As an Albertan, would you EVER support seperation from Canada?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

And the same, finished post is right above yours. I accidentally pressed submit before finishing the post.

If you don't understand how a situation in which a person spells an event in which they think they know so much of incorrectly, you will never understand.

On the first point, I noticed that afterward.

On the second, I notice that you still can't explain the irony. That only serves to reinforce my opinion you do not know what you are talking about.

Seriously, how does mispelling one word affect the legitimacy or merit of an argument?

Why are you completely unable to answer this?

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

On the first point, I noticed that afterward.

On the second, I notice that you still can't explain the irony. That only serves to reinforce my opinion you do not know what you are talking about.

Seriously, how does mispelling one word affect the legitimacy or merit of an argument?

Why are you completely unable to answer this?

Why are you completely unable to comprehend? You seem to have a very simple mind, and therefore I will give you a basic example so we can end this nonsense.

Lets say George Bush is an expert on terrorism, claims to know everything an anything about the subject, except there is one problem, he doesn't know how to spell the word correctly. George Bush writes a letter to the nation claiming "Terism will be defeated". Do you not see the irony in this? Understanding a subject begins with understanding the word and being able to spell this word correctly. Very simple.

Moving on..

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

If you think so.

Canada and the United States are oil dependant nations. There are obvious benefits to both sides to be fair, and there are obvious pitfalls to both sides to be petty or vindictive.

Of course, all of this angst can be nullified by renegotiating a fairer confederation.

What are the benefits to them for being fair?

It's pretty obvious we aren't going to stop selling oil. Reading through the pro-separation posts in this thread it's clear that we are depending on nothing else but the sale of oil to keep us afloat. We have to sell it. There is no holding back.

So if I've figured that out, don't you think the governments of Canada and the US will figure it out as well and use it to their advantage?

I watch the news quite often and one thing I know for sure is that the Americans are really goddamn serious about getting their hands on cheap oil. They aren't about to negotiate a fair deal with The Country of Alberta because it's a nice thing to do. I don't know whay Canada would either.

[Azure]

And to think I got flamed for saying that approx 40% of Albertans support seperation.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Why are you completely unable to comprehend? You seem to have a very simple mind, and therefore I will you a basic example so we can end this nonsense.

Lets say George Bush is an expert on terrorism, claims to know everything an anything about the subject, except there is one problem, he doesn't know how to spell the word correctly. George Bush writes a letter to the nation claiming "Terism will be defeated". Do you not see the irony in this? Understanding a subject begins with understanding the word and being able to spell this word correctly. Very simple.

Moving on..

One does not need to have perfect spelling to understand an argument, or the meaning of it. Then, of course, there is the fact that I do not claim to be an expert. I merely claim to have an opinion, which despite your pathetic attempts at dismissing are just as valid as yours.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The topic is confusing. The heading says 'Would I EVER support separation?' The poll says 'Should they separate?' While I do not think that Alberta should separate, I certainly agree with the tactic of threatening it. I mean, if QUebec can do it, why can't we? Until the feds stand up to Quebec and tell them that tactic won't work anymore, absolutely it makes a great tactic.

Someone else put the poll on there...I assume it was the mods.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

I would love to see a calculation of how much of that debt is our responsibility. Certantly would help me with the "what does Canada give us?" question.

How much money have we given out to this nation over the past several decades? Wasnt it something like $200 billion?

The debt that exists is the other way around.

The money we spent gave us things like millitary, health care, natioanl park, and many other things.

However my point is this: the money spent in the past we already agreed to spend. You can't go through a divorce, and start saying "well, I paid for the car we owned 10 years ago; so now she owes me for that...."

Obviously it is far more complex than any of us has time for here. And if we (Alberta and Canada) cannot come to a civil agreement, then it becomes a millitary issue. And that's something I don't think any of us want.

I'm trying to remember a famous quote; something along the lines of "Freedom does not come free." (It was probably a lot better worded than that.) At some point it will cost us money; everything from establishing currency to renewing passports. We'd have to set up borders, form our own millitary. I'm sure there'll be several lawyers involved, and that would cost money.

Then the big battle; where does the capital of the new country of Alberta get set up? Edmonton or Calgary?

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by Hakan

My god this is ridiculous. Seriously man. Give your head a shake.

A stable currency, international credit, pushing the natives off the land via treaty 2-7, investment, railroads, highways, security/military, weather stations, free trade within the dominion (which was huge), banking, federal loans when Alberta was a terribly poor province just to name a few right off the top of my head.

Your silence is deafening Snakeye.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What are the benefits to them for being fair?

It's pretty obvious we aren't going to stop selling oil. Reading through the pro-separation posts in this thread it's clear that we are depending on nothing else but the sale of oil to keep us afloat. We have to sell it. There is no holding back.

So if I've figured that out, don't you think the governments of Canada and the US will figure it out as well and use it to their advantage?

I watch the news quite often and one thing I know for sure is that the Americans are really goddamn serious about getting their hands on cheap oil. They aren't about to negotiate a fair deal with The Country of Alberta because it's a nice thing to do. I don't know whay Canada would either.

And the US and Canada arent just going to stop using oil.

So they try to cheat us, and as a result we dont sell them our oil. Instead, they go somewhere else. Suddenly these two nations are reducing their own supply, while demand remains constant. You dont think other oil producing nations wouldnt take advantage of them?

Also, do you think the Canadian people would be enthusiastic about paying higher prices in the interim while Canada works to set up deals with other oil producing nations?

Anyway, speaking of irony, here I am trying to defend a nation that I am arguing separation from. I just do not believe it is in Canada's best interest to be so petty. It would merely result in a case of a nation punishing itself.

Besides, who says it has to be acrimonious anyway?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hakan

My god this is ridiculous. Seriously man. Give your head a shake.

A stable currency, international credit, pushing the natives off the land via treaty 2-7, investment, railroads, highways, security/military, weather stations, free trade within the dominion (which was huge), banking, federal loans when Alberta was a terribly poor province just to name a few right off the top of my head.

I'm not sitting here hanging on your every word, Hakan. I'm typing these messages around other work that I am doing. Learn some patience.

Anyway:

An Albertan currency would definitely be more volatile, and most definitely oil dependant, but ultimately the Canadian dollar is being driven by oil at the moment, so the change would not be that great.

International credit can be built up in our own name. Treaties with natives can be carried over, or renegotiated. We've long since paid for our share of the railroad and other infrastructure (neither of which would be instantly cut off). Trade agreements, including NAFTA, could be negotiated between an independent Alberta and the rest of Canada - petty vindictiveness notwithstanding. Federal loans have long since been repaid, and then some.

Of course, one has to wonder if Alberta would have been so poor at the start if Canada hadn't initially denied us our right to our own resources, as a territory, and as a province?

However, as I have said, independence is a last resort. I think it can work, but it would also require a radical change in priorities for Alberta itself as well. I would much rather we remained a part of Canada, or, more accurately, became a part of Canada, but that is dependant on Canada, as represented by the government in Ottawa, is willing to negotiate a fairer deal for all regions of this supposedly great nation.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

So they try to cheat us, and as a result we dont sell them our oil.

We have to sell them our oil. That's what the whole separation idea (as I've read it here) is built on -- selling oil and using the money from that to look after ourselves and be rich.

It's either sell it to "them" or try (hope) to sell it to the rest of the world on "their" terms using infrastructure in "their" country on "their" terms.

Do you think that if we refused to sell our oil to Canada or the US that they'd let us just pump that oil through pipelines over their land and into tankers at their ports so it can be shipped to China or India? I don't think that's going to happen.

The US and Canada could and would do whatever they damn well please to us. They aren't going to be nice to us.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Why are you completely unable to comprehend? You seem to have a very simple mind, and therefore I will give you a basic example so we can end this nonsense.

Lets say George Bush is an expert on terrorism, claims to know everything an anything about the subject, except there is one problem, he doesn't know how to spell the word correctly. George Bush writes a letter to the nation claiming "Terism will be defeated". Do you not see the irony in this? Understanding a subject begins with understanding the word and being able to spell this word correctly. Very simple.

Moving on..

be fair .... the forum, standards and analytical support for the President of the United States when presenting an official position is slightly more stringent than that of a poster on a hockey message board.

[The Goon]

More importantly, could Alberta field a hockey team to take on the rest of Canada in international competitions?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

There's racism everywhere, and maybe you don't feel it while travelling, cause you're there for a short period of time, while you live here, giving you a much wider frame of reference. Think its bad here... try being a black man in the Southern US, or a blonde woman in Mexico and Latin America.

I know there's racism everywhere and I know it goes both ways. I'm not saying Calgary has racism like the Southern US or Mexico, I'm just saying it's there and you shouldn't pretend it's not. Despite its growth, Calgary still has a small town, Western attitude to it which does tend to sometimes alienate minorities (racial, or otherwise). Is it really bad? no, I love this city and I'm not trying to act like I've been too hard done by, but there certainly have been times where I've felt racism that I wouldn't expect in most big cities. For example, Calgary nightclubs. I don't think racial profiling at most of a cities nightclubs would be accepted in alot of other cities. I actually feel surpsrised at the ease in which I get into nightclubs in other cities (Vancouver, London, Las Vegas). I'm so used to my 50/50 chance, that I'm actually shocked when I don't have to deal with that elsewhere.

Calgary still has alot of growing up to do.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

be fair .... the forum, standards and analytical support for the President of the United States when presenting an official position is slightly more stringent than that of a poster on a hockey message board.

I had to use such a simple example because of the mental capacity of the poster. Normally I wouldn't use such a basic example, but the only way to get the point across was through this example.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Was I one of them? How does that even remotely compare to "disgusting pig of a man"? Or are you saying that if I think you are "left wing", I can substitute "disgusting pig" instead without any recourse? Hmmm? That OK by you?

I'd say "disgusting pic of a man" and "communist" are fairly comparible. And that comment wasn't about anyone on this board, it was about Harper, so you calling me names would have recourse. You were claiming that these comments are only allowed to go one way, and I'm simply saying that's not true. They go both ways, all the time. If you're gonna have a problem one way, you should the other too.

That "little story" was about an ant and a grasshopper. One of many emails "jokes" I get on a daily basis that I simply copied for everyone. How YOU interpret it is another matter.

Oh, my mistake. Somehow I thought the ant and grasshoppers were metaphors for something else.

Put me on ignore if you like. I wasn't even responding to YOU anyway. And next time you think it worthy of jumping into something that doesn't involve you, don't bother, I won't hear you.

No need for ignores. I get a chuckle out of your nonsense and I like the gamethreads.
Doesn't involve me?? I quoted you, just as you quoted someone else. What's the difference? His comment wasn't about you, yet you responded to him? A little hypocritical?
It's a public forum. I saw something I disagreed with and responded. If your don't want a response, keep your thoughts off the forums.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'd say "disgusting pic of a man" and "communist" are fairly comparible.

I am certainly no fan of communists but you really believe that disgusting pig of a man and communist are comparible??? One is a direct attack against a person and his character and the other is labeling someone for believing in a political view. You may have to explain further how they are comparible.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Why are you completely unable to comprehend? You seem to have a very simple mind, and therefore I will give you a basic example so we can end this nonsense.

Lets say George Bush is an expert on terrorism, claims to know everything an anything about the subject, except there is one problem, he doesn't know how to spell the word correctly. George Bush writes a letter to the nation claiming "Terism will be defeated". Do you not see the irony in this? Understanding a subject begins with understanding the word and being able to spell this word correctly. Very simple.

Moving on..

Stupidest argument I have ever heard...and even worse example.

There was this guy name of Jacques Demers...couldn't write much more than his name, and that was only after someone showed him how.

Well he used to talk about this game called hockey a whole bunch, even taught it quite successfully for a while, even has an award or two from the highest level for his "expertise" on the subject.

He couldn't even identify the letters needed to spell hockey, let alone use them in correct order.

Seems to me he did just fine both understanding and being an expert, all without writing the word hockey.

What a ridiculous comment. Simple minds indeed.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Stupidest argument I have ever heard...and even worse example.

There was this guy name of Jacques Demers...

Ha ha. No doubt.

Enough damn spelling already. It's sidetracking a good argument between Friday-night-homebound nerds.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I know there's racism everywhere and I know it goes both ways. I'm not saying Calgary has racism like the Southern US or Mexico, I'm just saying it's there and you shouldn't pretend it's not. Despite its growth, Calgary still has a small town, Western attitude to it which does tend to sometimes alienate minorities (racial, or otherwise). Is it really bad? no, I love this city and I'm not trying to act like I've been too hard done by, but there certainly have been times where I've felt racism that I wouldn't expect in most big cities. For example, Calgary nightclubs. I don't think racial profiling at most of a cities nightclubs would be accepted in alot of other cities. I actually feel surpsrised at the ease in which I get into nightclubs in other cities (Vancouver, London, Las Vegas). I'm so used to my 50/50 chance, that I'm actually shocked when I don't have to deal with that elsewhere.

Calgary still has alot of growing up to do.

well, nightclubs are hardly indicative of the norm... but I hear you there.

Nightclubs in Alberta (Edmonton clubs are apparently as bad) practice racial profiling because of the violent acts that have been perpetrated by Lebanese, Asian and other gangs. Is this fair? not to the decent people of these ethnicities. But to the owners of these clubs it means business. If there are crimes commited in these establishments, it affects their bottomline, or even their existence (Palace). What happened there is the report of a violent crime decimated the reputation of that club, less and less people came, and it was eventually closed down.

Its easier for them to just keep everyone of that ethnicity out, rather than risk some of them getting in and causing trouble. Its an extension of the mentality that the policing of gangs in Alberta is not effective. Not that I specifically agree with that, but its to protect everyone else.