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.
For some reason the poster who rabbits on about Canada's identity and dislike for the U.S. in what can only be described as an obsessive compulsive disorder; is also the one blustering about the U.S. rolling over Canada when it desires to do so.
This person needs reminding of today's geopolitical realities. The U.S., as opposed to nincompoops on here flexing their penis, is fully aware of the implications an invasion or attempt at occupying Canada with a larger continental landmass than itself would have upon it's own well being.
Points to be mentioned would be Canada would not be push-overs to any greater degree than a bunch of rice eaters wearing flip-flops were while defending their HOME country. Vietnam would look like a veritable walk in the park by comparison. The U.S., for all of it's recent display to the contrary, does have some intelligent strategists involved somewhere in their leadership hierarchy and those would be advising the death toll would be the likes never before experienced by young Americans.
NATO countries aside, the WORLD would cringe at the prospect of a U.S. move towards Canada as indicative of the worst bully in the room getting their hands upon resources and land mass that would obviously make them even more bellicose and full of buffoonery. Any doubts about U.S. imperialist designs upon the planet would be erased immediately and every one of them would simply understand they'd be next on the short list for American dictatorship.
No thinking leadership would idly stand by and watch as the U.S. telegraphed it's intent at world dominance in such an obvious and egregious manner.
All of this presupposes the U.S. has the cojones to subject itself to decades of insurrection and terrorism on it's own soil the likes of which it hasn't seen since doing it to itself in the Civil War.
It doesn't.
Vietnam would look like a walk in the park? Based on what? You sound like Kim Jong Un talking about how North Korea will destroy America. It comes off as all bark.
The defense problem for Canada is there is only one main supply line for all its major cities: Vancouver>Calgary>Winnipeg>Toronto>Ottawa>Montreal . One supply line is all that Canada has to defend its major cities. That's a terrible position to be in considering the U.S. army can break that supply line by moving north 100 miles in any given 3,000 miles of border.
Not to mention the country is heavily vulnerable to a naval blockade. A few ships off the coast of BC, Halifax and the Saint Lawrence River and Canada loses the ability to receive large amounts of foreign military aid.
So the lands are easy for the U.S. Army to takeover. And the Navy has to only blockade a few select sites to bring the country to its knees. It won't happen because the U.S. has never been a revanchist nation and has not behaved as a territorial hegemon since 1898/1916.
Last edited by manitopiaaa; 12-31-2016 at 11:31 PM..
I always thought that "persuit of happiness" clause right up there w/llife and liberty covered being allowed to marry whom you want, BE who you want--as long as you aren't hurting anyone else
Classic example--pedophiles are NOT free to persue that inclination because doing so damages others and infringes on THEIR rights...
That's not a clause. It's a value. It is also from the United States Declaration of Independence, so it has no weight in the Supreme Court since it's not "Constitutional text."
I can see how being banned from entering the country would tend to peeve off toxic pseudo-intellectuals with superiority complexes and over-inflated egos. So one way to vent their spite and revenge is to go trolling on internet to yank chains and ring bells with their vulgarities, degrading put downs, bluster and chest thumping threats of invasion of the country that banned them.
I'd be happy if people like that were banned from the forums they haunt too. However, they do illustrate a prime example of the kind of toxic people that Canada and most other polite countries wouldn't welcome into their countries.
.
I was in Canada last January though. But I appreciate your creativity in fantasizing such elaborate conspiracy theories.
Speaking of control and dominance i'm about to totally give FIDO the boot for a multitude of deserved reasons. PLEASE Verizon, T-Mobile etc come up here and dominate our market. Our currently crop of telecom companies are all about ripping off the Canadian consumer and dominating and controlling us. That shake up would be more than welcomed!
Not to mention your airlines and airports. Outrageous fees at every corner and absurd travel costs. Never paying Air Canada another cent.
I pay $40.00 per month for unlimited texting, unlimited long distance within Canada, and 1GB of data. I don't use much data since free wi-fi is everywhere I'm usually at. This is discounted I admit, since I used to work for the company. I believe the non-discounted rate is about $70.00
Cable? Millions of gotten rid of cable in both Canada and the US and watch their shows via different services and also having a VPN helps in watching content worldwide.
When I did have cable over 4 years ago, I was paying $80.00, but can't remember how many stations since I never watched them much.
Here are two offerings in my area. First one is cable in the old fashioned sense. Second is over fibre, or DSL lines. I have no idea how they compare to what you pay, that is, if you still have cable.
You actually can get 2x the data for $30 with Boost Mobile: https://www.boostmobile.com/#!/shop/...y-phone-plans/
And if you're on any government program you can get a free cellphone with the same features through Lifeline.
Are you making comments about someone who comments on this online forum?
Why do you do that?
What do you hope to achieve?
Do you have something to say, or is it your intent to sway others by targeting one?
Are you unable to say something without making it personal?
Thank you Lieneke. I appreciate your even-handedness. I have never insulted fusion and have never attacked anyone else on this forum. It's quite odd, therefore, that people like Fusion and Zoisite and BruSan accuse of me of being rude and vulgar, yet they are the ones throwing insults in every post. It's one thing to criticize my opinions, but ad hominem attacks do little to advance one's argument. I'm glad you are calling some out on their double standards.
If a multi-racial population is the point, I don't think that an influx of hispanic people would really change the face of Canada. In the last year, I have stood on a busy downtown street corner and compared the number of caucasians to non-caucasians waiting to cross the street. Caucasians are by far the minority.
Canada is far, far, far less racially diverse than the United States. Canada was 19% racial minority in 2011. It's probably, what, 22% now - tops? The U.S. in 2016 38.8% minority and is increasing about .4% a year. At this rate, the U.S. population will top 40% minority by 2020.
Here's a comparison of Blue States (2015) to Canada (2011)
Hawai'i: 77.1% minority
California: 62.0% minority
New Mexico: 61.6% minority
Nevada: 49.3% minority
Maryland: 48.0% minority
New York: 44.0% minority
New Jersey: 43.8% minority
Illinois: 38.1% minority
Virginia: 37.3% minority
Delaware: 36.8% minority
Connecticut: 31.8% minority
Colorado: 31.3% minority
Washington State: 30.2% minority
Massachusetts: 26.5% minority
Rhode Island: 26.1% minority
Oregon: 23.4% minority Canada: 19.1% minority
Minnesota: 19.0% minority
New Hampshire: 9.0% minority
Vermont: 6.7% minority
Maine: 6.4% minority
Adding the Blue States would make Canada far, far more diverse than it currently is. Just because Vancouver and Toronto are diverse doesn't mean the rest of the country is. From eyeballing it, the Blue States are about 44% racial minorities. Canada is nowhere close to those levels of racial diversity.
Vietnam would look like a walk in the park? Based on what? You sound like Kim Jong Un talking about how North Korea will destroy America. It comes off as all bark.
The defense problem for Canada is there is only one main supply line for all its major cities: Vancouver>Calgary>Winnipeg>Toronto>Ottawa>Montreal . One supply line is all that Canada has to defend its major cities. That's a terrible position to be in considering the U.S. army can break that supply line by moving north 100 miles in any given 3,000 miles of border.
Not to mention the country is heavily vulnerable to a naval blockade. A few ships off the coast of BC, Halifax and the Saint Lawrence River and Canada loses the ability to receive large amounts of foreign military aid.
So the lands are easy for the U.S. Army to takeover. And the Navy has to only blockade a few select sites to bring the country to its knees. It won't happen because the U.S. has never been a revanchist nation and has not behaved as a territorial hegemon since 1898/1916.
You never know ... Canada might be primed for the economic carre formation, which would totally mess with USA based supply chain terrorists.
Canada is far, far, far less racially diverse than the United States. Canada was 19% racial minority in 2011. It's probably, what, 22% now - tops? The U.S. in 2016 38.8% minority and is increasing about .4% a year. At this rate, the U.S. population will top 40% minority by 2020.
Here's a comparison of Blue States (2015) to Canada (2011)
Hawai'i: 77.1% minority
California: 62.0% minority
New Mexico: 61.6% minority
Nevada: 49.3% minority
Maryland: 48.0% minority
New York: 44.0% minority
New Jersey: 43.8% minority
Illinois: 38.1% minority
Virginia: 37.3% minority
Delaware: 36.8% minority
Connecticut: 31.8% minority
Colorado: 31.3% minority
Washington State: 30.2% minority
Massachusetts: 26.5% minority
Rhode Island: 26.1% minority
Oregon: 23.4% minority Canada: 19.1% minority
Minnesota: 19.0% minority
New Hampshire: 9.0% minority
Vermont: 6.7% minority
Maine: 6.4% minority
Adding the Blue States would make Canada far, far more diverse than it currently is. Just because Vancouver and Toronto are diverse doesn't mean the rest of the country is. From eyeballing it, the Blue States are about 44% racial minorities. Canada is nowhere close to those levels of racial diversity.
What if you compare actual numbers rather than percentages?
Is 40% of US population roughly the same as 4% Canadian population? If so, Canada is far higher number-wise and per capita at 19%.
Using race alone as an indicator of "diversity" is a flawed approach.
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.
But I appreciate your creativity in fantasizing such elaborate conspiracy theories.
I appreciate your even-handedness. I have never insulted fusion and have never attacked anyone else on this forum. It's quite odd, therefore, that people like Fusion and Zoisite and BruSan accuse of me of being rude and vulgar, yet they are the ones throwing insults in every post. It's one thing to criticize my opinions, but ad hominem attacks do little to advance one's argument. I'm glad you are calling some out on their double standards.