Quote:
|
Originally posted by Devils Advocate+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils Advocate)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(1) "We give a great deal to this federation for very little return". This insinuates that other provinces DON'T GIVE A GREAT DEAL TO THIS FEDERATION.[/b]
|
You are trying to turn the word "deal" into a quantifiable number where it wasnt used as such. I never stated or implied that other provinces dont put a great deal into this federation. I said that Alberta doesnt get back nearly what it puts in. ie: we have a bad bargain.
Quote:
Originally posted by Devils Advocate@
(2) "Easterners have no interest in our grievances, because we dont matter to them. So long as our welfare cheques keep coming in the mail, they could care less." This insinuates that Easterners are too lazy to look for work... they don't care about Canada and the other provinces as long as they get their welfare.
|
Once again, you are confusing personal welfare with my description of the transfer system. I'll say it again: my usage of "national welfare" has nothing to do with indivudal welfare, and people being too lazy to get jobs.
<!--QuoteBegin-Devils Advocate
(3) But primarily it was the "we keep this nation afloat" - which suggests that Alberta earns all the money. It's like the husband who comes home and tells the exhausted wife who's been taking care of the kids all day that he deserves more respect because "he pays all the bills".[/quote]
To use your analogy, why doesnt the husband deserve that respect? Certantly the wife deserves a great deal of respect herself, but your comments seem to insinuate that the husband doesnt deserve as much respect because the wife works harder? Why is respecting both parties mutually exclusive?