Should Alberta separate?

[duncan]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 1 2005, 06:40 PM


1. Representation by population dosen't work when your population is centralized yet money from the smaller populations (ie Alberta) flows into the coffers in the center. The NEP was passed and almost destroyed Alberta, but it was sure good for Ontario. The Kyoto accord will greatly harm Alberta, yet the Federal government is going out of thier way to protect the auto industry in Ontario. Polls show that a majority of albertans are against gay marriage, but its what Ontario and Quebec want. In fact at its most base area, Alberta and B.C. and Sask don't vote for the Liberals, yet Ontario puts them into power.

This is a country governed in the best interests of Ontario and Quebec and screw the rest.

If we had a functional and proper senate that wasn't a country club we could balance the parliment out with it. But when an election is over before it even hits the Manitoba border then we're not living in a democracy, we're living in a fiefdom.

I'm all for enlarging the voting areas in Ontario and Quebec and reducing the number of seats residing there, while keeping the number of seats in the west and far east the same.

2. Geez what a terrible thing that Harper wants to bring down a corrupt government. Thats awful. so Martin promptly bends over for the NDP. And don't generalize me with the whole blind hatred of the Liberals thing. I mean honestlyI could say the same thing about you and the CPC.

The fact that Martin is willing to open up our wallet to the NDP in order to hold on to power is disgusting.



press - will you try to work with the conservatives over the possibility of a vote of non confident

Liberals - Those evil conservative bas**rds are trying to privatize health care while carting homosexuals off to consentration camps.




Please.

In one of Martin's last question periods before he went on his little roadshow was asked about the adscam scandal and promptly turned it around with a statement about the Conservatives going after Health Care.

so in response to your please, I say please



Also the Liberals were totally in favor of opening our wallets to appease the wack jobs in the NDP. Trading tax cuts for more stupid and un neccesary spending in order to keep thier grip on power.




See my point above. That only resulted because Harper was so desperate to gain power himself, and the original Conservative-friendly budget fell by the wayside once Harper said he wasn't going to support it afterall.

Bull, initially Harper said that he was willing to support the budget, and try to make parliment work, but as more garbage came from the Gomery Inquiry he withdrew his support. At least he's willing to call a spade a spade. The Liberal party in place is corrupt and criminal and needs to go, at least Harper has been consistant unlike Layton who was willing to use this to his advantage. And Martin and his weepy television speeches and false apologize.

Do I hate the Liberal's, hell yeah, but here's a little tidbit for you, I voted for the Liberals after the last Conservative government fell to scandal and garbage.

As for Liberal corruption, when it all comes out it's all just individuals and they should be held accountable and they will. Calling the liberals corrupt because of a few individuals that have broken the law is like calling the all Cons, Neo-Con like, or having hard core US style evangelical attitudes because a few do in the party. Equally foolish.

Sorry I'm not buying this at all. But nice try trying to absolve the crimes. I guess then you could say that the policies of the Soviet government were just the fault of one or two really bad people.

the Liberal party is responsible for its conduct.

If Martin wants to prove good faith, then he should resign and leave politics since as the second highest ranked Liberal he has shown himself as too incompetant or stupid to be able to control his party. And if he didn't know, then he's too stupid to run a country let alone a parking lot.

This is too well organized, to be the act of a few individuals. Now I will say that Chretian was a corruption force of his own, as were Stewart and the HRDC scandal, and the Gun Registry was the act of an individual, and then there's Gomery. So if you look at thier past records and its a few individuals, its all the ones at the top who have to take responsibility and go.

But I'm out of this debate, because I can see where its going to go with March Hare and others calling me a big red neck ignorant Liberal Canadian hating bas**rd.

Have a nice day.

wow. all I can say, wow.

The largest income for our Federal government comes from Ontario's tax base and industry, while Ontario gets diddly in subsidies. NAFTA and other trade agreements have caused thousands of industrial jobs disappear to American, Mexican and other foreign markets. Live in southern Ontario, and you see the empty Toyota, GM and Honda plants, no financial aid was granted for the thousands of tradesmen who lost their livelyhoods.

Banning gay marriage goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is discriminatory. If Alberta wanted slavery, should we make it legal?

The Liberals are in power because of the Bloc Quebecois. If the Conservatives could get the vote there, get any support, there would be a new government. Tough to get support from a province, when the leader of the party states he could care less about them or their desire to separate.
This country is governed by the vote, that all votes are equal, as are all of its citizens. I'm all for equality, something that Canada was supposed to stand for.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Thunderball@May 1 2005, 07:21 PM

I also find it very disheartening that everyone assumes that Alberta is simply gonna fall into oblivion when oil "runs out". Nova Scotia never had the investments, diversifications and rainy day funds that modern Alberta has. Unbridled by the Feds, Alberta should be a very diversified economy by the time Oil is reduced to an industrial ingredient, rather than the lifeblood of society.

Like the guy from the Maritimes said, Nova Scotia would have considered itself to be extremely diversified back in the day.

The problem is that things change and without a huge bread basket like oil, would Alberta be able to afford the luxury of continually diversifying and adapting? Seems like it would be a massive task for a small, landlocked, water deprived country.

[Hakan]

Not to mention that if Alberta does succeed its chances of being allowed into NAFTA are nil. I forget which part of the agreement it is but there is a rule that inclusion of any other countries to NAFTA has to be done with unanimous concensus of the orginal three countries. Canada would certainly nix any attempt to allow Alberta into NAFTA as that rule was adopted at Canada's will as a measure against Quebec.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 1 2005, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 1 2005, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@May 1 2005, 07:21 PM

I also find it very disheartening that everyone assumes that Alberta is simply gonna fall into oblivion when oil "runs out". Nova Scotia never had the investments, diversifications and rainy day funds that modern Alberta has. Unbridled by the Feds, Alberta should be a very diversified economy by the time Oil is reduced to an industrial ingredient, rather than the lifeblood of society.

Like the guy from the Maritimes said, Nova Scotia would have considered itself to be extremely diversified back in the day.

The problem is that things change and without a huge bread basket like oil, would Alberta be able to afford the luxury of continually diversifying and adapting? Seems like it would be a massive task for a small, landlocked, water deprived country. [/b][/quote]
Thats a very good point. Of course, Nova Scotia didn't have, umm, Nova Scotia to learn from. To be fair, it can also be argued that the Federal Government greatly contributed to the downfall of Atlantic Canada. Of course, it should be stated that just because Oil will become less prevalent in the future doesn't mean that:

A. it won't still be immensely important as an industrial tool (petrochemicals=plastics),
B. massive pipeline construction won't be needed in the future for things like water,
C. Nothing will fill the gap,
D. The Oil Companies themselves won't diversify into alternate energy sources, or E. The Province will have spent away every cent of royalties.

In order for Alberta to hit the tailspin many predict, fear or hope... all 5 of those things would have to happen. As it stands, its safe to say that multi-billion corporations don't just shrivel up and die as a group, water pipelines will be needed, diversification is in fact happening, and the province is saving and investing massive amounts of money.

It should be stated that there is a large amount of freshwater in Northern Alberta, and that would fuel the future... as it would if Alberta was still part of Canada.

I personally feel that Alberta should join up with BC, NWT, Yukon and Sask and become one country, or at VERY minimum, take NWT as a cold water harbor. I also feel that Alberta could survive on its own, albeit with some initial diffculty. It should be noted that the rail is something Canada could ill-afford to screw Alberta with... cause either BC gets cut off from Canada, or everywhere but BC gets cut off from the Pacific Rim. So long as Alberta has rail connections, a port deal wouldn't be too difficult.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Hakan@May 1 2005, 02:21 PM
Not to mention that if Alberta does succeed its chances of being allowed into NAFTA are nil. I forget which part of the agreement it is but there is a rule that inclusion of any other countries to NAFTA has to be done with unanimous concensus of the orginal three countries. Canada would certainly nix any attempt to allow Alberta into NAFTA as that rule was adopted at Canada's will as a measure against Quebec.

Whats stopping Alberta or a Western Republic from creating its own free-trade pact with the US and Mexico and simply ignoring Canada?


But to answer the NAFTA arguments, whats stopping Alberta or the Western Republic from strong arming Canada into voting them in, especially with that railway issue (less so if all of Western Canada leaves). Same goes for Quebec and blockading the St. Lawrence Seaway, declaring it (possibly rightfully sovereign waters). Canada is very, very vulnerable, so I suspect they'd talk tough, but go along with letting Alberta, Western Republic or Quebec in... too much of a risk if they don't. Of course there's always the big, bad USA... if they want Alberta/Western Republic, Quebec, Chile, Honduras or anyone in NAFTA, you know they'll make life miserable for whoever doesn't side with them. Canada sans Alberta/West and Quebec would be quite impotent against American pressure in that situation.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Thunderball@May 1 2005, 08:25 PM

It should be stated that there is a large amount of freshwater in Northern Alberta, and that would fuel the future... as it would if Alberta was still part of Canada.

And pump it uphill for 1000 km? Alberta had better become extremely diversified to be able to afford to that, because the energy costs would be huge. There's a reason why the already puny southern tribs are used to irrigate the areas right next to the S. Sask River, and that the larger S. Sask River isn't used instead.. The only cost effective way to move water is down hill. Right now, the development in most of Southern Alberta is hampered by the access to water. You won't be able to see growth in Alberta like in other arid places such as Arizona that have massive aquifers, and you aren't going to see a lot of industry wanting to move north where the water is either when they can just locate in other parts of Canada closer to large population centres that have access to larger markets.

Add to that the real possibility that Montana will divert water from the southern tribs in the future.

[Hakan]

A cold water port is ostensibly useless you realize?

[CaptainCrunch]

NAFTA dosen't stop the U.S. or Mexico from negotiating exclusive deals on specific imports with non member countries.

so its likely that if Alberta were to jump ship, the U.S. would negotiate more favorable terms with Alberta concerning Oil and Water, and conversely Alberta wouldn't be forced to give favorable terms to the rest of Canada concerning Oil and ag products.

It would become a huge bonndoggle if Alberta were to seperate. Canada could screw with rail and port agreements, and Alberta could turn off Oil, gas and agricultural goods.

Its a no win for either side, but Alberta would probably be able to bounce back faster.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 1 2005, 02:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 1 2005, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@May 1 2005, 08:25 PM

It should be stated that there is a large amount of freshwater in Northern Alberta, and that would fuel the future... as it would if Alberta was still part of Canada.

And pump it uphill for 1000 km? Alberta had better become extremely diversified to be able to afford to that, because the energy costs would be huge. There's a reason why the already puny southern tribs are used to irrigate the areas right next to the S. Sask River, and that the larger S. Sask River isn't used instead.. The only cost effective way to move water is down hill. Right now, the development in most of Southern Alberta is hampered by the access to water. You won't be able to see growth in Alberta like in other arid places such as Arizona that have massive aquifers, and you aren't going to see a lot of industry wanting to move north where the water is either when they can just locate in other parts of Canada closer to large population centres that have access to larger markets.

Add to that the real possibility that Montana will divert water from the southern tribs in the future. [/b][/quote]
Yep... thats a huge problem either way though, ain't it?

I think its a project that might have to be undertaken though... there's definitely enough pipelines in place to pull something that ambitious off... the thing is the pumping... it would be tremendously expensive... but there's not much choice in the matter unless weather patterns change and we get back to the climate that created the Pleistocene Lake Calgary...

Unified Canada, Alberta or Western Republic... thats a daring project we have to start considering.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Thunderball+May 1 2005, 01:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunderball @ May 1 2005, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@May 1 2005, 02:21 PM
Not to mention that if Alberta does succeed its chances of being allowed into NAFTA are nil. I forget which part of the agreement it is but there is a rule that inclusion of any other countries to NAFTA has to be done with unanimous concensus of the orginal three countries. Canada would certainly nix any attempt to allow Alberta into NAFTA as that rule was adopted at Canada's will as a measure against Quebec.

Whats stopping Alberta or a Western Republic from creating its own free-trade pact with the US and Mexico and simply ignoring Canada?


But to answer the NAFTA arguments, whats stopping Alberta or the Western Republic from strong arming Canada into voting them in, especially with that railway issue (less so if all of Western Canada leaves). Same goes for Quebec and blockading the St. Lawrence Seaway, declaring it (possibly rightfully sovereign waters). Canada is very, very vulnerable, so I suspect they'd talk tough, but go along with letting Alberta, Western Republic or Quebec in... too much of a risk if they don't. Of course there's always the big, bad USA... if they want Alberta/Western Republic, Quebec, Chile, Honduras or anyone in NAFTA, you know they'll make life miserable for whoever doesn't side with them. Canada sans Alberta/West and Quebec would be quite impotent against American pressure in that situation. [/b][/quote]
Wow, imaginary scenario land is fun isn't it?

First you're assuming that BC will want to secede as well as the territories.

Then you assume that this new state will be in some kind of favourable bargaining position to dictate trade negotiations while completely ignoring how fragile and utterly dependent this new state's economy will have on trade. The big players, Canada, the US and Mexico will dicate the trade talks for inclusion to NAFTA. Sure you can negotiate bi-lateral agreements with the US and Canada but they wont be nearly as favourable as the actual NAFTA agreement. So if you're prepared for a handcuffing trade situation, then by all means, secede.

You then assume that the US will want to have this new nation as a NAFTA partner at the political - diplomatic cost to their relationship with Canada. Sorry, not going to happen. The most likely situation is that you get swallowed up by the United States as the 51st state.

But lets keep going and playing in scenario land. This is great fun.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Hakan@May 1 2005, 02:38 PM
A cold water port is ostensibly useless you realize?

A cold water port would be usable at least part of the year, and judging from what I've been hearing, the Arctic is gonna be a heavy seaway in 20-30 years due to climate change/global warming.

In other words, its better than no port for now, and may be worth a lot in the future.


Also with all this Canada/NAFTA reciprocity, I think we can all agree that it would be better for all sides to be cordial. If Canada gets benevolent, its gonna backfire and look bad on it. Picking on a breakaway republic, be it economically, politically or militarily will obliterate Canada's reputation and damage its foreign relations. Conversely, the less growing pains for a new country the better.

If Canada fails, its better off to be pals than to have a "bitter divorce".

[CaptainCrunch]

Adding to the whole make believe scenario

We don't know how the U.S. would react to a breakup with Canada. It might just move to kill the whole NAFTA deal since Canada isn't Canada anymore. And besides its not like relations between Canada and the U.S are stellar right now, they just might love an opportunity to stick it to Paul Martin.

We don't know.

Hopefully it dosen't come to this, but if Alberta splits off from Canada and tries to establish thier own trade agreements with the States, then Canada or Nafta has no say it in.

However with the U.S's need for Oil, and thier desire to reduce thier consumption of mid east oil, I'm pretty sure that Alberta would be able to gain pretty favorable terms from the States. And if we can sell our goods and services straight to the U.S. without Ottawa intervention, then we can remove the trade hammer from the surviving Canada since we can get any goods and services from the States that we could get from Canada.

Just theorizing anyways.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Hakan+May 1 2005, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hakan @ May 1 2005, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Whats stopping Alberta or a Western Republic from creating its own free-trade pact with the US and Mexico and simply ignoring Canada?


But to answer the NAFTA arguments, whats stopping Alberta or the Western Republic from strong arming Canada into voting them in, especially with that railway issue (less so if all of Western Canada leaves). Same goes for Quebec and blockading the St. Lawrence Seaway, declaring it (possibly rightfully sovereign waters). Canada is very, very vulnerable, so I suspect they'd talk tough, but go along with letting Alberta, Western Republic or Quebec in... too much of a risk if they don't. Of course there's always the big, bad USA... if they want Alberta/Western Republic, Quebec, Chile, Honduras or anyone in NAFTA, you know they'll make life miserable for whoever doesn't side with them. Canada sans Alberta/West and Quebec would be quite impotent against American pressure in that situation.

Wow, imaginary scenario land is fun isn't it?

First you're assuming that BC will want to secede as well as the territories.

Then you assume that this new state will be in some kind of favourable bargaining position to dictate trade negotiations while completely ignoring how fragile and utterly dependent this new state's economy will have on trade. The big players, Canada, the US and Mexico will dicate the trade talks for inclusion to NAFTA. Sure you can negotiate bi-lateral agreements with the US and Canada but they wont be nearly as favourable as the actual NAFTA agreement. So if you're prepared for a handcuffing trade situation, then by all means, secede.

You then assume that the US will want to have this new nation as a NAFTA partner at the political - diplomatic cost to their relationship with Canada. Sorry, not going to happen. The most likely situation is that you get swallowed up by the United States as the 51st state.

But lets keep going and playing in scenario land. This is great fun. [/b][/quote]
Its also fun to be condescending...

Of course its hypothetical at this point!!!

One would assume that if Alberta leaves, it means Quebec left too... all of a sudden Canada is down 11 million people and a lot of sway, so major power... heh, right. If Quebec breaks down Confederation, it is very likely that BC, Sask and the Territories will be worried about their future too. Losing Quebec means Ontario is the majority now. They'd most likely see a better chance banding together and going it as a whole.

Oil would naturally give leverage to any trade agreements, and since Canada is in a weakened position, they would be far less able to hold anyone down. Canada would be in flux too you realize... plus as mentioned by myself and CaptainCrunch, its not like Canada is not gonna be without instability. The US and Mexico will be the only big players left. They'll call the shots, no doubt. But its in their interests to play fairly. Mexico needs consumers for their growing industry and the US needs oil.

The US needs oil, and they want harmonious relations with ALL their neighbors, including their new ones. Think they're gonna flip off Alberta/West and Quebec cause Canada will be happy if they do... I doubt it. Plus, like I just said in my last post, its better for everyone if Canada is cordial in this, and I think they would be. Destabilizing North America is gonna result in all of Canada becoming the 52 through 62nd states.

Scenario land is fun, and until you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that your opinions are 100% accurate, you're blowing as much BS as anyone else.

[Hakan]

Wake up people. The Americans would like 'your' oil but you NEED to sell your oil. Does anyone else not understand this? You are far better to go into trade negotiations with Canada's bargaining position than with Alberta's position. Quit being so pompas about Alberta. It has oil, that's it. The Americans are NOT going to stick anything to Paul Martin or to Canada over Alberta. Canada's relationship is far more important strategically to the US then Alberta's oil.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Hakan@May 1 2005, 02:59 PM
Wake up people. The Americans would like 'your' oil but you NEED to sell your oil. Does anyone else not understand this? You are far better to go into trade negotiations with Canada's bargaining position than with Alberta's position. Quit being so pompas about Alberta. It has oil, that's it. The Americans are NOT going to stick anything to Paul Martin or to Canada over Alberta. Canada's relationship is far more important strategically to the US then Alberta's oil.

Yes... because Oil is so worthless its SOOO hard to sell cause no one needs it

Wake up yourself!

Oil is the most important commodity Canada provides the US. So, yeah... they don't want it... they'd rather buy automobiles from Ontario... oh! wait! what are they gonna fuel them with!?! yeah.... Or for a non-Alberta-centic example, they're gonna choose Canada over Quebec, cause that hydro electricity is so useless to the Eastern Seaboard.

The Americans are gonna look out for their best interests, which is optimum relations with all their neighbors... they are not gonna look the other way on us. I thought we clearly stated many times that if Alberta separates, its VERY likely that Quebec and some other provinces left too, so Canada is not "all powerful". Our strategic relationship with the States is very strained right now, and to get strong allies, I think the US would marginalize Canada, should they not tow the line too.

We'd all like Canada to work, I think we've all said so in this thread, but it doesn't work as is, and if the Liberals win again, its very likely the beginning of the end. No one is gonna reform the system here to make it work. Once one province leaves, thats it, game over.

[Hakan]

Are you joking? Partisan politics and corruption make a country not work? From the last time I looked our debt burden is lowest of the G7 we've had one of the healthiest economies in the world. We have universal health care, great hockey teams and a charter that is recognizing the rights of individuals and minority groups. Get over yourself for a second and realize that you're just p*ssed that the Liberals are still popular despite a massive corruption. That's not Canada's or the Canadian Parliamentary/Federal systems fault but the fault of one bigoted backwards political opposition party who STILL can't unseat the liberals despite this big gift wrapped scandal.

Start looking at changing the political party you support not the composition of this country.

Hakan out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Thunderball+May 1 2005, 09:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunderball @ May 1 2005, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@May 1 2005, 02:59 PM
Wake up people.# The Americans would like 'your' oil but you NEED to sell your oil.# Does anyone else not understand this?# You are far better to go into trade negotiations with Canada's bargaining position than with Alberta's position.# Quit being so pompas about Alberta.# It has oil, that's it.# The Americans are NOT going to stick anything to Paul Martin or to Canada over Alberta.# Canada's relationship is far more important strategically to the US then Alberta's oil.

Yes... because Oil is so worthless its SOOO hard to sell cause no one needs it

Wake up yourself!

Oil is the most important commodity Canada provides the US. So, yeah... they don't want it... they'd rather buy automobiles from Ontario... oh! wait! what are they gonna fuel them with!?! yeah.... Or for a non-Alberta-centic example, they're gonna choose Canada over Quebec, cause that hydro electricity is so useless to the Eastern Seaboard.

The Americans are gonna look out for their best interests, which is optimum relations with all their neighbors... they are not gonna look the other way on us. I thought we clearly stated many times that if Alberta separates, its VERY likely that Quebec and some other provinces left too, so Canada is not "all powerful". Our strategic relationship with the States is very strained right now, and to get strong allies, I think the US would marginalize Canada, should they not tow the line too.

We'd all like Canada to work, I think we've all said so in this thread, but it doesn't work as is, and if the Liberals win again, its very likely the beginning of the end. No one is gonna reform the system here to make it work. Once one province leaves, thats it, game over. [/b][/quote]
You completely read my thoughts on that last post by Haken. The U.S. needs our oil more than it needs Ontario's cars. It needs Quebec's eletricity more than it needs Ontario's technology.

The U.S. needs resources more then it needs finished goods, and it would be willing to pay money to get it. They wouldn't expect it for free.

Besides it shows shortsighted ness to believe that Alberta only has Oil. Oil is a big basis for our economy, but as its been pointed out, Alberta has spent a lot of money to diversify its base so we're not dependant on it.

countries that have a need for wheat will buy it from us if we provide favorable terms, and any money that we lose on the selling price will be made up for the fact that we're not sending money to Ottawa.

And I love that fact that somebody is telling Albertan's not to be so pompous, . We're just tired of being marginalized and molested by a centralized government, that can't even be bothered to listen to us (IE last election campaign Paul Martin dosen't even campaign in Alberta).

And why is Canada's relationship with the states strategically important anymore?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Hakan@May 1 2005, 09:13 PM
Are you joking? Partisan politics and corruption make a country not work? From the last time I looked our debt burden is lowest of the G7 we've had one of the healthiest economies in the world. We have universal health care, great hockey teams and a charter that is recognizing the rights of individuals and minority groups. Get over yourself for a second and realize that you're just p*ssed that the Liberals are still popular despite a massive corruption. That's not Canada's or the Canadian Parliamentary/Federal systems fault but the fault of one bigoted backwards political opposition party who STILL can't unseat the liberals despite this big gift wrapped scandal.

Start looking at changing the political party you support not the composition of this country.

Hakan out.

Bigoted and backwards in whose eyes?

Obviously not in Alberta or Western Canada, obviously in the minds of those vastly superior intellects in the East that are so willing to buy hook line and sinker into the lines that are spewed by a morally corrupt cabal government.

I guess that puts Alberta into the minority and we certainly don't have a government thats willing to look after our rights. the only thing we're good for is signing checks.

I'm stepping out of this, its apparrent that its never going to be solved.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Hakan@May 1 2005, 03:13 PM
Are you joking? Partisan politics and corruption make a country not work? From the last time I looked our debt burden is lowest of the G7 we've had one of the healthiest economies in the world. We have universal health care, great hockey teams and a charter that is recognizing the rights of individuals and minority groups. Get over yourself for a second and realize that you're just p*ssed that the Liberals are still popular despite a massive corruption. That's not Canada's or the Canadian Parliamentary/Federal systems fault but the fault of one bigoted backwards political opposition party who STILL can't unseat the liberals despite this big gift wrapped scandal.

Start looking at changing the political party you support not the composition of this country.

Hakan out.

We can argue this all day, so I'll sum it up right here, and call it a day:

Corruption is a very large problem in Canada as its starting to become apparent that the Liberals are not all smiles and sunshine. Perception is another very large problem. What you call bigoted and backwards, many other people would call responsible and moderate. There is very little difference between the US Dems and the Canadian Conservatives... but perceptions make it seem so. However, perception is not a new problem. Many people don't like the Conservatives because they represent the West, who should be seen and not heard. Quebecers and Westerners are shocked an appalled that there is even a chance that the Liberals will win again, even if other G7 countries have corruption, they tend to punish it, not add another term, even if they aren't in love with the alternative.

When people feel hopeless and disregarded, they get upset and look for change. Quebec has tried twice, and got closer each time. This sponsorship scandal is a very big deal to them, and if the Liberals win, they will feel betrayed by Canada, and quite possibly hold another vote before 2008 that they may win this time. Without Quebec, the rest may very well follow.

I still hold out hope that the Cons will win, but if they don't its a serious problem. If it was Conservatives in office, I would be voting Liberal on principle that my party did wrong and must be punished. If this doesn't happen, it means Central and Eastern Canadians so hate the people and ideas of Western Canada that they rather be run by crooks. Thats horrible! and incredibly divisive.

Great hockey teams? maybe... but Healthcare system that everyone gets to wait hours for, and a poorly written charter are not something to be particularly proud of. Debt load happens to be because we're the smallest and youngest of the G7...

The Reform/CA/CPC have done nothing but change to attempt to gather support, and for almost 20 years, they have failed. Maybe its just the way Canada is.

That is a problem, that's why talk like this happens, and thats why it could very well happen someday.

[CaptainCrunch]