The Greatest Lie Ever Told?

[Fencer X and Y]

Clearly very few of them want to be faculty at research universities.

I think it's a cultural issue. It's not "cool" for black people to be smart. So the smart kids pretend to be stupid, or don't attmept to learn. Alternatively same reason why there is such a disproportionate amount of jews in those same university. In the jewish culture if you're not a scholar you're nothing.

[lindajdunn]

Yes absolutely
But how long will these policies have to keep going?

Until the distribution of race among those employed is no longer skewed to being mostly old white men.

When I started working for the feds, there was ONE white female professional and about 40 men (two of whom were black). Ten years later, there were about 20 female professionals (one black) and 60 men (one black).

When the place was privatized and about 400 people laid off with no direction beyond "reduce x percentage of people", every woman who'd given birth within the past three years was pink slipped as were most individuals with disabilities and one heck of a lot of dark-skinned people.

The place is still in business. There are very, very few blacks employed there.

One of the supervisors (deceased, but I had nothing to do with his death) explained how to get around the problem of hiring minorities: You interview them and then you wait until you've verified that they've accepted another position to make them a job offer. Any time anyone points out all your staff are white males, you just show them how many job offers you made to women and minorities.

He was quite proud of never having hired a woman or a minority and was quite certain that no woman could ever possibly be a real engineer.

[Hauptman]

Fair enough. Do you at least agree that if the lower class wouldn't be so disproportionate by race then racism wouldn't be an issue. Do you think that it's possible to get to a place where racism isn't a serious issue?

Good question.

On an individual level racism, and prejudice in general, will never go away. I believe that the human brain is hard wired for certain behavioral tendencies. Of course, there is certainly a difference between tendencies and the end-point manifestation, but in the end there will be prejudice. There is also the difference between experiencing a viceral reaction and acting on it.

On a societal/institutional level racism certainly can be avoided, but it will require constant vigilence because the supporters of any given position will always be vying for power and influence. Racists could easily gain political power if we let them.

As to your last point, I don't believe that all inequalities are the result of racism. I do believe that there are general differences between groups, but that doesn't justify prejudicial policies. For instance, women in general are physically weaker than men, but to have a policy banning women from physically demanding jobs is prejudicial; you must judge people as individuals and not pre-judge.

Edit: I realized that I didn't really answer your questions.

Yes, money makes the world go round and so income disparity makes the issue more pronounced, but I don't think that issues such as social exclusion, lack of job opportunities, or increased incarceration would go away. Seperate, but equal is not acceptable.

Will racism always be a serious issue? It depends on what you mean by that. Serious in that it should be taken seriously, yes. Serious in it's impact on society? I believe that possibly someday no it won't have such a serious impact. But then we are only one generation removed from segregation.

[TrainingDummy]

If the laws are so racist then how could Barak Obama a kid with no father figure grow up to become the president? Was it because he was smart enough to stay away from drugs in the first place? Am I being a racist in expecting black people to stay away from drugs, just like I'm being racist in expecting white people to stay away from drugs?

Barack Obama is a statistical outlier. Remember, we're dealing in percentages here. When you say "people" and "drugs" you are being too vague. Most drug users start as children ("people" implies adulthood and mature moral agency and thought capability) when they are too young to really get the seriousness of what they are doing. Black children, since they are more likely to grow up in neighborhoods steeped in poverty, are more likely to be exposed to drug use by family, friends, and in schools. Many can literally walk to their street corner to buy marijuana, crack, cough syrup, whatever, although most will start with a free hit from an acquaintance. When caught, those who get thrown into the juvenile justice system (underfunded in most states and non-existent as a federal entity) are usually offered very little in the way of drug rehabilitation or mental health services.

I'm not saying that they bear no responsibility or that man is a tabula rasa, but by and large we are talking about children from very harsh environments. Statistically, they are much more likely to fall through the cracks. Can anyone blame the few Black families who make it financially from moving out of the inner-city instead of staying there and fighting a decades-old system of crime and decay?

And yes I do expect them both to be punished equally. Now I do beleive I know what you're talking about. A first time white offender will usually be allowed to get parole and enter some sort of rehab program whereas the black kid will get thrown in jail. Yes if you looked at something like that you'd say "see racism still exists in america." Perhaps. Or perhaps the white kid had his mom, his dad, his sister, his aunt, his cousins, his soccer coach, his high school career guidance counselor, his minister, and his therapist all show up in court and say how they will personally take responsibilities for his rehabilitation and ensure that he never touches drugs again. Whereas the black kid has his grandma show up late (no dad because the dad split befor the kid was born and no mom because mom is in jail herself) and say that he's just a bad kid and she can't take care of him anymore. Now if you're a judge what would you do in these two cases?

Agreed, the judge is in a tough spot. Even the most liberal judges know they have to do SOMETHING when they know the crime-control model of criminal justice doesn't work.

Yes I know it's a very hypothetical scenario and I'm sure that you have tons of data to prove me wrong but let em tell you this. I've lived in a country where there was real racism (not for very long but still) I had people call me the equivelent of a kyke. My dad couldn't get into the college he wanted to because jews weren't allowed to go to that college. My dad wasn't named valedectorian of his high school because jews shouldn't be the first in class anyway. My dad was past up for promotions and told in no uncertain terms that he couldn't be a manager because he was jewish. That's real institutionalized racism. When the system is maybe tougher on you because you're poorer and you're trying to justify your failures by saying "the man is keeping me down, I wouldn't be in this situation if I wasn't black" then no I don't think that's racism.

I am truly sorry that your family had to experience that kind of treatment and I am glad that you were able to overcome it. Racism here is (as Hauptman says) not institutionalized, but no less real.

Black people in this country can be anything they want to be. Even presidents, or CEO's, or millionaires. No not every black person will succeed. Just like not every white person will succeed. That has much more to do with wether or not you're poor. Yes I understand that a lot of black people are poor because their parents or grandparents were discriminated against. That's why I do believe that affirmative action kind of policies are neededl. But again how long must we keep these programs going before saying everyone who wanted to stop being poor has had their chance? One generation? Two generations? (keep in mind that the civil rights act was passed 45 years ago. That's almost two generations).

There's no easy answers with Affirmative Action. I am very uncomfortable with the quota system and would prefer an income-based system. Of course, colleges and universities are capitalist enterprises so I doubt we will see this anytime soon.

[Fencergrl]

After a two minute search on Wikipedia:

Yes and it looks like a 2 minute piece of research. First off, you define diversity as the colour of one’s skin. Yes, that’s part of what cultural diversity is, but not it’s entirety (although you imply that it is).

84% white to 68% white. That's how our country is more diverse to Canada

And your point is??? Since I was attempting to understand why Americans believe and need to tell others that they believe the USA is the best, and according ILS… the USA has "unmatched liberty and individual freedom". I am assuming that your basis for that belief is that the USA is the best, and offers the most amount of freedom than anywhere in the world because of it’s diversity. Explain that connection and why Canada is considered to have less freedom and not as good of a country because they have less diversity (according to your definition of diversity).

Again if their countries are more homogenous in their cultures it makes it easier for them to allow others to do what they want since they're not worried about someone doing something they don't like as much.

So are you saying that perhaps other countries off more personal freedom? Would that not mean that perhaps the USA may not be the country with unmatched freedom?

Historically the US doesn't have a great track record with enslaving other nationalities... or (near) genocide (i.e. the Natives).

Neither does any European country, historically speaking. As far as I know Canada is still part of the commonwealth. Need I remind you what the British did to all the other Natives?

I was going to go into the details of the history between American & Canadian Natives and the British… but I don’t want to deviate to badly from our discussion. If you’re interested, check your facts. Either I, or Brian H (and American history buff and archaeologist) could point you in the right direction).

I'm not talking about what we did 200 years ago. I'm talking about our diversity today. And what's going on today is what I'm proud of. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with it.

I don’t have a problem with diversity. I have a problem with you using the argument that it makes you freer than any other nation. I don’t believe this is the case. I think the people who can be easily identified as “different” have had a long history of not having the same rights as others.... in any country. It appears to me, that the USA has currently and historically, population chunks who may not feel that the USA is “The Land of the Free”. American slaves escaped into Canada, so did many other “less than free” groups, and not all of these people did it 200 years ago. Again, I'm not saying that all countries don't have people who have less freedom due to racism, poverty or any other number of factors. But I question your argument that this diversity makes you more free or that this freedom is uniform in any way.

Now can we agree that Canada is awesome, the US is awesome and that each one of us is very happy where we're at and would not want to trade places with each other?

Again, this isn’t a contest of which country is better but curiosity on my part as to why you believe the USA is better than any other country.

[TrainingDummy]

Good question.

On an individual level racism, and prejudice in general, will never go away. I believe that the human brain is hard wired for certain behavioral tendencies.

I used to believe this until I worked at a very diverse preschool with kids from all over the world. Kids just ignored skin color; it didn't even exist for them. "Hey you like blocks!? Hot damn so do I, let's play with blocks!"

Of course, there is certainly a difference between tendencies and the end-point manifestation, but in the end there will be prejudice. There is also the difference between experiencing a viceral reaction and acting on it.

On a societal/institutional level racism certainly can be avoided, but it will require constant vigilence because the supporters of any given position will always be vying for power and influence. Racists could easily gain political power if we let them.

As to your last point, I don't believe that all inequalities are the result of racism. I do believe that there are general differences between groups, but that doesn't justify prejudicial policies. For instance, women in general are physically weaker than men, but to have a policy banning women from physically demanding jobs is prejudicial; you must judge people as individuals and not pre-judge.

Edit: I realized that I didn't really answer your questions.

Yes, money makes the world go round and so income disparity makes the issue more pronounced, but I don't think that issues such as social exclusion, lack of job opportunities, or increased incarceration would go away. Seperate, but equal is not acceptable.

Will racism always be a serious issue? It depends on what you mean by that. Serious in that it should be taken seriously, yes. Serious in it's impact on society? I believe that possibly someday no it won't have such a serious impact. But then we are only one generation removed from segregation.

I with this.

[Fencergrl]

As far as the gay matter, this again has to do with culture. I agree it is wrong, and we are moving in the right direction I think, but one scar does not mean the whole system is bad.

I didn’t say it was. I’m just asserting that the USA can be perceived as "less free" than countries that allow people to make their own personal decisions rather than have the laws/ government prevent it. The same goes with a number of personal choices... medicinal marijuana, brothels etc...

Are they assumed guilty by the colour of their skin?

No. And I wonder why you think this is the case?
I think you underestimate how politically incorrect it is to even imply such here. Showing any racism generally leads to criticism to the point of public crucifixion!

I don’t buy for a moment that racism doesn’t exist in the USA. I agree that it’s not out in the open, I just think that it’s gone to a slipperier, slimier place. It just not out in the open, but it’s still there. Just ask someone who’s dealing with it. You’ll be surprised how close to the surface it still exists.

Discrimination seems to still be an issue... now that said... a lot of countries have issues such as yours, and many much worse.

It really is not an issue when compared to other countries. Perhaps this is another case of you falling victim to your media's stereotypes of us? I would wager the issue here is no worse than Canada.

Yes, but I’m not making statements saying that Canada has “unmatched liberty and individual freedom”. I am simply questioning on what basis are you able to make that statement? Why do you believe this? Why do many Americans make similar statements? I am still trying to understand that. I don’t see “unmatched liberty and individual freedom” in the USA. I don’t see any country being out in the forefront of freedom and personal liberty. What are you seeing about your country that so many of us seem to be missing?

Europe (and to a lesser extent, Canada) seems to have this attitude that it's a bad thing to be proud of your country. That if you are you must be arrogant and dislike everyone else. This is simply not the case. I've observed this attitude time and time again and I have no idea where this odd offense comes from.

The implication when you make statements that the USA is better, freer, etc… is that all other countries are less than the USA in your opinion. THAT is offensive. Everyone is proud of their country, having someone try and tell you that their country is not as good as the USA is offensive. If you were to say “I can’t imagine a better place to live than California, USA” most Europeans, Canadians would say something like “Yeah, it’s nice there” or “Yeah, I feel that way about my home”.

Let’s put it in a different context. You’re at a playground with your 5 year old and you’re talking with another parent. The other parent is telling you about their kid and how much better he is than the other kids on the playground. Even if your kid isn’t compared directly to her/his perfect child… it can be perceived as putting down your child. If the same person said "Look at them... kids these days are so bright", that statement is an appreciation of not their own child but others as well. If the parent remarked about a child (other than their own) being good at something... again it feels different.

If I came across a identifiable group of people who consistently bragged about their kids, I would wonder why that group does that when others don't.

Which is exactly my response here... I am wondering why Americans believe (contrary to what I see) that their country is bigger, better, shinier, etc… than all other countries? Again… I ask what are you seeing that many non-Americans don’t?

[Fencergrl]

Meanwhile, I am curious to know why FG seems to believe that "freedom" equals "access to government services"? Most of her other examples of why Canadians are more free than Americans look to boil down to this.

I see part of the role of government is to be there when you need them. If you lose your job, have an injury, become a single parent to a young child, become addicted to something, etc... the government is there to lend a hand.

This gives you more choices, therefore more freedom. If you have support from the government to get you through life's tough spots, it makes it easier to recover. Money often equals more freedom in your life choices. For many of us, it doesn't take much to end up in financial downward spiral that we never recover from.

I believe access to government services allows people to more easily recover from unfortunate situations. Having less people in dire straits means that a greater number of people have more freedom in their life choices.

I am the wealthiest I have ever been in my life, I also feel the most freedom. When I was poor enough that I went weeks without food, I didn't feel like I had a lot of freedom in the choices I had before me.

I also see freedom as being allowed to make my own choices without a lot of people telling me I can't do something, that is to no harm to others.

[BrianH]

Either I, or Brian H (an American history buff and archaeologist) could point you in the right direction).

Actually, I think of myself more as a buff historical archaeologist.

[I_luv_saber]

I didn’t say it was. I’m just asserting that the USA can be perceived as "less free" than countries that allow people to make their own personal decisions rather than have the laws/ government prevent it. The same goes with a number of personal choices... medicinal marijuana, brothels etc...

Freedom is a relative thing. Correct me if this observation is wrong, but from my discussions with Canadians freedom is seen as important more on a community level than an individual level (which Americans do), hence we have different definitions of freedom. Again, this could be wrong... this is just an observation.

I don’t buy for a moment that racism doesn’t exist in the USA.

I specifically said that it does. Racism does and will always exist. But the implication that I got out of your statement was that America was nearly alone in this problem. This is absolutely ridiculous. As one who has lived in both places, and done a bit of traveling, I've noticed far more racism in European countries than America. Maybe I've just had some fluke situations... but it's my observation nonetheless (though, coincidentally, this does not surprise me).

I agree that it’s not out in the open, I just think that it’s gone to a slipperier, slimier place. It just not out in the open, but it’s still there. Just ask someone who’s dealing with it. You’ll be surprised how close to the surface it still exists.

I think it's less prevalent here than you think. It still exists to be sure, and always will. But I don't think it's as widespread, especially on the level of government, as you make it out to be. Especially when compared to other countries.

Secondly, people have the individual right to be racist! As long as this is kept to personal feelings and does not affect one's chances of an appeal or affects one's chances of being thrown in jail, that's their right to feel that way. It's ignorant, pig-headed and ridiculous to be sure, but it's their right.

I think this is another example of how freedom is viewed differently between us as on an individual-oriented or community-oriented basis.

Yes, but I’m not making statements saying that Canada has “unmatched liberty and individual freedom”. I am simply questioning on what basis are you able to make that statement?

Personally, I believe we have this problem far less than most other places in the world.

The basis I make the statement on is the definition I have of freedom, which is individual choice and as little government involvement as is needed. Don't take my money "for the good of the community" and tell me what to do with it. Let me keep my money and I'll put it where I think I need it. (Of course there are some exceptions to this, and I think there need to be some government programs and such... this is just a general summary of what I feel freedom is).

Again, from what I understand, you and many others see freedom as on the level of the community more than the individual (not to imply individual freedoms are not important, but that community freedoms are placed in higher importance). And my opinion is, with that definition of freedom, this is the best place to be at this point.

Why do you believe this? Why do many Americans make similar statements? I am still trying to understand that. I don’t see “unmatched liberty and individual freedom” in the USA.

You have a different definition of freedom than I do. What you call freedom and a good form of government, I call a breach of individual freedom and government meddling. Again, it doesn't mean either is right or wrong, they are simply two different ideas of what freedom is.

I don’t see any country being out in the forefront of freedom and personal liberty. What are you seeing about your country that so many of us seem to be missing?

I see individual freedom with relatively little government involvement while maintaining a reasonably good standard of living. There are other places out there that I'm sure are wonderful to live... Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, etc., where there is a wonderful standard. But, I see the government as too involved, and I don't like that. Again, right now, this is the place I like to be, and I think is the best place, for someone with the same feelings about government and freedoms as I do, to be. If that's not what you see, then fine.

The implication when you make statements that the USA is better, freer, etc… is that all other countries are less than the USA in your opinion.

Well, if that is how you took it, then I am sorry. It was certainly not my intention. But, with my definition of what is freedom and what is a good government, this IS the best place to be. With other definitions of freedom, no it's not.

THAT is offensive.

Sorry? I still don't see why it's offensive when someone else is talking about how they love their country. It's not offensive to me that you think USA isn't as free as I'm saying, and that you feel Canada is a better place to be. I think this is a cultural difference...

Everyone is proud of their country, having someone try and tell you that their country is not as good as the USA is offensive. If you were to say “I can’t imagine a better place to live than California, USA” most Europeans, Canadians would say something like “Yeah, it’s nice there” or “Yeah, I feel that way about my home”.

Well, I obviously don't go around saying how much I love America. I do have manners, believe it or not, and would not go around ragging on Europe at a dinner!

This is a political discussion board and so I'm listing my opinions regarding that. If you don't agree, fine, but are you really trying to burn me being politically incorrect? Where else should I be saying this stuff? Should I just not say it for fear I'll offend someone? Puh-lease, that's what this place is for. I don't care if your proud of your government and say why you think it is here. I probably disagree with you, but I don't care that you think or say so!

If I came across a identifiable group of people who consistently bragged about their kids, I would wonder why that group does that when others don't.

Again, this is not something that is done (at least by me) constantly. This is a board discussing politics, and those are my feelings on the matters. Has this become taboo for the boards all of the sudden?

Which is exactly my response here... I am wondering why Americans believe (contrary to what I see) that their country is bigger, better, shinier, etc… than all other countries? Again… I ask what are you seeing that many non-Americans don’t?

Like I said, it's all about having different definitions of what freedom is, and what is needed to let people live happy lives. Different strokes, that's it.

[I_luv_saber]

Segregation was a horrible instance of racism, but compare it to actual slavery and you could say "now, slavery... that was REAL racism".

So we've progressed quite a way in eliminating institutional racism, but to say that it doesn't exist at all by using the examples of people who have succeeded in spite of the obstacles just doesn't work.

The racism of today pales in comparison with the abuses of the past, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist now and should not be taken as a serious issue.

I think this is true, but what I was pointing out was that the implication that this is a stronger problem in America than elsewhere is just not true, IMO. My observations tell me otherwise. If anything, it's quite a bit better here than other places... and so pointing to it as an "American problem" is very misleading.

I know this: In the 21 years I've lived in America, I've never seen an instance of public jeering against someone who was "different". And relatively few instances of racist acts in the papers. It happens, sure... but it's not exactly commonplace. I was in Europe for 3 months and I saw multiple instances of public ridicule against people who were different. And it was actually accepted! Again... my observations all point to the fact that it's not as big of a problem here as it is elsewhere. It exists, and will always be a problem that we'll always fight against... but it's not as bad here as elsewhere, IMHO.

[lindajdunn]

My observations tell me otherwise. If anything, it's quite a bit better here than other places... and so pointing to it as an "American problem" is very misleading.

I know this: In the 21 years I've lived in America, I've never seen an instance of public jeering against someone who was "different". And relatively few instances of racist acts in the papers. It happens, sure... but it's not exactly commonplace.

I've lived in Indiana for 56 years and have never been able to travel outside the country. I've seen multiple instances of jeering against someone who was "different". It's a common occurrence. I read about acts of racism almost daily.

Have you ever read the story about the blind men examining the elephant?

[I_luv_saber]

I think it's more of that regional thing I was talking about. Racism I think probably has less to do with the country than the people in the region and their experiences and culture.

At any rate, I don't know what else I can say on the subject. I just see it more... blatant in Europe. I can't really show facts to back this up... in fact there probably are none either way since this is such a touchy subject, but from my observations this is the conclusion I draw.

Again, this still doesn't touch my point that, whether or not it is not as bad here, it is still by no means an American issue... and I firmly believe it is no worse here than elsewhere (and reasonably sure it is better here than many places out there). This issue crosses borders and peoples.

[Inquartata]

I see part of the role of government is to be there when you need them. If you lose your job, have an injury, become a single parent to a young child, become addicted to something, etc... the government is there to lend a hand.

This gives you more choices, therefore more freedom. If you have support from the government to get you through life's tough spots, it makes it easier to recover.

If you follow that logic to its end, then a communist state where the government controls everything actually provides people with the greatest possible degree of "freedom"...

Somehow I don't think that's right. I don't think you do, either.

Anyway, as often as not government restricts or forecloses choices. Anything which requires licensure, or permitting, for example. Anything which is taxed, for another. I could string together a list of these to match your list of government services which you say make Canada more free than America, but really as Jefferson and most thinkers on the subject have done I just must reject the condition you are attempting to establish as fundamental to your argument. IMO government is not the creator of liberty or choice. If one is lucky it is the defender of it for a while, but in the end ""The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Money often equals more freedom in your life choices.

And so the more that your government takes from you...the GREATER your freedom in your life choices?!

[Fencergrl]

If you follow that logic to its end, then a communist state where the government controls everything actually provides people with the greatest possible degree of "freedom"...

Somehow I don't think that's right. I don't think you do, either.

Yes but take the pursuit of person freedom to the extreme and you have anarchy. I don't think that's your idea of ultimate freedom either.

Anyway, as often as not government restricts or forecloses choices.

While your government may step away from providing services, they don't seem to step away from deciding what the population should be allowed to do. Gays can't legally marry in most of the US, you can't smoke marijuana legally if you have a medical issue it might help with, you cannot accept money in exchange for sex. While I may not want to participate in these activities, I don't think the government should be making these decisions for me and are permitted legally in Canada.

Not only is your government restrictive with it's own people it wants to also decide what's best for other countries. An example is decriminalization of marijuana. Canada was considering it, but the US stepped in complaining that it would cause problems for them. So we didn't.. fair enough. It makes little difference in my life, either way and like all good neighbours we pick our battles and Canada chose not to push the issue.

I must admit, living next to the US it's a little like living next to Jehovah Witnesses who really want you to "see the light".

And so the more that your government takes from you...the GREATER your freedom in your life choices?!

Yes, part of my paycheque goes towards shared resources. Plus, what is left over I give to people who can use it, so they can have a more comfortable life. I only need so much Inq... there comes a point where you have everything you need.

So yes, I rather pay more taxes than you, if I know it makes for a better country. In my case... I am further ahead. Without assistance at crucial points in my life neither my life or my husband's life would have lead to our current affluence.

Let's compare two scenarios.

1) My husband broke his back hand gliding. He had a grade 10 education and worked as a logger (yes I married a former lumberjack). He spent his free time and money in bars and on drugs. At age 26 they wanted to put him in a care home. He told them he wanted re-hab. So they put him on welfare and sent him down to Vancouver (where they lead the world in spinal cord injuries). After 3 months there, they asked now what? He said he wanted to be an engineer. They paid for his University prep classes for 2 years then University plus living costs. There was no money for drugs and drinking as he needed his brains for school (I realize some don't make that choice).

After University the government hired him. He's been working since and contributing taxes ever since. He's now due to retire.

2) The second scenario has him in a care facility.... being a drain on Canadian taxes for his entire life. Since he is less active (as it would have been unlikely he would represent Canada for a decade in wheelchair basketball), and I suspect would have continued with his drinking and drugging... he would have costing more money in healthcare.... albeit his life would have been shorter. I know enough people who chose this route to be all too familiar with it.

So while scenario #1 was initially more costly for the tax payer, it paid off in the long run as they got over 30 years of taxes out of him at a higher income. On his own, it would have been very difficult to recover from that kind of set-back.

His story is not unusual, I know lots of other people besides myself who benefited from government assistance and have gone on to not only pay it back in taxes, but then some. For me... I rather live in a country that looks after the people in it.

I can't help but feel that you think the US system leaves more money in your pocket at the end of the day. I'm not so sure. I don't see Canadians as poor or poorer than their American counterparts. With the lack of government control in a really important area (your economy/ banking/ housing etc) has made the average American poorer than the average Canadian.

There are people here that think 90% of the economic crises is just the media blowing it all out of proportion. Most people have not felt the effects AT ALL, I doubt that is the case for most of the US.

[DavidX]

Free health care for all - who cares how much it cost.

That and their stance on herb is why I like Canada.

And French Canadian girls....oooooooh mama!

[Fencergrl]

And French Canadian girls....oooooooh mama!

Yes, those girls can insult you and you're thinking they're whispering "sweet nothings"... for you however, this happens on f-net in whatever language we reply in... yes DavidX... you're "special".

[DavidX]

[QUOTE=Fencergrl;789228]... yes DavidX... you're "special". QUOTE]


Ya know, I had a feeling...

[Inquartata]

Yes but take the pursuit of person freedom to the extreme and you have anarchy. I don't think that's your idea of ultimate freedom either.

Yes. Yes, it is.

Now, is it the ideal balance of freedom and stability? No. But we haven't been discussing that...

So yes, the utter lack of constraint on personal choice is the definition of "ultimate freedom".

While your government may step away from providing services, they don't seem to step away from deciding what the population should be allowed to do.

Indeed.

Does yours?

How easy would it be for you to get a concealed carry permit up there?

Personally I consider the right to defend yourself from violence a rather more important freedom than the right to access a compendium of humdrum tax and legal benefits...

Not only is your government restrictive with it's own people it wants to also decide what's best for other countries. An example is decriminalization of marijuana. Canada was considering it, but the US stepped in complaining that it would cause problems for them. So we didn't.

Sort of the same way Mexico is agitating for us to restrict the rights of US citizens to own firearms?

Yeah, we're completely alone in meddling in other countries' business.

By the way, when will you be extraditing the terrorist suspects you are granting "asylum"?

So yes, I rather pay more taxes than you, if I know it makes for a better country.

But you don't "know" any such thing, on a purely objective scale. All you can get is one aligned with your own personal preferences. I am trying to get you to see that your individual preferences do not define "freedom" any more than mine do...

[Fencergrl]

How easy would it be for you to get a concealed carry permit up there?

Personally I consider the right to defend yourself from violence a rather more important freedom

Let me get this straight... the right to carry a gun to defend yourself is part of your definition of "freedom". Have you considered that one might not consider themselves very "free" in a country where the people who live there consider that to be necessary? When I think of places where I would want to be armed... well it's not my vision of freedom.

Yes... I get that you are separating the "right" from the action (to carry firearms). I'm just making a point over your need. If you felt safe, you wouldn't have the need to arm yourself. Part of freedom for me (and you) is personal safety. I don't feel threatened in my environment, that gives me a degree of freedom. You obviously feel threatened enough to not feel safe without a firearm. Can you understand how that can be construed as the USA being "less free" than places where there are restrictions around an item that can kill you instantly?