Dion breaking up Canada...
ziggy @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:28 pm
USCAdad USCAdad:
How many people support a One World government? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just have one governing body?
Like the UN?
Bodah @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:28 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
ziggy ziggy:
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
Canadaka Canadaka:
I should just fucking ban all you seperatist fucks, you make me sick.
Oh cry cry, we loose our conservative government, so lets work to break up the best country on earth.
I truely beleive even in Quebec and Alberta the people that want to seperate are small numbers, that are just vocal. Some people might consider it on a poll here or there, but when it really came down to it they would be for Canada.
Many US states have seperation parties or groups like above as well.
Man, the bolded part is the best line I've ever seen come from a webmaster...
Otherwise I wholeheartedly agree.
Every province has seperatist movements,you cant just bury your head in the sand and hope they go away because they wont.

Oh no, I'd much rather go out and shoot the bastards. Not like that'll ever be legal though... To bad eh?
Was hopign for some frogs for dinner.
It always amazes me how the smallest groups have the largest voices.
Your all for Canadian unity huh? but in the same breath you call french people frogs, .... your an idiot.
lack of regional representation. While each region within Canada has distinct cultures, they are nowhere near as different as general Canadian culture and say... Islam. I don't want 50 million Muslims or 800 million buddists having more say than me over what we do with my backyard.
Again, same can be said about the regions of Canada, but inbetween our regions we really arn't that different, and it would all eventually go towards benifitting us as a whole. Canada as a nation within this world government could be ass raped of all her resources tomorrow, and aside from the water issue, the world wouldn't even notice. We would just be one more tree fallen in the forest that is the worlds resources.
Bodah Bodah:
Your all for Canadian unity huh? but in the same breath you call french people frogs, .... your an idiot.
Did you even bother to read my posts after that? I call french separatists frogs. If they want to be distinct, might aswell associate the distinct people with something I hate as much as them.
French Canadiens on the other hand, I love them. And I'd be as pissed of at anyone who calls them frogs as much as you and others are at me for calling the separatists frogs.
SJ-24 @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:33 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Tricks Tricks:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Tricks Tricks:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Tricks Tricks:
Yes lets elect the NDP for Electoral reform, the watch our economy sink faster then a submarine with screen doors. Not to mention our military volunteer numbers drop, and the equipment get so old we have to blow dust off them when the NDP grows a spine.
I'll admit that the NDP would kill our economy and military if elected just as soon as you admit that Harper has a hidden agenda to criminalize homosexuality and abortions if granted a majority.
Abortions maybe, but not homosexuality. This hidden agenda shit is a scare tactic that has been used by the left, and now that Harper is in office and isn't seen as some scary guy, then they can't stand on that any longer.
This "NDP will destroy the economy" shit is a scare tactic.
No, a scare tactic is when it isn't true. The NDP nearly drove the Ontario economy into nothing. The NDP actually will destroy the economy.
The
RECESSION nearly drove the Ontario economy into nothing. Good lord, you think that was all the NDP? Think it only hit Ontario? No. The only thing the NDP had to do with that was the misfortune to have been elected at the wrong time, and we've been paying for it at the polls ever since.
Then explain what they did in BC? We had the nations fastest growing economies with so much work we were bring in people from Mexico (which we are doing again by the way), yet the NDP managed to drive us to the brink of a economic death.

Face it Hurley, Socialism doesn't work and is the party of the lazy and slightly retarded.
ziggy ziggy:
USCAdad USCAdad:
How many people support a One World government? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just have one governing body?
Like the UN?
Something like the UN perhaps. Just the basic concept. It could be democratic, each individual on the planet get's one vote, the planet would be devided into their current States forming a single representative body.
$1:
Depends, what would we get back? Military protection? Unless there was a benefit to us, then no, I wouldn't.
Edit - ah, I see where your going with this. The united Kingdom allowed us to come to be, so under my logic we would be forever indept to them.
However, that dept was written off once they granted us independance as a nation.
Very good. Although we never were granted "independence" just political sovereignty and self-government. We still share the same head of state with the United Kingdom. But if our debt is some how erased because we obtain sovereignty then if Western Canada forms it's own country what would we owe Canada then? I guess nothing at least that is what you just said, isn’t that all the more reason to leave then if our debt to Canada would be removed?
SJ-24 SJ-24:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Tricks Tricks:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Tricks Tricks:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Tricks Tricks:
Yes lets elect the NDP for Electoral reform, the watch our economy sink faster then a submarine with screen doors. Not to mention our military volunteer numbers drop, and the equipment get so old we have to blow dust off them when the NDP grows a spine.
I'll admit that the NDP would kill our economy and military if elected just as soon as you admit that Harper has a hidden agenda to criminalize homosexuality and abortions if granted a majority.
Abortions maybe, but not homosexuality. This hidden agenda shit is a scare tactic that has been used by the left, and now that Harper is in office and isn't seen as some scary guy, then they can't stand on that any longer.
This "NDP will destroy the economy" shit is a scare tactic.
No, a scare tactic is when it isn't true. The NDP nearly drove the Ontario economy into nothing. The NDP actually will destroy the economy.
The
RECESSION nearly drove the Ontario economy into nothing. Good lord, you think that was all the NDP? Think it only hit Ontario? No. The only thing the NDP had to do with that was the misfortune to have been elected at the wrong time, and we've been paying for it at the polls ever since.
Then explain what they did in BC? We had the nations fastest growing economies with so much work we were bring in people from Mexico (which we are doing again by the way), yet the NDP managed to drive us to the brink of a economic death.

Face it Hurley, Socialism doesn't work and is the party of the lazy and slightly retarded.

Define economic growth. Define economic death. 'Cause I've found a table on BC's GDP, "the economy," and it shows pretty much uninterrupted growth from 1981 to 2005.
Table
Bodah @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:47 pm
Canadaka Canadaka:
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
For the folks that are narrowminded - you are in infinite dept to the country, and you should be willing to pay it. By country I don't mean Quebec or Ontario, I mean the country as a whole, including your own bloody region. Remember, the country as a whole once supported your region to help you grow, you should be willing to do the same for the country, so that the country can grow and in turn support otherregions grow, which soemday will come back to benifit you.
HEAR HEAR, I agree with the entire post
One thing to support the country, its another to conitinually give money (transfer payments) To provinces labeled as have not provinces for decades. One of these provinces has a population of 8 million and are still have not province. How many more decades will it take for them to get their shit together then ? Or maybe some of them are thinking why bother ALberta and Ontario will take care of us.
If this is what your talking about, lets see how long we can sustain this before people start revolting to do so wouldn't but unpatriotic but self-preserving because you refused to get out of this "dont worry be happy" dreamworld that dont want to assign responsibility to anyone.
Im not saying we should stop helping other provinces, but if your continually giving for decades and nothing changes, doesn't that raise any concern to both of you? Or is it all dont worry be happy bs because you haven't quite hasn't grasp the politics of the country yet and how it works.
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
Depends, what would we get back? Military protection? Unless there was a benefit to us, then no, I wouldn't.
Edit - ah, I see where your going with this. The united Kingdom allowed us to come to be, so under my logic we would be forever indept to them.
However, that dept was written off once they granted us independance as a nation.
Very good. Although we never were granted "independence" just political sovereignty and self-government. We still share the same head of state with the United Kingdom. But if our debt is some how erased because we obtain sovereignty then if Western Canada forms it's own country what would we owe Canada then? I guess nothing at least that is what you just said, isn’t that all the more reason to leave then if our debt to Canada would be removed?
I suppose it would. But that isn't the honourable thing to do is it? When you leave/left home, you didn't leave planning on abandoning your parents did you? Same reason why the west shouldn't leave Canada on the premise that we would no longer be in dept to it.
BTW - Clogeroo, I love debating with you, this is like a game of chess. Have to know what the other person is going to say many moves before they do.
Bodah Bodah:
One thing to support the country, its another to conitinually give money (transfer payments) To provinces labeled as have not provinces for decades. One of these provinces has a population of 8 million and are still have not province. How many more decades will it take for them to get their shit together then ? Or maybe some of them are thinking why bother ALberta and Ontario will take care of us.
If this is what your talking about, lets see how long we can sustain this before people start revolting to do so wouldn't but unpatriotic but self-preserving because you refused to get out of this "dont worry be happy" dreamworld that dont want to assign responsibility to anyone.
Im not saying we should stop helping other provinces, but if your continually giving for decades and nothing changes, doesn't that raise any concern to both of you? Or is it all dont worry be happy bs because you haven't quite hasn't grasp the politics of the country yet and how it works.
I agree. I think part of the problem is that we have been giving to much cash to Quebec, as well as constantly interfere with business affairs, such as making Boeing do 60% of their purchases there.
transfer payments should be based on net loss per person, and have that number reduced per year after ten years.
So pulling numbers out of the air for Quebec, if they have a -$800 million budget, thats 100 dollars lost per person. transfer payments, i don't know how it works now, should be willing to cover half that cost, so 50 dollars per person. thats 400 million dollars in federal transfer cash. after 10 years, they payments would be reduced percentage wise, this is to prevent the provinces from freeloading and not doing anything to help themselves. so year 11 would be -10%, so that original 50 would become 45, year 12 -20%, so 40 dollars, and so on. eventually, by year 20, there would be no payments unless the province can somehow prove that it needs the money for economic development.
think it would work?
Bodah @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:01 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
Bodah Bodah:
Your all for Canadian unity huh? but in the same breath you call french people frogs, .... your an idiot.
Did you even bother to read my posts after that? I call french separatists frogs. If they want to be distinct, might aswell associate the distinct people with something I hate as much as them.
French Canadiens on the other hand, I love them. And I'd be as pissed of at anyone who calls them frogs as much as you and others are at me for calling the separatists frogs.
So now according to you the racial slur "frogs" means French separatist only and not loyal french Canadians ?
Nice try Tex,
That folks is what we call backpedaling.
SJ-24 @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:01 pm
Well, it sounds fine, but here is the part where the Quebec PR machine is startin up again to steal more money from the "stupid anglos", but this time with the help of leader of France.....
$1:
January 22, 2007
Royal says she favours Quebec sovereignty
PARIS (CP) - French presidential candidate Segolene Royal says she sympathizes with the idea of Quebec sovereignty.
The Socialist hopeful was asked about her thoughts on Quebec's national question after a short meeting with Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair in Paris today. Royal, whose main rival on the French right is Nicolas Sarkozy, said Quebec and France have common values.
However Quebec Premier Jean Charest says only Quebecers will decide their future, while Boisclair says Royal's comments show she's sympathetic to sovereignty and understands his message.
Charest will attend an environmental conference in France at the beginning of February.
SJ-24 SJ-24:
Well, it sounds fine, but here is the part where the Quebec PR machine is startin up again to steal more money from the "stupid anglos", but this time with the help of leader of France.....
$1:
January 22, 2007
Royal says she favours Quebec sovereignty
PARIS (CP) - French presidential candidate Segolene Royal says she sympathizes with the idea of Quebec sovereignty.
The Socialist hopeful was asked about her thoughts on Quebec's national question after a short meeting with Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair in Paris today. Royal, whose main rival on the French right is Nicolas Sarkozy, said Quebec and France have common values.
However Quebec Premier Jean Charest says only Quebecers will decide their future, while Boisclair says Royal's comments show she's sympathetic to sovereignty and understands his message.
Charest will attend an environmental conference in France at the beginning of February.
No problem with Dion having French citizenship there.
RUEZ @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:04 pm
ReliableIntelligence ReliableIntelligence:
You expect him to commit to voting for a budget he hasn't seen yet?
What kind of responsible opposition leader would do that?
I certainly don't expect him to say he won't support it without seeing it, like he has already.
$1:
I suppose it would. But that isn't the honourable thing to do is it? When you leave/left home, you didn't leave planning on abandoning your parents did you? Same reason why the west shouldn't leave Canada on the premise that we would no longer be in dept to it.
BTW - Clogeroo, I love debating with you, this is like a game of chess. Have to know what the other person is going to say many moves before they do.
But all children leave home don't they? Right now we are more in the same house with our parents. I don't think leaving home would be abandoning them but it is just the inevitable that when your children get older and feel more responsible they want to take on new responsibilities and assert their independence. So by becoming responsible of our own province how is that really wrong? I don’t think it is totally going against Canada it is just taking control of our lives.
Look at Australia and New Zealand two countries, which share a great deal with one another politically, culturally, and in every fashion yet are two countries with two parliaments. Why can’t we have an arrangement like that with Canada? Australians and New Zealanders are also allowed to study, work, and visit each other’s countries as if they are the same citizens as well. Just because we become our own country would not mean all the positive elements of our relationship would have to end. We could have the best of both worlds if we wanted too.