Canada Loses Seat On UN Security Council

[Mikey]

Then we must have a language issue - it sounded to me like you were saying that extra money should be raised through federal taxes and then distributed back to the state.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Then we must have a language issue - it sounded to me like you were saying that extra money should be raised through federal taxes and then distributed back to the state.

Don't worry. English Canadians don't seem to understand the concept that it's the people in the provinces which pay the Federal government.

They claim that the Separatist MPs elected at the federal level of Canada (the Bloc Quebecois) wouldn't receive their pension in case Quebec separates. Which is bollocks.

[Captain Seafort]

Beg pardon? I trust from this assertion that you mean that there's no poverty or homelessness in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, or anywhere else at all in the U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I.

I'd be interested to see your source for the comparison of what's considered to be the poverty line in the U.S. vs. that of the U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I. or Western continental Europe, as well as such a comparison for the average per capita income.

At what point did I mention poverty or homelessness being part of my definition? I'm talking about the fact that your major cities seem to have similar crime problems to Londonderry and Belfast in the early 70s, your police forces are ridden with low-level corruption and don't even realise it, illness or injury results in a choice between bankruptcy or death for a significant chunk of the population, you retain the death penalty, and the degree of control religion seems to have over politics is downright scary.

We're a very long way from perfect, but perfection in one's own country is not required to point out the massive flaws in another one.

[SolkaTruesilver]

At what point did I mention poverty or homelessness being part of my definition? I'm talking about the fact that your major cities seem to have similar crime problems to Londonderry and Belfast in the early 70s, your police forces are ridden with low-level corruption and don't even realise it, illness or injury results in a choice between bankruptcy or death for a significant chunk of the population, you retain the death penalty, and the degree of control religion seems to have over politics is downright scary.

We're a very long way from perfect, but perfection in one's own country is not required to point out the massive flaws in another one.

Crime Problem: I don't think we will grow crime rate just because we can trade and access the U.S. without a password. Maybe some will come and settle here, that's sure, but there is the possibility it's more about the culture of the people than the country they are in. If that's the case, I don't worry that much.

Police Corruption: Same thing, but then again, we have our own corruption problem. Joining a country won't impact that aspect.

Nonforgiving healthcare system: If we keep universal healthcare system, we'd be a-ok. Probably even better, as U.S. citizen with dual citizenship won't be able to cross over to abuse our system anymore.

Death Penalty: Yhea, but the brunt of it is done at the state-level (Texas!)

Religion in politics: 100% agree. You'd lose a LOT of % vote here in Canada if you date bring religion to the debate. I wonder if it would spread here, or the local culture will prevent it. Hmm.. food for thought.

[Tyyr]

At what point did I mention poverty or homelessness being part of my definition? I'm talking about the fact that your major cities seem to have similar crime problems to Londonderry and Belfast in the early 70s,

Except that you're not really in any position to talk.

Per Capita Crime Stats:

Assaults (per capita)
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people

Murders (per capita)
# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
# 44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
# 46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

Rapes (per capita)
# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
# 13 United Kingdom: 0.142172 per 1,000 people

Car thefts (per capita)
# 3 United Kingdom: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
# 7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people

Burglaries (per capita)
# 7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
# 17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people

Robberies (per capita)
# 8 United Kingdom: 1.57433 per 1,000 people
# 11 United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people
# 22 Canada: 0.823411 per 1,000 people

Total crimes (per capita)
# 6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
# 12 Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people

Yeah, the US has its issues. Our murder rate is higher and so is rape (though apparently in Canada noone has caught onto the whole, "no means no!" thing) but the UK isn't exactly a shining paragon of law and order.

your police forces are ridden with low-level corruption and don't even realise it,

Proof please.

illness or injury results in a choice between bankruptcy or death for a significant chunk of the population,

Guess we're not going to be confining hyperbole to the politicians now huh?

you retain the death penalty,

Yeah we do. We're not exactly lining people up against the wall and mowing them down though. 30 to 40 per year is about what we average. We can debate the death penalty but the executions of 30 to 40 people per year convicted of heinous crimes isn't exactly enough cause to demote someone to third world status.

and the degree of control religion seems to have over politics is downright scary.

It's called democracy. People are allowed to vote as they please and for whatever reason they please or even no reason at all over here.

We're a very long way from perfect, but perfection in one's own country is not required to point out the massive flaws in another one.

Glass houses, stones, meh.

[Mikey]

Ah, there's the figures for which I was asking. Hmm, it appears that there's a reason Nigel didn't provide them.

[SolkaTruesilver]

(though apparently in Canada noone has caught onto the whole, "no means no!" thing) but

'cause our girls say: "Non, c'est non!" and the english-Canadians don't understand.

It's called democracy. People are allowed to vote as they please and for whatever reason they please or even no reason at all over here.

Actually, it's called political culture. What is important in a country's voting base, and what isn't. And that aspect of U.S. politics is just downright backward.

[Mikey]

Wrong from our POV? Absolutely. Backward in their way of thinking to my mind? Sure. But "backward" in the mechanism? Absolutely not. There is no higher aim of democracy than to let the people have their say - and to have that say affect policy - no matter what others think of that opinion.

The problem with rule by the will of the people is that most people are idiots - buts that not a problem inherent to the mechanism of rule.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Wrong from our POV? Absolutely. Backward in their way of thinking to my mind? Sure. But "backward" in the mechanism? Absolutely not.

Agreed 100%. It's not the process I dislike, it's the culture that has been created in the U.S. by these religious cults.

[Tyyr]

Agreed 100%. It's not the process I dislike, it's the culture that has been created in the U.S. by these religious cults.

*Sigh* It's not cults.

It's not like people in the US completely kept religion out of politics and its some kind of recent development. Religion has been intertwined in American politics since some guys got together in Philly in 1776. People in the US have strong religious opinions and given that religion tends to affect most of your life if it affects it at all it will influence your politics. The only culture present is that which has been here since we told England to piss off.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Agreed 100%. It's not the process I dislike, it's the culture that has been created in the U.S. by these religious cults.

*Sigh* It's not cults.

Yes it is

cult (klt)
n.
1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

[Lighthawk]

Perhaps the meaning is a different in Canada, or even just in the Quebecois (is that the right term for it?) areas, but at least here in the states, the meaning of a cult by the general usage of the word refers to a small religious group outside of the followings of mainstream religion, even if it was somewhat based on a more "traditional" religion to begin with. So for us when you say cult, we picture a group of 10 to maybe a 100 or so backwater nut cases who are following the preaching of someone who might as well be making shit up off the top of his head.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Perhaps the meaning is a different in Canada, or even just in the Quebecois (is that the right term for it?) areas, but at least here in the states, the meaning of a cult by the general usage of the word refers to a small religious group outside of the followings of mainstream religion, even if it was somewhat based on a more "traditional" religion to begin with. So for us when you say cult, we picture a group of 10 to maybe a 100 or so backwater nut cases who are following the preaching of someone who might as well be making s**t up off the top of his head.

Well, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church do qualify as a "cult", I think. So does many sub-clusters of religious organisations thriving in the U.S., each of them having their own agenda and influence on the local elections.

But yhea, I was referring to the general religious practice (which is a very good definition in the english language, whatever you might believe), I didn't wanted to restrict it to "church", as it sounds a little too organisational than "cult".

[Tyyr]

Yes it is

You skipped right over the first and primary definition you dumbass.

[Tyyr]

Well, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church do qualify as a "cult", I think.

Yes, they do. They also have absolutely zero political influence because they're a cult. They are a fringe extremist group who's main goal is to piss you off. They aren't really drawing in voters.

So does many sub-clusters of religious organisations thriving in the U.S., each of them having their own agenda and influence on the local elections.

Cults like the WBC make up an incredibly small minority of the population and to a one they have NO influence in the political process specifically because they're cults. They're wingnut outsiders that no one outside their small circle of fellow cultists takes seriously. Hell, the only was Phelps could influence politics in America was to endorse a candidate and watch as everyone flocks to his opponent.

But yhea, I was referring to the general religious practice (which is a very good definition in the english language, whatever you might believe), I didn't wanted to restrict it to "church", as it sounds a little too organisational than "cult".

Except that cult was one of the worst words you could have chosen to describe main stream religious practices. The kind that actually can have any influence on the actual political process.