DeadPoolX

They are trying to transfer to US, not to Canada.

RBC happens to be one of the only places I could find that WOULD accept your canadian credit history, but only when applying for a loan through them in the US

Yes, I know. I simply thought that if Canadian banks would take American credit history, it's possible the reverse is true as well.

I moved from Texas to BC and the first bank I went to was TD, who did accept my US credit history. I also had a letter from Bank of America supporting my credit history, so maybe that helped too.

I never needed a secured credit card; in fact, the first credit card I was able to get in Canada was one of TD's best cards with an extremely high limit.

I think some banks, like TD, are more flexible than others. I've noticed that RBC is a bit more rigid, for instance. I'd also suggest looking into credit unions, as you'll not only find checking accounts without a monthly fee or limit, but often more credit cards without annual fees as well.

Auto insurance records also transfer so long as you have your US insurance company send the information. In my situation, my driving history allowed me to get a 40% (now 43%) discount with AutoPlan. I don't know how it works in provinces without government-run auto insurance, however.

This may sound odd, considering my normal "anti-child" stance, but my wife and I sometimes wonder if we'll regret not having kids. The window of opportunity is slowly closing as my wife is 34. I realize she's not old (beyond preferred birth age) and conception is certainly possible at 34 and even older, but the later you have kids, the greater the likelihood of complications. The thought of having a disabled child is quite frightening to us. I'm sorry if that sounds cruel to anyone here, but that's how we feel about it.

I also don't think we're financially prepared for kids. Money is tight right now and we'd rather not go into debt. Furthermore, we have a two-bedroom apartment and you really need something a little larger for children. Affording a house or townhouse is difficult, especially in an overly expensive city like Vancouver. Lets not even bring up university tuition.

Oddly enough, my wife gets angry at me whenever I bring up money as a reason. I'll sometimes say our finances don't make children a viable option. I don't see what's wrong with that if it's true.

Then there's the issue of responsibility. We both know kids are a HUGE responsibility and one we may not be ready to handle. Being a parent doesn't stop when your kid turns 18. More often than not, the kid will need help (in some capacity; usually monetary) well into their 20s and perhaps even early 30s. Sure, they should be a fully self-sufficient adult by then, but if they needed help, I'd want to give it.

And finally... neither my wife nor I feel we're really very mature. I don't mean we're necessarily immature, but we can't imagine ourselves as parents. Parents are, well, our parents. They act like parents. I don't feel it's fair to bring kids into this world unless you're ready for them. After all, the kid didn't ask to be born. You did that, so it's your responsibility to take care of them. If you can't or won't, don't have kids.

Given the evidence presented, it doesn't make sense for us to have kids. However... we sometimes stop and wonder: "Will we regret not having kids decades from now?"

So to the parents here: what do you think?

I'm sure there are times you've stopped and wondered why you had kids and if it was a good choice. I'm also sure you've felt like throwing your kid out the window at times, too. But I also know most parents feel kids are the best thing to ever happen to them and they wouldn't wish their kids gone. It's a very conflicting message and someone who is not, and has never been, a parent has difficulty understanding. That's why I'm looking for some clarity on the subject.

Because my Dad is left-handed, I first learned how to use a mouse with my left hand. I'm right-handed and easily relearned how to use a mouse with my right hand. One added benefit of this is that I can now use a mouse right-handed or left-handed.

For all you lefties out there, there's a mouse called the Logitech MX 610 that's specifically designed for left-handed use. I got it for my Dad and he really likes it.

The onus is on the employer to choose the correct person for the job. If a person has English as a second - or even first - language and they do not communicate well, be that printed word or on the phone/in person - it is the employers problem.

Yes, but if the employee feels they aren't getting hired due to lacking English, it's likely they'll sue on the basis of "discrimination." I'm sure the ACLU would pick that case up (especially if the so-called discriminated included Hispanics) and, believe it or not, the employer would probably lose the case.

I remember a case in Houston where an exterminator had printed on his business card: "No habla espanol." Well, those in the Hispanic community who couldn't speak English went berserk. They claimed discrimination (going so far as to say his business card read "I hate Mexicans") and the exterminator was sued. The result? The exterminator had to either learn Spanish or hire someone who knew it.

The exterminator felt that his business card was a fair warning since his profession dealt with potentially harmful chemicals. He didn't want to unintentionally harm anyone. His apparent reward for actually caring about customers (or at least making an attempt to avoid a lawsuit) was to get sued.

Now let me ask you this: Why should the exterminator be forced to learn Spanish or hire someone to do it for him? That's unreasonable. The United States is a predominantly English-speaking country. That means everyone needs to understand English on at least a basic level.

You also assume that learning a second or third language is easy for everyone - I don't think that is the case at all, some people do not learn other languages well, some do. Some people may just not be capable of learning another language well - well enough to converse comfortably with locals.

I don't think anyone has made that assumption. I'm not great with foreign languages (although I do know German and to some degree, French as well). That's not the point, however. I don't live in Germany or France (or even Quebec) so my overall knowledge of those languages is a secondary consideration.

I don't understand why so many people automatically equate "understanding a language" with becoming fluent in it. There's a large difference between the two. If I visited Germany -- and I'd like to do so at some point -- I could never claim complete mastery of German. I know enough to read, write and converse in it on a basic level. Could I get into a political debate? Probably not. Could I read signs or a menu and speak in a (somewhat) intelligible manner? Yes, I could.

More Canadians are left-handed? Well, that just goes to prove how "sinister" Canadians can be.

I'm right-handed and have always shot right...though I used to prefer playing on the right side too (I played defense). Trying to play left-handed just felt wrong...though I was a switch-hitter in baseball, so I don't really know what to make of that.

I, too, have always found it interesting how many left-shooters there are in the league. I never noticed that it was primarily Canadians though.

I found this comment very odd:

Really? B.C. the most American-like of the Canadian provinces? I always thought Alberta had that distinction...

Yeah, that seems a little odd. I'd definitely say Alberta is more like the U.S. than British Columbia. Maybe the article means the northwestern states? I'm sure there are a lot of similarities between BC, Oregon and Washington State.

One day I want to bring in $10,000 in pennies. Let's see customs deal with that one.

Well, here's my view on this...

1. Any employer who would set requirements on language would probably get sued for acting "discriminatory." Even if speaking English was particularly important to that job, the non-English speaker could sue and would probably end up winning. The American legal system is broken (in many ways) and needs a major overhaul.

2. I don't believe it's arrogant to want incoming foreigners to speak English. No one expects them to know English perfectly (it's rare that most Americans and Canadians do this). However, it's not unreasonable to expect some level of proficiency in the language -- if for no other reason, it makes life easier for the immigrant.

It's been said over and over, but when you move to a foreign country, you are expected to adapt; not the people already living there. If I were to move to Germany, France or Spain, do you think I could reasonably demand their citizens speak English in lieu of me learning German, French or Spanish?

3. Canadians aren't "taking jobs away" from Americans. Once a Canadian (or any foreigner) legally immigrates, they are by law considered an American PR. It's at that point the immigrant has every right to work in the United States. Citizenship isn't required for most jobs.

4. The misconception that "Canadians are stealing jobs from Americans" probably stems from the massive influx of illegal aliens. The average American probably doesn't know -- or care -- about the differences between legal and illegal immigration. All they hear is the word "immigrant" and therefore automatically associate an illegal status with it.

Suspension? Detention? Police reports? When did this come about?

I remember simply fighting. School didn't bother with any of it, so the situation was solely in the hands of the students. If you were bullied and wanted it to stop, you fought back or you continued to get bullied. That was how it was handled. I guess things have changed a little...

So... I was talking with a friend from the U.S. and she's having some bullying problems with her kid (he's being bullied, not doing the bullying). I assumed she was asking me what to do since I was bullied -- both psychologically and physically -- for years. It seemed in the end she didn't want my advice after hearing it.

What did I tell her? I said her kid needs to break the bully's nose.

It's true, too. Bullies don't listen to reason and they certainly don't care about whose feelings they hurt. Bullies DO understand violence and that works. I know it did for me.

Unfortunately, a lot of very misguided people have tons of bad advice, such as...

Ignore the bully

You know when this works? Never. I've never once seen a bully leave someone alone because they're being ignored. If nothing else, this only encourages the bully.

Try being nice to him and that'll throw him off guard

Nice idea, but it doesn't work. Sure, you can be nice to him and he'll throw a very friendly punch at your head.

Talk to him and let him know how he's making you feel

I'm sorry if this insults anyone here, but that has to be the single dumbest thing anyone could do. The entire reason the bully is picking on you is that he hopes he can hurt you. That's his goal! Letting him know he's doing an excellent job of it certainly won't deter him.

Ask a teacher for help

Good luck with that. Most teachers won't do anything unless they see the act as it takes place and bullies aren't stupid. They know enough to avoid being seen by school staff while tormenting others. In addition, teachers don't want to become involved since that means potentially risking their neck if anything goes wrong.

Get a parent involved

You could do that, but only if you want your kid to get $hit on even worse in school. Trust me, this never works and it only makes things much worse for the bullied kid.

So my mom's decided that she's going to get a labradoodle as her next pet.

Now to seek out labradoodle breeders in Ontario!

The one combination of poodle and another dog I've always found ridiculous is the Cockapoo (cocker spaniel and poodle). Seriously, Cockapoo? Who came up with that? The reverse (Poocock) doesn't sound any better. No matter what you do, it sounds like some sort of perverted sex act.

Thanks for the support Deadpool. I feel enough like an idiot already. My 19 month old was climbing all over me and distracting me, which definitely influenced my decision to allow him remote access (not my brightest move, I know).

I didn't mean to come across as criticizing you. I was commenting on the situation, but as usual with me, I give the impression that I'm harshly critiquing someone else (to the point of even insulting them). If that was the case, then I apologize.

I would seriously call Norton about this. First you need to turn the b!tch/as$hole switch on and call them and if someone doesn't give you the response you want, ask to talk to their supervisor. If you phrase it as "My computer was operating fine until two things occured: 1) I installed your software on it and 2) allowed your tech support people access to it. " The error is their tech support guy. Make sure you take notes as referencing names, times and what people said is a key to the "as$hole strategy". Just be persistent.

I completely agree. It'll be a difficult fight, but it's worth it.

My Dad was the same way. I think the problem isn't only general ignorance when it comes to immigration, but false influences from elsewhere. Movies, books, TV shows -- they all paint an incredibly unrealistic picture of immigration. Maybe they do it for the sake of the story (who really wants to watch a two-hour movie solely comprised of paperwork, medical and fingerprinting?), but the end result is people don't know the reality of it.

To be fair... I can't imagine most of us knew before we started the process. Immigration isn't something you give much thought to unless it directly affects you.

For the cat lovers: 6 Adorable Cat Behaviors With Shockingly Evil Explanations

As I resurrect this thread, here's an article about company logos that designers (and those who know them) might find amusing.

Just so you all know, the logos shown in that article are all REAL. I even looked some of them up just to be sure.

Well, that's great, but... there have been lots of different takes on WWI and WWII. I'd go by more than ONE source, if I were you.

history is written by the victors. the losers are all dead.

history written in the moment is of more value than that written decades later, with the burden of hindsight and social responsibility.

i have studied the question for 20 years, and have come to the same conclusions March did. if i still had every book i've read on this subject i could stack them upon your grave 13 feet deep.

I'm sure you could. Yes, history is written by the victors; however, I don't place one source, no matter how reputable it might be, as my sole area of information.

I still want to see other viewpoints and ideas. No matter how accurate and through March is, it's impossible for one person to cover everything on any subject. If it were, we'd have far fewer books in general, not just those related to history.

I'd remain wary. Open book tests are NEVER as easy as you might imagine.

stalin killed 5 if not more times as people as the nazis supposedly did. this topic is so beaten to death omg...enough with the jew bashing and the irrelevant, uninteresting,and stupid comments. thank you.

While I agree this topic has become a "dead horse", I have to ask: what Jew bashing? If anything, this thread is bashing Hitler, not the Jews.

I'd consider getting a NEXUS card if I traveled enough to make it worthwhile. When I do travel, it's usually by plane, so an EDL probably wouldn't amount to much. I guess it'd be useful if my wife and I wanted to drive into the U.S., but that probably wouldn't occur too often.

Okay, so here is what happened to the computer. I downloaded Norton, had a problem installing it and contacted their tech support. The guy said that I needed a newer version of XP and asked me to allow him remote access to my computer so he could download and install that. I did, he did a whole bunch of things on the computer (I was watching him go in and out of programs, etc.). Then he went to restart my computer and when he did, it stopped working. I just got an error message and nothing he tried to do would fix it. He said it wasn't his fault, that there had been something wrong with my conmputer obviously, and told me to call Dell. So, the Dell tech tried walking me through repairing it, but it would not work. She said the version of XP the Norton tech downloaded was incompatible with my computer and that is what she thinks caused the px. She said that the only thing left was to reinstall XP, which would wipe out everything. She suggested I take my computer in to get someone to retrieve data from the hard drive. So, we brought it to Staples last week. They called yesterday and said my hard drive was fried and they cannot access data. They could ship it off for $1500 and there is no guarantee data can be recovered. I took it to another computer specialist in the town and am waiting to see.

Your first mistake was installing a Norton product. I've never had any luck with those and neither has anyone I know. Stay away if you want a functioning computer.

You actually GAVE him remote access?

I have that turned off (I configure the hell out of my system) as I wouldn't trust anyone to take control of my machine.

A "newer version" of XP? There are no newer versions. XP isn't even made anymore. The only thing I can think of is he tried to download and install Service Pack 3 (and it didn't work right, which is really no surprise) or he somehow wanted to run the 64-bit version of XP, instead of the more common 32-bit copy. There are other versions of the OS, but none that'd make any sense for a normal desktop or laptop.

The Norton tech probably said it wasn't his fault because he blamed a piece of software unrelated to Norton. In this case, he's probably referring to XP crapping out on you, which was probably his doing. Even so, he can take that route and claim no responsibility. One of the very many reasons (even beyond standard security practices) why I never allow anyone remote access to my computer.

How could the HD be fried? If the OS screwed up, the HD would still be operational. Hard drives are hardware devices whereas the operating system is software. The two are unrelated in this case.

WWI wasn't France's or Germany's fault. However, they both escalated the situation, as did other world powers like Great Britain, the United States and the Ottoman Empire. When the Central Powers lost WWI, Germany was held responsible (mostly because Germany did most of the damage) and the Treaty of Versailles destroyed Germany's economy, divided up previously owned areas and disallowed the formation of any military unit. This was the perfect catalyst for Hitler to unite Germany against the world and use Jews as Germany's scapegoat.

you need to read Francis March's History Of The World War. FM was a military historian, Ph D, and son of Gen Peyton March, Chief Of Staff Of The United States Army. FM wrote the official history in 1918. it is quite detailed, and i have a first edition copy. FM does not quite agree with you...

Well, that's great, but... there have been lots of different takes on WWI and WWII. I'd go by more than ONE source, if I were you.

hitler was a near genius with a manic personality and some delusional disorder. he was also clever enuf to capitalise upon the horrific situation the french had foisted upon germany in versaille. if any single nation is to blame for WW2 in europe, it is france, squarely.

If we're going to play the "blame game", let's point fingers at both Serbia and Austria. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire held Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a young Serbian man named Gavrilo Princip was a member of a freedom movement called "Young Bosnia." "Young Bosnia" was involved with the "Black Hand," a secret society based on Pan-Slavist principles and the unification of all Slavic nations.

Princip believed in these principles and was part of a group who set out to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The assassination worked and both Ferdinand and his wife were killed. Naturally, this led to Austria declaring war on the Kingdom of Serbia. Russia, Serbia's ally, came to Serbia's defense and that's when Austria's ally, Germany, declared war on Russia. You can see where this is going.

WWI wasn't France's or Germany's fault. However, they both escalated the situation, as did other world powers like Great Britain, the United States and the Ottoman Empire. When the Central Powers lost WWI, Germany was held responsible (mostly because Germany did most of the damage) and the Treaty of Versailles destroyed Germany's economy, divided up previously owned areas and disallowed the formation of any military unit. This was the perfect catalyst for Hitler to unite Germany against the world and use Jews as Germany's scapegoat.

I've had migraines since I was seven years old. Sometimes I get an aura and sometimes I don't. One of the many migraine triggers for me is rapid weather changes and unfortunately, Vancouver does that very well. To be fair, so did Houston. The only place I've found that worked well for my head was San Francisco and the cost of living there makes Vancouver look cheap.

I take Relpax and that works really well for me. Unfortunately it's also very expensive. Too bad my Dad can't bring home samples for me now.

I remember when my Dad brought home Imitrex when it first came out -- and it was in injection form. They didn't have the pill form until later. I never handled Imitrex well, especially when it was injected. I'd get breathing difficulties and my muscles would spasm. Zomig and Maxalt worked well and I liked the fact Maxalt also came in dissolvable tablets. Axcert gave me chest pain, so I stopped that one. Amerge was useless for me and Stadol made me hallucinate.

A funny story about Stadol: I took it one time when I was a living at home (I must've been in my late teens) and I started to see things. I had a model of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701A (yes, I am that much of a dork) and I saw it attacking me. That was obviously disturbing, so I gave my Dad a call and he thought this was hilarious.

I've also had weird side-effects from pain medication, like Ultram (tramadol). Usually it makes me hyper, but one time I got "high" from it. I don't remember this at all, but my Mom said I thought the words "the" and "whatever" was so funny that I couldn't stop laughing.

And on a final note... I used to play EverQuest a long time ago and I named one character "Zomig." I thought it sounded fairly fantasy-like. Well, within the first ten minutes of game play, someone came up to me and said: "Hey, I take that medication!"

Antisemitism wasn't new to Germany (or the world) in the early 20th century. Hitler merely stirred up Germany's anger at the Treaty of Versailles (and the countries who wrote it) by directing their animosity at an old, but faithfully hated, target: the Jews.

Blaming the Jews for what occurred during WWI was a way for Germany to escape looking inwards and taking responsibility for its actions. Why take responsibility when you can blame someone else for your problems?

Something else to remember is at the study of eugenics was very popular shortly before and during Hitler's rise to power. Eugenics extended far beyond Germany into other areas of Europe and North America. Using eugenics as a stepping stone, Hitler made Germans believe that Jews were on a "lower rung" of humanity and had failed to "evolve" like non-Jewish Germans. In order to "save the German people", Hitler said it was imperative that Jews get excluded from certain professions, schools and activities, eventually resulting in the creation and use of concentration camps.

Was Hitler insane? Maybe, but he was also a genius when it came to manipulating people. Even if he wasn't crazy, the fact he could do that so easily is more than scary enough.