On 4 Feb 2004 01:41:26 -0800, rcaetano7@yahoo.com (Rafael Caetano)
wrote:

>murchadh@shaw.ca (Murchadh) wrote in message news:
>
>> On 31 Jan 2004 07:26:22 -0800, rcaetano7@yahoo.com (Rafael Caetano)
>> wrote: 
>> >murchadh@shaw.ca (Murchadh) wrote in message news:<401b6c38.33653270@news>...
>> >(...)
>> >> The last draft dodger got here in 1973. Since then American immigrants
>> >> have mostly been well-educated professionals who prefer to live in a
>> >> quietly democratic country with a low crime rate where you can walk
>> >> the streets at night without worrying about being mugged and where
>> >> universal health care means you aren't sent home to die as in the US
>> >> when your health insurance runs out.
>> >> 
>> >> Canada is a nice place to bring up children and has never lost sight
>> >> of the original reason for having a country - to look after all the
>> >> citizens, not just the greedy, buck grabbers. 
>> >
>> >The "original reason for having a country", eh? 
>> >
>> >Rafael Caetano
>> 
>> Well, what would you describe your country's decision to enrich the
>> Halliwells of your society as? Why have only two Enron executives gone
>> to jail? Why is good health care the prerogative of the wealthy?
>> That's not a country; that's a conspiracy to rape those unable to
>> protect themselves, and historically is squarely in line with the
>> pattern of US development on the North American continent.
>
>Yeah, you're damn right. Think of the masses of immigrants who are
>still willing to enter the USA. The poor fellows think they're going
>to improve their own lives, but as you say they'll soon find out they
>will only get raped.

I believe this mention of "rape" is the first here and introduced by
you. However, setting aside those whose only wish to is to become rich
as swiftly as possible, I think Canada offers a gentler version of the
good life in terms of safety and protection from the harsher side of
life. Unfortunately for them, huge numbers of would-be immigrants
agreed with me, leading the Canadian government to introduce
formidable obstacles to general immigration, other than the
reunification of families.


>
>I'm still curious about the "original reason for having a country",
>though. Do you mean the "original reason for the Canadians to have
>their own country"? Or the "original reason for the existence of the
>first country ever on this planet"?

Take your pick.

> 
>> I suppose you also think monogamous marriage is an expression of love
>> between two people and not an invention of the weak to stop the strong
>> from grabbing all the women for themselves.
>
>Thanks. Next time I date a leftie girl I'll use that line...

It's not a line, it's a sociological fact.
>
>Rafael Caetano


Murchadh.