I love Canada!!! Thanks for Elisha Cuthbert.

NO! Then everyone would think we were taking over the world!

No disrespect to the Canadians...but if I were you I wouldn't want to be annexed by the US either.

Canada?

Um, well, while it gave me my psycho ex from hell, it also gave me an awesome friend in CutiePie2000!!!! So I forgive, and better yet, embrace Canada! My 12 step canadian recovery program is complete!! (yes, tongue planted firmly in cheek w that last statement).

Oh, and we can't annex Canada cause then my ex would be here legally, and really he should be deported to a nasty place, canada is too good for the likes of him!

LOL amycat! :D

You're welcome!

KillarneyRose,
(a) I do know that Aussie men do have bad reputations, but the guys that I found were fine, but then again, I was in Melbourne, which is a pretty big city (it's up there with Sydney)...the Aussie men were probably as "progressive minded" about women as American guys and Canadian guys are. That being said, you will find all ranges of the spectrum. Also, I think that in Australia, if you go off to a sheep station in the Outback, like Alice Springs or something, then yes, you will likely encounter the worst of the worst when it come to boorish, sexist Aussie men.

(b) The "oot and aboot thing"...I think that people from Atlantic Canada say that, rather than people who are Quebec and West, i.e. Ontario, BC, etc. This is because Atlantic Canada is the most "English/British" part of Canada (people are supremely loyal to England in that part of Canada, and they don't forget their Anglo-Saxon roots), and they have a bit of a Scottish'y brogue in their accent. Hence the "oot and aboot" for "out and about".

I think you might have misread his post my friend - Nick wasn't implying that Progressivism was on the "right" of the political spectrum, not at all.

What he said was, if you view a "progressive" gov't (note the lower-case "P") as one with more political involvement, then you'd be correct in that assumption (also note that, in terms of colloquial usage of lower-case "progressive" as "making progress", this is still up for debate). He then went to point out that, as it pertains to Canadian government, this would be on the (traditionally) 'left' portion of the scale - as opposed to the Canadian political party, the Progressive Conservative Party, whose views would tend to be more to the right end of the scale (if my grasp of Canadian politics is up-to-date - Canadians please correct). Make sense? CC1GC is a fairly bright dude when he's off the sauce, I think this is what he was referencing.

PS - check a cite here: PC Party

Even if the US wanted to annex Canada, I'm sure it could be forcibly done.

Just look at what they did to our Queen here in 1893. :mad:

Sorry, just a rant coming from a Hawaiian.

That's all. Back to your regularly scheduled intellectual discussion. :D

Billy, Michelle & Company, thanks for clarifying what progressive meant, some of these political buzz words have more than one meanings. The idea has potential, but I can't see one day a single country of 'CanaAmerica', considering both parties can't find mutual ground on many subjects of trade/border relations (e.g. lumber).

At work last night, some of my co-workers and I were talking about this and a few mentioned they would prefer Canada to join Europe - his reasoning, being, mutual disdain for American policymaking. I don't know if i agree with this because in a way Europe is like a Canada/America...each is sort of a collaboration of different regions that mantain it's own views and culture. Sort of like a game of tug and war....it would be interesting tho, Can you imagine - Quebecers and Texans being one nationality...crazy.

I'm against annexing, we already have enough people to take care of. :rolleyes:

Did anyone hear that Canada now allows some forms of child porn? Sick!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWSLaw0210/porn_oct15-cp.html

I don't think it's so much that they are allowing certain types of child porn, but from my understanding of the article it was that if one person were to have in their possession a hand drawing that they created themselves that depicted children in some form of sexual act, there wasn't much anyone could do about it other than deem this person a sicko-which of course they would be. Now, if this person were to distribute this picture then it would be a criminal act. I'm not condoning it, just claryfying the article. You can control peoples thoughts, no matter how hard you try.

This is a tough circumstance, though - basically the ruling decided that having hand-drawings or journals in a person's possession should receive the same protection as any other form of 'offensive' art . . . think "elephant shit on a picture of the Madonna" as an American example.

I think that the US Supreme Court would have to find similarly, should the case be presented - public morality isn't supposed to be legislated with regard to expression (and thus art), to my knowledge, regardless of how offensive or sick it may seem to you and me.

I would be interested to see what would happen if it went to the supreme court. I know of a case in Georgia back before I completed my cj degree that an GBI agent was talking about. A guy only had a couple photos of young naked girls but he got 10 years in prison because of his drawings and journals. I am sure if he appealed it should have gotten to the Supreme Court by now. I really don't think they will ever agree to hear a case like that because they know how they probably would have to rule.

Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't the supreme court have to rule on every case they agree to hear. If not, then why bother. I mean the US one, not Canada.

I'm glad Canada is a diff. country. They are #1 Democratic ally, along with the rest of The Commonwealth.

If they had to hear every case they would never get anything done. No the review what cases they want to hear.