Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kansas becoming a Royal Realm, no HM would not be amused.
It seems a lot of Americans are confused about the measuring system they use, it is the Brtish Imperial system, would you not be better going with your allies from 1776 the French and their metric system and come into the 21st century ?
The country is so large that it's not possible for the country to commit to one. That's why the customary AND metric have a firm hold in the country. Some industries in the US predominantly rely on the metric and some for customary. The average product you see in the grocery store in the US will have the size labeled in customary AND metric. Metrication will never happen in the US because the country is too big to try to make a massive change now. Most children are educated in both and if they gave a crap about science or math class then they could tell you the direct conversion from customary to metric and vice versa. Please inform yourself before making snide remarks.
Last edited by Yellow Jacket; 08-11-2012 at 03:44 AM..
The concept of having not one nation dictate the direction of military power, of financial power, etc. and acting like a democratic assembly is a very mature one.
It is a step in the right direction. When you have a single country moving to overthrow individual governments, you have an empire, which is what the US is. I wouldn't have a problem with that if we were truly after righteous and humanitarian goals, but we aren't. We never intervene when a much larger conflict can arise or when it is not in our best interests. Hardly humanitarian. Hardly for world peace. It's always for something like power or retribution.
When has the U.S. ever been the sole dictator of international military and financial power?
FACT CHECK: The U.S. has never acted alone its crimes.
Is the U.S. alone in its membership to criminal IGOs such as NAFTA, the WTO, NATO and the IMF? Has it possibly ever occurred to you that foreign banking (financial) interests are more than happy to profit massively from our military interventionism via debt purchases? Do you honestly believe that U.S. military behavior serves the financial and economic interests of the U.S., its economic stability, its security, its sovereignty, etc., in any way, shape or form (if you believe this to be so, do explain)? And did you know that, while the U.S. would have invaded Iraq with our without UN consent, the U.S. never forced ANY other participating country into military coalition? Are we alone in Afghanistan? Need I continue?
We DO live in an empire, you're absolutely right about that, but it has nothing to do with maintaining U.S. hegemony. We've become a headquarters for global, multi-national financial interests, and it has, perhaps, effectively destroyed the country. Once the U.S. is thoroughly looted, the same global interests will make themselves at home in their new empire: China (you know, that fascist death-camp that the "global community" admires so much).
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
May as well call it like it is. An empire. Canadians recognize this as former vassals under a former empire. Also has something to do with not being strong enough to act on their own, which gives a unique perspective to things.
From what I can tell, Canadians seem to have a certain sense of pride in their historical connections to the British, and yes, the atrocious British Empire (perhaps I shouldn't mention their morbid attachment to the British Monarchy); therefore, in my opinion, they have no standing whatsoever to lecture Americans about their citizenship in a global empire (which, curiously, their country is happy to align itself with more often than not).
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
The real problem with the UN is it was formed ideally to make sure world wars didn't happen again. But it isn't democratic, and thus it is flawed.
The UN is anything BUT democratic, and yes, it has generally failed miserably to thwart the spread of warfare in just about any conflict it has attempted to oversee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
Cultural identity. They recognize they are our cousins but pride themselves on various things, like free health care for all and freedom to love and declare marriage in accordance with widely held ideals of human rights.
Cultural identity on the basis of same-sex marriage and single-payer healthcare? Okay...
Well, since there is absolutely NO same-sex marriage OR government funded healthcare in the U.S., the Canadian policy direction on these issues makes them not only culturally distinct from and superior to the U.S., but it also makes them glorious champions of human rights (minus that whole Afghan war participation thing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
Canadian nationalism combined with a bit of self-righteousness is bad. That's one thing I don't like about Canada in general. They do it to point out how different they are from us, I think.
"We aren't American because we're better!" is the foundation of Canadian nationalism and cultural identity. That kind of narcissism is, at least to me, quite worthy of scrutiny (and maybe even a little bit of mockery).
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
I didn't say that ethnic diversity is the end all and be all of tolerance. Nor acceptance. Diversity of thought, and accepting others for who they are. And I don't know about the ethnic diversity aspect of it all, but just from my own case studies, it did seem like there were more people willing to take in other peoples' perspectives up there.
Yes, diversity of thought should be celebrated and tolerated in any free society. Ethnicity should have nothing to do with how we perceive diversity.
Would you contend that acceptance of diverse thinking is considered unacceptable in American society as opposed to Canadian society?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
LOL! We wish. If only we could join a country that was as accepting of others and not as willing in many areas to legislate who we can have sex with for god's sake! If only we could be a part of a country where it wouldn't matter how much money you had, you could get health care, and people didn't mind paying a little extra tax to ensure that was the case, and kept the food and pharmaceutical companies (amongst others) in check for the welfare of the people.
"Accepting of others"? I'd love to see how accepting Canadians would be if Americans started swarming across the 49th parallel en masse seeking permanent residence. I'm not picturing smiling faces, I'll tell you that much.
And nobody in the United States is restricted from having sex with a person of their same gender, in neither a de jure or de facto sense. Any notion to the contrary is utter nonsense, and I'm sure that you know better. While same-sex marriage rights are not recognized at the federal level, states and their supreme courts have every right and responsibility to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples (in case you haven't been paying attention, many of them already have).
What I think, eskercurve, is that you and others who share your obviously statist-oriented views can appreciate a place like Canada more than your home country because, essentially, you're driven by an incessant need to see the worst aspects (real or imagined) of a country where at least some of us try to preserve at least some of our country's political traditions, many of which do happen to run counter to the political values of other western democracies that many Americans of your ideological persuasions have come to favor.
But perhaps rather than scoffing at the rest of the U.S. (or less liberal states) for apparently not adhering to the preferred political direction of PACNW blue states, you could respect an early tradition of the republic and advocate greater autonomy for your home state to pursue policies that better fit the needs and wants of the general population, with minimal interference from the central government. Maybe Washingtonians and Oregonians could advocate the repeal of the 17th amendment, which could perhaps result in better representation for their states at the federal level.
Or do you need to live in a more ideologically monolithic country that prefers absolute political conformity on most significant issues?
I'm actually an advocate of British Columbia, Oregon, Washington (and POSSIBLY Alaska and Idaho, as long as they don't act too crazy ) forming a new country called Cascadia. And then after that, the entire continent of North America breaking off into somewhere between nine and thirteen different bioregionally-defined sovereign entities, though with open borders.
Why should anyone want merge Canada and the US? Both are successful countries without doing that and I don't think there are many benefits for either one. Language and a similar culture doesn't mean it is going to work. No one seriously considers merging Germany, Austria and Switzerland either. Or Australia and New Zealand. Or many of the countries in South America.
I also think it wouldn't be a very reciprocal process since the United States is so large population wise. There would also be plenty of bureaucratic hassles such as the different units or the political system. Canada's prime minister wouldn't want to become a govenor all of a sudden.
When has the U.S. ever been the sole dictator of international military and financial power?
FACT CHECK: The U.S. has never acted alone its crimes.
Is the U.S. alone in its membership to criminal IGOs such as NAFTA, the WTO, NATO and the IMF? Has it possibly ever occurred to you that foreign banking (financial) interests are more than happy to profit massively from our military interventionism via debt purchases? Do you honestly believe that U.S. military behavior serves the financial and economic interests of the U.S., its economic stability, its security, its sovereignty, etc., in any way, shape or form (if you believe this to be so, do explain)? And did you know that, while the U.S. would have invaded Iraq with our without UN consent, the U.S. never forced ANY other participating country into military coalition? Are we alone in Afghanistan? Need I continue?
We DO live in an empire, you're absolutely right about that, but it has nothing to do with maintaining U.S. hegemony. We've become a headquarters for global, multi-national financial interests, and it has, perhaps, effectively destroyed the country. Once the U.S. is thoroughly looted, the same global interests will make themselves at home in their new empire: China (you know, that fascist death-camp that the "global community" admires so much).
Wow. That's rich.
The US is never alone in its crimes because precisely others profit from it, but the genesis of said crimes are squarely in our court. We rid a thorn in our side (Hussein) by invading Iraq and eventually killing him via a puppet government trial. Would other countries stand idly by? Of course not. But the majority of coalition members (besides the British) were non-combat. And of course they want to be there - there's business opportunities there too. There will be, eventually, and countries don't want to be locked out of the party once it starts. It's funny the hypocrisy that goes on in countries outside the US. They decry the "imperial" USA and its actions then participate in the spoils and try to gain trade. It's right that they buy the debt we incur to go to war, though I would prefer that the interest would be zero due to their hypocrisy.
So, for all intents and purposes, yes, the US acts alone and seeks "partners" to appear righteous. The same refrain has been used so bluntly and ubiquitously in the past 120 years, save WWII, that it loses meaning.
Quote:
Cultural identity on the basis of same-sex marriage and single-payer healthcare? Okay...
Well, since there is absolutely NO same-sex marriage OR government funded healthcare in the U.S., the Canadian policy direction on these issues makes them not only culturally distinct from and superior to the U.S., but it also makes them glorious champions of human rights (minus that whole Afghan war participation thing).
...
"Accepting of others"? I'd love to see how accepting Canadians would be if Americans started swarming across the 49th parallel en masse seeking permanent residence. I'm not picturing smiling faces, I'll tell you that much.
And nobody in the United States is restricted from having sex with a person of their same gender, in neither a de jure or de facto sense. Any notion to the contrary is utter nonsense, and I'm sure that you know better. While same-sex marriage rights are not recognized at the federal level, states and their supreme courts have every right and responsibility to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples (in case you haven't been paying attention, many of them already have).
I think one thing that is not connecting in your arguments here is the central idea I'm trying to convey. Tolerance and acceptance of others of different thought, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc. is clearly on the forefront of peoples' minds in Canada. The central topic being they're more mature. They've gone beyond skin color in the vast majority of cases, something the US has FINALLY shared. They've gone beyond seeing Muslims and Sikhs as terrorists. They've gone beyond requiring people to have well paying jobs to get medication and medical care. They see all these things as basic human rights, something I wish Americans would see.
Quote:
Yes, diversity of thought should be celebrated and tolerated in any free society. Ethnicity should have nothing to do with how we perceive diversity.
Would you contend that acceptance of diverse thinking is considered unacceptable in American society as opposed to Canadian society?
The Republican Party is proof positive of that. To a lesser degree, so is the Democratic Party. The fact that such children are elected to leadership is proof that Americans do NOT value differing perspectives. I argue that a government DOES reflect its people. People have gotten less tolerant of different perspectives and less willing to dig for real unbiased data. They're also less willing to confront their own selfish ideas and more willing to lash out than calm down. My own experiences living in other parts of the US backs this up. I'm quite liberal in my thinking, and despite people considering themselves "more open minded" than that, they quickly retreat to old cliques of "what church do you go to?" "What social class / what job do you have?" even "what high school did you go to?" If you answer you aren't religious in many parts of the midwest or the south, you're treated as an outcast. People WILL avoid you, try to "save" you with a loud HALLELUJAH!
Even if Canadian folks disagree strongly with each other, they have a live and let live attitude. Something folks here in the PNW share, by and large.
Quote:
What I think, eskercurve, is that you and others who share your obviously statist-oriented views can appreciate a place like Canada more than your home country because, essentially, you're driven by an incessant need to see the worst aspects (real or imagined) of a country where at least some of us try to preserve at least some of our country's political traditions, many of which do happen to run counter to the political values of other western democracies that many Americans of your ideological persuasions have come to favor.
But perhaps rather than scoffing at the rest of the U.S. (or less liberal states) for apparently not adhering to the preferred political direction of PACNW blue states, you could respect an early tradition of the republic and advocate greater autonomy for your home state to pursue policies that better fit the needs and wants of the general population, with minimal interference from the central government. Maybe Washingtonians and Oregonians could advocate the repeal of the 17th amendment, which could perhaps result in better representation for their states at the federal level.
Or do you need to live in a more ideologically monolithic country that prefers absolute political conformity on most significant issues?
PNW states are hardly solid blue. Oregon is quite balanced, and Seattle dominates WA so it almost always goes blue but most of the state is a solid purple. Idaho is quite conservative too.
And I like pointing out the issues that we face because recognizing there's a problem is the first step to solving it. I just wish others would see it as well.
And I actually do think more states' rights would be a good thing. Let those Bible thumping morons have their anti-gay legislation and f-your-neighbor "freedom" ... I want nothing of it, and don't want their influence in politics block forward thinking progressives from doing what's right.
In a way though, we keep bumbling along and eventually do the right thing. Winston Churchill said it best I think. "Americans will always do the right thing ... when all other options have been exhausted." So even though as much as I'd like to see my idiot brothers cast off politically, I have faith that there is something in the American psyche that always questions the "right" things. Very odd parallel to Buddhism, which says folks need to keep questioning things in light of new evidence. I just wish it was not as loud or violent.
I realize it's quite romantic and contrarian to say I both hate the actions of our government and some of its people, yet find faith and hope in our struggle for a national identity. But I think it's OK to say that. It's like your little egotistical brother. You wish he would just shut up and stop acting like a know-it-all, but then you see his kind side and you still love him and have faith that he'll learn someday.
In short I'm not always down on my country. We have amazing individuals who are brilliant and for all the faults we have, it's a pretty good place to do business and the rights of business owners are balanced with our environment and the consumer, and there's private enterprise looking out for us too. We also have a great culture of working hard and trying to better ourselves through work. And then there's the aforementioned thing of questioning and driving to a solution despite what logic would indicate is the best solution. It's these qualities that give me faith and hope, and prevent me from being a PNW isolationist.
Why should anyone want merge Canada and the US? Both are successful countries without doing that and I don't think there are many benefits for either one. Language and a similar culture doesn't mean it is going to work. No one seriously considers merging Germany, Austria and Switzerland either. Or Australia and New Zealand. Or many of the countries in South America.
I also think it wouldn't be a very reciprocal process since the United States is so large population wise. There would also be plenty of bureaucratic hassles such as the different units or the political system. Canada's prime minister wouldn't want to become a govenor all of a sudden.
There is one person that comes to mind when you say "no one seriously considers merging Germany, Austria and Switzerland". Unfortunately it is Adolf Hitler who did annex Austria prior to the second world war. I guess that is a powerfull argument in itself that two nations of common culture maybe should not be merged into one larger more powerful entity, especially if the goal of that merger is gaining more power.
For a perfect example of "rich," look no further than your own dismissal of overseas financial interests working in cahoots with the U.S. government on nearly every single direction we take economically, militarily, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
The US is never alone in its crimes because precisely others profit from it, but the genesis of said crimes are squarely in our court.
Wrong. The genesis of said crimes is international profiteering by what is, effectively, an international banking cartel consisting largely of overseas financial bodies and the international organizations where they do business (i.e. the WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc.) Your country and everything its government does serves their interests directly--the U.S. itself has never profited from its military imperialism or the global financial system.
It's truly unfortunate how seemingly oblivious you are to the fact that you live in a country (one of many, in fact) that has been thoroughly colonized by offshore financial interests for over a century at least. You'd be wise to research, for example, the European stockholders of the four largest private banks of the U.S, or the overseas financial bodies that work in tandem with them.
But I don't know, I suppose the greedy, capitalistic American imperialists FORCED all of them into partnership? I'm somehow positive that that's the narrative you prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
We rid a thorn in our side (Hussein) by invading Iraq and eventually killing him via a puppet government trial. Would other countries stand idly by? Of course not. But the majority of coalition members (besides the British) were non-combat. And of course they want to be there - there's business opportunities there too. There will be, eventually, and countries don't want to be locked out of the party once it starts. It's funny the hypocrisy that goes on in countries outside the US. They decry the "imperial" USA and its actions then participate in the spoils and try to gain trade. It's right that they buy the debt we incur to go to war, though I would prefer that the interest would be zero due to their hypocrisy.
Saddam Hussein was a thorn in the side of itnernational money sharks, and that's why their puppet governments (US, UK, Australia, Denmark, Italy, Poland, etc.) partcipated in destroying a sovereign nation, regardless of whether or not they were involoved in direct combat.
Nine years later, Iraq is thoroughly destroyed and the only people who can do business there (besides the probable exception multi-national oil companies, of course) are the same criminal loan-sharks who have destroyed every country they've ever touched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
So, for all intents and purposes, yes, the US acts alone and seeks "partners" to appear righteous. The same refrain has been used so bluntly and ubiquitously in the past 120 years, save WWII, that it loses meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
I think one thing that is not connecting in your arguments here is the central idea I'm trying to convey. Tolerance and acceptance of others of different thought, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc. is clearly on the forefront of peoples' minds in Canada. The central topic being they're more mature. They've gone beyond skin color in the vast majority of cases, something the US has FINALLY shared. They've gone beyond seeing Muslims and Sikhs as terrorists. They've gone beyond requiring people to have well paying jobs to get medication and medical care. They see all these things as basic human rights, something I wish Americans would see.
No, I think I understand just fine, eskercurve.
Canada provides "free" healthcare to all of its citizens and marriage rights to homosexual couples and is therefore a haven of all things wonderful.
Besides same-sex marriage and single-payer healthcare, "tolerance" and "acceptance" are fundamental Canadian values--Canada has no racists, bigots or social tensions in general (and even if they did, these protectors of "human rights" would prosecute such heretics accordingly); they're just a wonderful people through and through, and thank God that us American troglodytes are "FINALLY" beginning to catch up to our sophisticated northern neighbors.
But, of course, most Americans still think that all Muslims and Sikhs are terrorists (which would have to explain the recurring instances of social violence between Muslims/Sikhs and non-Muslims/non-Sikhs in the U.S.), so apparently we have a much longer way to go than we may think.
In all seriousness though, I'm curious as to how you're able to make such sweeping generalizations about the Canadian public...
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
The Republican Party is proof positive of that. To a lesser degree, so is the Democratic Party. The fact that such children are elected to leadership is proof that Americans do NOT value differing perspectives.
I for one happen to loathe the pro-globalist, war-mongering, anti-civil liberty proclivites of the Republican party (and guess what?! I equally loathe the pro-globalist, war-mongering, anti-civil liberty proclivities of the Democratic party!).
But the mainstream American public generally sees the Republican and Democratic parties as representing differing perspectives and, however false this may be, it is in no way indicative that Americans don't value differing perspectives. That really is quite an arrogant assertion on your part.
I don't know though, I have a strange inkling that your idea of "differing perspectives" are nominal disagreements about how top-down collectivist-oriented government policies should be instated--sort of like what can be seen in the political discourse of countries like Canada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
I argue that a government DOES reflect its people. People have gotten less tolerant of different perspectives and less willing to dig for real unbiased data.
A government should reflect its people, absolultey; however, this isn't always true, no matter how much your own biases force you to believe otherwise.
And where can I find some real, unbiased data, and what is it going to tell me? That I'm stupid for not being as "progressive"-minded as people like you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
They're also less willing to confront their own selfish ideas and more willing to lash out than calm down. My own experiences living in other parts of the US backs this up. I'm quite liberal in my thinking, and despite people considering themselves "more open minded" than that, they quickly retreat to old cliques of "what church do you go to?" "What social class / what job do you have?" even "what high school did you go to?" If you answer you aren't religious in many parts of the midwest or the south, you're treated as an outcast. People WILL avoid you, try to "save" you with a loud HALLELUJAH!
I have no idea who you've been hanging out with, but never at any place or any point in my entire life have I been immediately interrogated by anyone about where I went to high school, or what church I go to, or what "social class" I belong to. While it really isn't my place to question your experiences, I must say that they reek of exaggeration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
Even if Canadian folks disagree strongly with each other, they have a live and let live attitude. Something folks here in the PNW share, by and large.
I've never noticed a general "live and let live" attitude amongst Pac-Northwesterners (with the definite exception of Portlanders), and I've certainly never seen any indication of that amongst the Canadian public.
And keep in mind that I live right next door to the Pac-Northwest (which isn't to mention that my state borders three Canadian provinces), and it's Pac-Nortwesterners who tend to be the most unpleasant visitors (yet they don't even compare to a certain variety of travelers from north of a certain border).
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
PNW states are hardly solid blue. Oregon is quite balanced, and Seattle dominates WA so it almost always goes blue but most of the state is a solid purple. Idaho is quite conservative too.
Idaho is always a sure red-state as far as presidential elections go, much like Washington and Oregon have been reliable blue-states in most recent presidential election years; Washington hasn't voted for a Republican president since 1984, and I'm pretty sure that Oregon's story is pretty similar--neither state has even had a Republican governor in the last 20+ years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
And I like pointing out the issues that we face because recognizing there's a problem is the first step to solving it. I just wish others would see it as well.
And I actually do think more states' rights would be a good thing. Let those Bible thumping morons have their anti-gay legislation and f-your-neighbor "freedom" ... I want nothing of it, and don't want their influence in politics block forward thinking progressives from doing what's right.
I'm very happy to see your position on states' rights, eskercurve. States rights are, as I see it, the only way for the blue and red states to reconcile their differences.
And while the "bible-thumping morons" and "f-your-neighbor freedom" types intelligently organize their states (okay, fine, the authoritarian-minded religious types might not be the greatest help), the rest of you can tax and bankrupt yourselves to kingdom-come. Just don't ask for a bail-out, okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
In a way though, we keep bumbling along and eventually do the right thing. Winston Churchill said it best I think. "Americans will always do the right thing ... when all other options have been exhausted." So even though as much as I'd like to see my idiot brothers cast off politically, I have faith that there is something in the American psyche that always questions the "right" things. Very odd parallel to Buddhism, which says folks need to keep questioning things in light of new evidence. I just wish it was not as loud or violent.
Your "idiot brothers" get pretty annoyed with you too, you know.
And although I know that you mean well with your Winston Churchill quote, it's horribly unbecoming of any American to pay respect to such a revolting pig--OOPS, did I really just put that?
Also, what do you mean by "loud or violent"? You're not talking about those delightful OWS folks, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
I realize it's quite romantic and contrarian to say I both hate the actions of our government and some of its people, yet find faith and hope in our struggle for a national identity. But I think it's OK to say that. It's like your little egotistical brother. You wish he would just shut up and stop acting like a know-it-all, but then you see his kind side and you still love him and have faith that he'll learn someday.
I appreciate that you hope Americans can re-discover a national identity someday--I just hope that it won't be accompanied by some creepy lust for the days of empire (I'm sure we can both agree on that).
I like to think that Americans can repair the damage that's been done, but people still have A LOT of waking up to do around here. As I see it, the U.S. will be very much alone in the world if it ever does take the necessary steps to turn itself around and behave like a peaceful, sovereign rebpulic, and it's imperative that we stick together despite our differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
In short I'm not always down on my country. We have amazing individuals who are brilliant and for all the faults we have, it's a pretty good place to do business and the rights of business owners are balanced with our environment and the consumer, and there's private enterprise looking out for us too. We also have a great culture of working hard and trying to better ourselves through work. And then there's the aforementioned thing of questioning and driving to a solution despite what logic would indicate is the best solution. It's these qualities that give me faith and hope, and prevent me from being a PNW isolationist.
Eskercurve, your optimism is refreshing, but I nevertheless hope that you'll truly consider the comments I posted at the beginning of this response. Our country is in big, BIG trouble and everything you mention in the last section of your post will be gone if we allow the status-quo to continue unchallenged. If Americans are a collective societal entity that is capable of doing the right thing, then it's time to show it.
Last edited by Montguy; 08-12-2012 at 03:27 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the Canadian policy direction on these issues makes them not only culturally distinct from and superior to the U.S., but it also makes them glorious champions of human rights (minus that whole Afghan war participation thing). 
) forming a new country called Cascadia. And then after that, the entire continent of North America breaking off into somewhere between nine and thirteen different bioregionally-defined sovereign entities, though with open borders.
Just don't ask for a bail-out, okay? 
