Saipan Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 Oh yeah, the Indians! I forgot about the Indians. Man, they make all our lives so difficult...... Maybe you should start moaning Quote
Saipan Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 You're not expecting anything remotely approaching a witty response,are you??? Not really. But there's always a hope. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 Hardly almost over. Another aspect of one's life is just beginning when the kids are grown and gone. I understand about the close ties to family and would never move from the States for that reason, but I still recognize it as a choice, and therefore sometimes have a difficult time understanding people who live in a great nation, a nation many people who have no choice would love the opportunity to live in, always speaking of it in such a negative way. Hence my response. There are plenty of artists/musicians who haven't made it in the States, either, and plenty who have made it in Canada and crossed over to the U.S. I just don't see Canada as the harsh nation that you portray it to be and I'm guessing there would be many who agree with me. I just feel as if we in Canada and North America are double fortunate because we live in very desirable countries; lands of opportunity, which includes the opportunity to leave if we are so unhappy with it. I'm not so sure it's ever easy to leave one's homeland; people always leave family, friends, love of the land behind, yet people who have been unhappy with their government, opportunities, etc. have made the move. It is a choice for us to move or remain. That was the only point I was making. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 It's a case of numbers..America is just a bigger and stronger market place - as for "making it" - that's an ego-centric saying. If you are good at what you do...that is making it. If you have worked hard and developed a high level of skill that is making it...If you are broke after making it that is still making it... As for Canada..money is tight. Tighter and more controled than in America. You might have a dozen or so families in the States who have great authority over the supply of cash..In Canada there are probably only a few families with that kind of power. The difference is we still have a very overly conservative approach to the desemination of cash...call it careful..call it cheap..call it what you will..but there is a ceiling..that is controlled by a high capitailist mentality..that use stooges that are enthrawled by the ideal of a devine socialist order...which is not so devine. Obama is the begining of what we all ready had for decades. I feel sorry that a nation as great as America will be brought to it's knees by forces from within - it's not about money it's about domination...As for artists of any good calibre in Canada..the good ones pose a threat to the powers that be - Nothing more disheartening to the status quo than a smart and good person with the power of money also. Quote
Tilter Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 As a Canadian/American I have live in both countries. I will die in Canada. My choice. The country of USA has a lot to offer but it doesn't include any more freedoms than does Canada. The electoral system in the USA is so screwed up that it is as bad as the Canadian system with the benefit of not having a bunch of traitors sitting in the legislative assembly with a say in ruling the country. The USA also doesn't have 5 political parties to assist in vote splitting. Who knows, maybe in the future we will see a Hispanic majority of voters starting the "Get California Out" party which will give the Americans the same Cluster f**k politics the Bloc has pushed on us. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 To have a nation within a nation is to have a permanent thorn in your side. Quebec was a bad idea to begin with..once you wage ware and conquer a nation...then that nation is absorbed in yours. What other nation is split in two by a secondary nation? Only fools make kissy kissy after warfare and grant the enemy what they want...it is beyond me that after the battle on the plains of Abraham....we simply said - "here is your land back".......what was the point..I don't get it. Quote
Saipan Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 conservative approach to the desemination of cash...call it careful..call it cheap..call it what you will..but there is a ceiling..that is controlled by a high capitailist mentality.. "Desemination" of cash??? You think banks are a food bank? You get cash when you have something to offer. What "ceiling"? Successful people see no ceiling. Unsuccessful ones have it implanted in necktop computer. Did Robert Herjovec see a ceiling? Did George Soros see any ceiling? They both came here with nothing. And there are many more. There will always be people complaining their neighbour grows twice as many carrots than they do. Quote
Saipan Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 Who knows, maybe in the future we will see a Hispanic majority of voters starting the "Get California Out" party which will give the Americans the same Cluster f**k politics the Bloc has pushed on us. Yes, just like "sudetenland" or "palestine" or "east prussia" or "albanian" Kosovo. The more settlers in the sooner they'll try to take over. Quote
Saipan Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) The country of USA has a lot to offer but it doesn't include any more freedoms than does Canada. Actually it does now. Used to be about the same some 40 years ago. Far from it now. The electoral system in the USA is so screwed up that it is as bad as the Canadian system . Unlike Canada all Americans vote for their leader. Edited April 2, 2011 by Saipan Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 ....Who knows, maybe in the future we will see a Hispanic majority of voters starting the "Get California Out" party which will give the Americans the same Cluster f**k politics the Bloc has pushed on us. Not very likely...the Americans solved such a problem in a very American way before Canada even emerged as a sovereign nation. Hispanic Americans are uber nationalists, not separatists. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
guyser Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 Actually it does now. Used to be about the same some 40 years ago. Far from it now. . And they are ? Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 "Desemination" of cash??? You think banks are a food bank? You get cash when you have something to offer. What "ceiling"? Successful people see no ceiling. Unsuccessful ones have it implanted in necktop computer. Did Robert Herjovec see a ceiling? Did George Soros see any ceiling? They both came here with nothing. And there are many more. There will always be people complaining their neighbour grows twice as many carrots than they do. Those guys you mentioned may have come from nothing...but that was a different era...also - these types were social and economic Darwinists who approached life and buisness in a manner that put morality aside...the idea of success is not always about money or power over others...I know a guy that deals in the billions - and I do not consider him a successful human being..He is cunning - cruel - shrewd to the point of being an institutional liar. Calling the banks a food bank is really a low blow if you are refering to someone getting something for free...Banks once established get tons of money for free - WE are their food bank! With the digitization of the banking system - once the sytem is installed and up and running...there are no real labour costs...The big machine generates money because it has money. As for growing carrots - I am a very successful gardener...a poor man does not deny his earth water...and he will do the work...The kind of success you are talking about is not even monetary - it is a lust to dominate. That is what I see with the people in control of the cash - Money is the only power they have - take that away and most of them would not survive. Quote
Saipan Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Those guys you mentioned may have come from nothing...but that was a different era... What different era? The opportunities are always the same. But only the sucessful ones. these types were social and economic Darwinists who approached life and buisness in a manner that put morality aside... And you have the evidence, right? Right? As for growing carrots - I am a very successful gardener... That's nice. You just didn't get it, so you'll stagnate where you are. The kind of success you are talking about is not even monetary - it is a lust to dominate. You have no clue. Not the slightest. Those who want to dominate are guys like Mao, Stalin, Castro and other little Nazi or Marxists.... Most sucessful people are often not even known to their neighbours. You think Warrren Buffet want to dominate anything? Money is the only power they have - take that away and most of them would not survive. And that is the funny part. They always will. They can end up with much LESS than nothing and always get back. Donald Trump once walking with his former girlfriend pointed to a street bum. Said: "See that guy? He's welthier than I am now". Trump was that time almost million dollar in a hole. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Hey - I am now over sixty and stagnation is not what I am about....just to let you in on something - I am considering selling off my assets...I put of doing buisness for a long while because I enjoyed being myself and doing what I wanted - time to be rich and then die...so - what's the big deal about being some big shot? I am a big deal in my own mind already - I know who and what I am and I do not look up to anyone with a pile of cash - apparently you are easily impressed. Quote
Saipan Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 just to let you in on something - I am considering selling off my assets...- apparently you are easily impressed. Sorry, not interested. I think you should keep at least one of the smaller asses. http://ars.barelyaverage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ass-is-too-small.jpg Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Sorry, not interested. I think you should keep at least one of the smaller asses. http://ars.barelyaverage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ass-is-too-small.jpg Was not considering someone as lowly as you in the role of purchaser.....yah - my ass has shrunk come to think of it...and yours has grown. Quote
jbg Posted April 4, 2011 Author Report Posted April 4, 2011 Was not considering someone as lowly as you in the role of purchaser.....yah - my ass has shrunk come to think of it...and yours has grown. And that has what to do with the topic? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Oleg Bach Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 And that has what to do with the topic? Topic? Oh yes - the topic...where was I? Oh I remember..this thread is about someone who mentioned they loved being alive on earth and decided that the persuit of happiness can only take place in America. There is something real stupid about the term "persuit of happiness".....It would be nice to be able to catch it on occassion...happiness is much like the proverbial carrot on the stick, hung out in front of the work mule...You persue it but you are not allowed to have it. Quote
jbg Posted April 5, 2011 Author Report Posted April 5, 2011 There is something real stupid about the term "persuit of happiness".....It would be nice to be able to catch it on occassion...happiness is much like the proverbial carrot on the stick, hung out in front of the work mule...You persue it but you are not allowed to have it. What the Declaration of Independence advocates is the right to "pursue happiness", not that people would be happy. It is a crucial distinction. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Oleg Bach Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 What the Declaration of Independence advocates is the right to "pursue happiness", not that people would be happy. It is a crucial distinction. Oh - so the declaration is a flawed document. You would think that they would have gotten it right and declared people shall be happy under this new independent government. Apparently most are not...why bother even mentioning happiness at all? I will tell you why - because the Declaration of Independence was drafted and signed by a new formed elite that did not give a damn about the welfare of others - or their happiness. That is what this America is and remains - a society run by a few who use the unwashed masses as slaves..selling them and buying them...Look at the immigration of illegals from the south - and the selling of jobs and resourses to China - the slave trade still exists. Quote
jbg Posted April 5, 2011 Author Report Posted April 5, 2011 Oh - so the declaration is a flawed document. You would think that they would have gotten it right and declared people shall be happy under this new independent government. Apparently most are not...why bother even mentioning happiness at all? I will tell you why - because the Declaration of Independence was drafted and signed by a new formed elite that did not give a damn about the welfare of others - or their happiness.Normally I just ignore your mad or trolling ravings. This post is highly offensive.The American Revolution, which both gave rise to and fed off the Declaration of Independence, was a cry for the rights of Americans as Englishmen. Nothing more, nothing less. At that time, with the exception of a few places in the world such as Iceland and Switzerland, England was about the only place where the people had a voice in determining how they were ruled. Since the Glorious Revolution the government of England was based upon the consent of the governed, as opposed to the Divine Right of Kings. In other words it was a government of laws, not of men. The of pursuit of happiness was one of those fundamental rights. In theory, it is better if a government guarantees happiness. The only way that is possible is if government dictates the totality, dictates everything. In other words, that government is totalitarian. As most of those with eyes that see and ears that listen know, the results of that are horrible. The result usually is almost universal misery. Different things make different people happy. A system that allows people to, largely, work things out for themselves is far preferable to one where things are arbitrarily worked out for you. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Oleg Bach Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Normally I just ignore your mad or trolling ravings. This post is highly offensive. The American Revolution, which both gave rise to and fed off the Declaration of Independence, was a cry for the rights of Americans as Englishmen. Nothing more, nothing less. At that time, with the exception of a few places in the world such as Iceland and Switzerland, England was about the only place where the people had a voice in determining how they were ruled. Since the Glorious Revolution the government of England was based upon the consent of the governed, as opposed to the Divine Right of Kings. In other words it was a government of laws, not of men. The of pursuit of happiness was one of those fundamental rights. In theory, it is better if a government guarantees happiness. The only way that is possible is if government dictates the totality, dictates everything. In other words, that government is totalitarian. As most of those with eyes that see and ears that listen know, the results of that are horrible. The result usually is almost universal misery. Different things make different people happy. A system that allows people to, largely, work things out for themselves is far preferable to one where things are arbitrarily worked out for you. What if I told you I believe in the devine right of kings? Would you find me so offensive that you would attack and destroy me? Sorry my friend - there were some fine Kings and Queens in the last thousand years - and some bad ones - just as there are bad democratic governments...and failed republics. You have universal misery in most of America...it seems that King Bush - was not much better than Prince Obama.......don't try to convince me that patriarchal rule is horrific. Who ever has the kingly or queenly qualities should rule. America is not very good at coronation...Obama is not much of a royal...although his common wife does have a knack for stroking the back of the Queen of England as if she were some old dog in need of comfort. I hope you find that offensive also. Quote
jbg Posted April 5, 2011 Author Report Posted April 5, 2011 Normally I just ignore your mad or trolling ravings. This post is highly offensive. The American Revolution, which both gave rise to and fed off the Declaration of Independence, was a cry for the rights of Americans as Englishmen. Nothing more, nothing less. At that time, with the exception of a few places in the world such as Iceland and Switzerland, England was about the only place where the people had a voice in determining how they were ruled. Since the Glorious Revolution the government of England was based upon the consent of the governed, as opposed to the Divine Right of Kings. In other words it was a government of laws, not of men. The of pursuit of happiness was one of those fundamental rights. In theory, it is better if a government guarantees happiness. The only way that is possible is if government dictates the totality, dictates everything. In other words, that government is totalitarian. As most of those with eyes that see and ears that listen know, the results of that are horrible. The result usually is almost universal misery. Different things make different people happy. A system that allows people to, largely, work things out for themselves is far preferable to one where things are arbitrarily worked out for you. What if I told you I believe in the devine right of kings? Would you find me so offensive that you would attack and destroy me? Sorry my friend - there were some fine Kings and Queens in the last thousand years - and some bad ones - just as there are bad democratic governments...and failed republics. You have universal misery in most of America...it seems that King Bush - was not much better than Prince Obama.......don't try to convince me that patriarchal rule is horrific. Who ever has the kingly or queenly qualities should rule. America is not very good at coronation...Obama is not much of a royal...although his common wife does have a knack for stroking the back of the Queen of England as if she were some old dog in need of comfort. I hope you find that offensive also. Why not try giving me a serious response and I'll respond in kind? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Bonam Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 The of pursuit of happiness was one of those fundamental rights. In theory, it is better if a government guarantees happiness. The only way that is possible is if government dictates the totality, dictates everything. In other words, that government is totalitarian. As most of those with eyes that see and ears that listen know, the results of that are horrible. The result usually is almost universal misery. I agree with this, except for: In theory, it is better if a government guarantees happiness. I do not see it as being better, even "in theory". A government cannot and should not try to guarantee happiness, even in theory. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 I do not see it as being better, even "in theory". A government cannot and should not try to guarantee happiness, even in theory. Agreed. But we see more and more freedoms and rights taken away by the government who says it is to protect our rights and freedoms. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.