy, Spain, Greece, Portuga and many others from modern, progressive nations...

All those countries are much poorer and far more conservative than Canada is. You want a comparison, look at Scandanavia.

[M.Dancer]

All those countries are much poorer and far more conservative than Canada is. You want a comparison, look at Scandanavia.

You mean like Sweden, Denmark and Norway? Who have the same rate as Canada and the US?...

...literacy...