Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

A Vietnam-era editorial

Media Vietnam era Op-ed

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#21 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 10:41 AM

Every year Alberta contributes billions more to Canada than it gets back.

Remember, a few years ago we had three "have" provinces, BC, Alberta and Ontario.

Right now, there's just two, Alberta and Ontario.  Alberta is on the verge of being debt free.

(a few years too early for my liking, Calgary has pressing infrastructure needs that should be addressed first, but I digress.)

Ontario has huge budget problems.

It's not too far-fetched to say that 'progressive' 'tolerant' Canada only functions because of Alberta money.

Posted Image
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#22 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 10:42 AM

Guldorak, on Apr 22 2004, 08:11 AM, said:

CJ AEGIS, on Apr 22 2004, 01:13 PM, said:

Guldorak, on Apr 22 2004, 07:32 AM, said:

Judging by you post your understanding of Canada and Canadian issues is quite slippery.
Back it up.  I have no problems(very glad he pointed out my error) with Jid stating I was wrong with the demographics, which was mostly a guess on my part.  Or that he wanted clarification on the statement that I made about Westerner feeling alienated by the government “stealing their oil” through the NEP.   I’d love to see your problem with it so I can refute or at least see where I am off.  It would be much more useful rather than a you don’t understand much about Canada statement.
You simply don't grasp Canadian attitudes. You seem to think they are identical to American ones. Just mingle with a bunch of English Canadians and you'll see.
And you seem to think that all Canadian attitudes are the same.

mystic
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#23 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 12:45 PM

Quote

Guldorak: You simply don't grasp Canadian attitudes. You seem to think they are identical to American ones. Just mingle with a bunch of English Canadians and you'll see.
You seem to be thinking that I don’t know anything about Canadian attitudes.  I happen to live in New York State and close enough to Ontario that we have a fair degree of interaction with Canadians.  Trust me I’m very well aware of Canadian altitudes in regards to many things and many of which have a negative impact on my state.  As for me thinking Canadian and American attitudes are the same I said no such thing.  If anything as I said in my post any type of a mainstream concept of separating from the United States was wiped out very bloody during the Civil War.  For Canada it takes a referendum.  Somehow I doubt Canada has too many Lincolns in Ottawa who would be up to fighting a Civil War to change that reality.

As for mingling with English Canadians….  Hmmm novel idea...  I might try that sometime. :-D  Winks at Mystic!

Quote

Mr. C: It's not too far-fetched to say that 'progressive' 'tolerant' Canada only functions because of Alberta money.

I think this is the heart of the matter.  How long will Alberta stand being a cash cow to support Canada as a whole?  When if they strike out on their own they can keep the money in Alberta and have a higher standard of living than if they were part of Canada.  Even if Alberta couldn’t make it as viable national entity ala Texas they could always join the States down the road.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#24 Guldorak

Guldorak
  • Islander
  • 393 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 01:37 PM

Mr.Calgary, on Apr 22 2004, 03:39 PM, said:

Every year Alberta contributes billions more to Canada than it gets back.

Remember, a few years ago we had three "have" provinces, BC, Alberta and Ontario.

Right now, there's just two, Alberta and Ontario.  Alberta is on the verge of being debt free.

(a few years too early for my liking, Calgary has pressing infrastructure needs that should be addressed first, but I digress.)

Ontario has huge budget problems.

It's not too far-fetched to say that 'progressive' 'tolerant' Canada only functions because of Alberta money.

Posted Image
Frankly I highly doubt it. I'll have to look into when I do have some leisure time.

#25 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 02:03 PM

Guldorak, on Apr 22 2004, 11:35 AM, said:

Mr.Calgary, on Apr 22 2004, 03:39 PM, said:

Every year Alberta contributes billions more to Canada than it gets back.

Remember, a few years ago we had three "have" provinces, BC, Alberta and Ontario.

Right now, there's just two, Alberta and Ontario.  Alberta is on the verge of being debt free.

(a few years too early for my liking, Calgary has pressing infrastructure needs that should be addressed first, but I digress.)

Ontario has huge budget problems.

It's not too far-fetched to say that 'progressive' 'tolerant' Canada only functions because of Alberta money.

Posted Image
Frankly I highly doubt it. I'll have to look into when I do have some leisure time.
Please do.  :whistle:

We have eight "have not" provinces who sit cap in hand waiting for Ottawa to dole out equalization funds.

Where's this money coming from?

Alberta and Ontario.

It's public knowledge that Ontario has big budget problems.

Alberta is on track to be debt free some time in 2005.  Our 100th birthday.  Premier Klein looking for a legacy.

Going from memory, the NEP sucked out between $180 and $200 Billion dollars from  Alberta.

Canada's current national debt is around $510 Billion.

If we snapped our fingers and Alberta suddenly became a have-not province, this country (and province) would be rocked.

:egads:
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#26 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 02:25 PM

Guldorak, on Apr 22 2004, 08:32 AM, said:

Judging by you post your understanding of Canada and Canadian issues is quite slippery.

Guldorak said:

You simply don't grasp Canadian attitudes. You seem to think they are identical to American ones. Just mingle with a bunch of English Canadians and you'll see.

Guldorak said:

Frankly I highly doubt it. I'll have to look into when I do have some leisure time.

Please do so.  I'm unfamiliar with the current state of Canada and its future trends, but terse "You obviously don't know what you're talking about" responses won't further this discussion unless you can back up your claims with something.  I encourage you to contribute to the discussion, as this has become a very educational thread for me. (I had no idea Canada might be facing such serious hurdles).  But please do so only if you're going to contribute something a little more insightful than "You're wrong."

-Nick

Edited by Nick, 22 April 2004 - 02:26 PM.


#27 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 03:35 PM

Quote

The setting of the prices by the Federal government served to protect the interests of the industrialized section of central Canada including Ontario rather than those of the west. This matter is going to rush right back to the forefront as the energy situation degrades and oil becomes less available. Even just quick internet search reveals that a lot of people are fearful that the new environmental standards and Kyoto will be the NEP all over again for Alberta.

Yeah, the Kyoto thing is a raw deal on a lot of fronts mostly because the Federal Government is throwing levies in the wrong places.  Certainly in central Canada, their mandate of cleaner industrial emissions is well founded.  Not much of a problem either.  Update the scrubbers on the smoke stacks, institute a plan to try and shift the power hungry industry towards cleaner alternatives.  (Another rant I'll spare you all on their specific plans..)

But, unfortunately, that sorta breaks down trying to regulate the oil industry, where the bulk of the pollution is caused by the consumer, rather than the provider.

Overall, though, regarding the Federal government's talent for mismanagement and inability to get things done, I'd lay a huge portion of the blame at the feet of regional factionalization in the House of Commons.  With the Bloc Quebecois' meteoric rise to official opposition status in the 1993 government, government itself began to break down into a factional squabble.  If you ever watched a session of the house, it was so sad to the point of almost being amusing.  The BQ would often portray Quebec as the discriminated minority, to which Reform MPs would stand up and more or less call the BQ drama queens, before launching into their own story of the poor marginalized west.

Naturally, the Reform (later Canadian Alliance, now a little under 85% of the Conservative Party of Canada's seats in the House) gained huge support in the Western Province.  (House of Commons Stats source: http://www.statcan.g...gdb/govt10a.htm )

So, federally, we're at odds over regional disputes.  In short, we're all screwed, because the ruling party draws its strength mostly from Central/Eastern Canada, the Opposition represents almost exclusively the West, and the third most popular party is a representative of a bit more than half of Quebec.

However, I suspect, on the issue of Kyoto, when push comes to shove, Canada's voters will shove back: The easiest way to influence a voter is through their pocketbooks, and (much as I hate to admit it) if Big Oil has the savvy to ding us all in the pocket book, you can bet the party that promises to find a way to fix that is going to win a lot of support everywhere.
cervisiam tene rem specta

#28 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 03:47 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Apr 21 2004, 06:28 PM, said:

It means that many factors are going to come colliding together in about the next two decades.

1) Aging Baby Boomer Population:

This is going to stress existing social programs to the breaking point as more people draw out of them and as less put back into them.  We already see it in the US with fear over Social Security.  Canada will be facing the problem threefold with her larger degree of social programs.  Hate them or love them the one thing you have to admit is National Health Care and other social programs require a lot of tax money to maintain.  As the population ages you have more people drawing and less paying back in.  Call it a demographics war in reality.  The boomer population will be demanding more funding and a higher level of services for their benefit.  The younger generation who are under an increasingly heavier tax burden will be looking for relief and growing resentful.  Now Alberta and BC are already cash cows that are milked to support Quebec and the poorer provinces/territories.  Yet I?m willing to bet the west is also a proportionally younger section of the country than some of the rest.  What you are dealing with is having the population who will be most resentful with heavier taxes largely bottled up in the West.    

2) The Lifeblood of Alberta is Oil:

This might seem like a case of Duh!  Albertan Oil is now largely being taken out of the province by the government in Ottawa with many Albertans seeing their fair share of the profit being stolen.  Now tell me what is going to happen over the next few decades as the oil reserves in Alberta continually shrink and the Federals hog the wealth.  People will become more annoyed with the government ?stealing? their wealth for redistribution as Alberta becomes continually poorer.  Then add in the fact that the government returns little in the way of developing new sources on income in return   Now tell me what is Alberta without the oil in terms of wealth?  Then factor in what Kyoto will do and the fallout over the next decade over that.  You are dealing with a lot of wealth being lost and a lot of jobs being threatened along with the economic viability of the province at risk.

Note: I?m not saying this phenomenon of colliding population pressures is unique to Canada.  The US should be taking some serious gut punches during this time too.  This will be especially true when it comes to the situation of the aging population of boomers.  The difference is that the US solved the issue of separatist?s movements making any progress years ago.  It died at the cannon?s mouth and was stomped into the mud.  In Canada it takes a referendum?.
That's the problem with your argument right there. You're taking some demographic and economic trends that are based in fact (Except maybe for the statement about the Feds taking lots of oil money out of the province. That's pretty much a provincial government entitlement, and has been since the NEP was abolished.), and then combining those trends with a rather large assumption about Canadian people - this idea that we're less bound together than the citizens of other nations, that all it would take is a referendum to sunder the country.

The thing is, we're just as nationalistic and patriotic as the people of any other nation, even if we don't show it. The scenario of a separatist Alberta is viewed around here (in Alberta, that is) with about the same amount of credibility usually reserved for stories of alien abduction, because Albertans generally view themselves as Canadians first, and Albertans second. (And the same is true for all the other other provinces, except Quebec.) Local politicians love to complain about the Federal government because "Ottawa doesn't care about us" is an easy bandwagon to ride, but I'm sure those same politicans wouldn't want to run a country of their own. That would be unCanadian, and who could they complain about then?

So no, I'm not packing my bags. This nation will be around for centuries to come, or at least it has the same chance of survival as any other country. Quebec separatism was a historically unique, once in the lifetime of a country phenomenon that actually helped the rest of us decide what it truly meant to be Canadian. In an ironic sort of way, the Bloc and all those silly separatist men with their endless whiny demands helped pull Canada together by showing us how distasteful the alternatives were.

And the ship sails on.

#29 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 03:52 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Apr 21 2004, 07:28 PM, said:

I’d say give Canada twenty years before you can make any guesses about the future of the nation as a whole block and if anyone wants to cut and run.
Never happen. Canada's been through worse crises than the ones you're describing above, and nobody split. It's just not going to happen.

The only proof I need is that, were I to throw the same allegation back at you replacing my country's name with yours, you'd argue vehemently that it'd never happen. Sure, maybe you'd actually offer proof, but I don't need to. You're wrong.

And Mr.Calgary, I'd disagree about apathy being what's going to tear Canada apart. It's probably the only thing that's keeping the country together.

We're not going anywhere. Because Canadian nationalism is founded on two things: the country being better off together than apart, from sea to sea, and the need to say "screw you!" as loudly as possible to as many Americans as we can.

Anyone who says otherwise is selling out.

Note that I am not the official ambassador on behalf of Canada to the Ex Isle. If I was, I'd care a lot more and actually argue the point. I offer a wave of my wing, and say "bah", as my rebuttal.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#30 Guldorak

Guldorak
  • Islander
  • 393 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 04:13 PM

Mr.Calgary, on Apr 22 2004, 07:01 PM, said:

Guldorak, on Apr 22 2004, 11:35 AM, said:

Mr.Calgary, on Apr 22 2004, 03:39 PM, said:

Every year Alberta contributes billions more to Canada than it gets back.

Remember, a few years ago we had three "have" provinces, BC, Alberta and Ontario.

Right now, there's just two, Alberta and Ontario.  Alberta is on the verge of being debt free.

(a few years too early for my liking, Calgary has pressing infrastructure needs that should be addressed first, but I digress.)

Ontario has huge budget problems.

It's not too far-fetched to say that 'progressive' 'tolerant' Canada only functions because of Alberta money.

Posted Image
Frankly I highly doubt it. I'll have to look into when I do have some leisure time.
Please do.  :whistle:

We have eight "have not" provinces who sit cap in hand waiting for Ottawa to dole out equalization funds.

Where's this money coming from?

Alberta and Ontario.

It's public knowledge that Ontario has big budget problems.

Alberta is on track to be debt free some time in 2005.  Our 100th birthday.  Premier Klein looking for a legacy.

Going from memory, the NEP sucked out between $180 and $200 Billion dollars from  Alberta.

Canada's current national debt is around $510 Billion.

If we snapped our fingers and Alberta suddenly became a have-not province, this country (and province) would be rocked.

:egads:
My problem is with your figures not the who gets and pays the transfer figures. Its been a while but I read something in the last quarter of 2003 that surprised the hell out of me but it seems to put a diffrent spin to what you said. I need to dig it up again.

#31 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 04:31 PM

What is this? The "I don't need no stinkin' proof" day?? :eh:

mystic
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#32 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 04:33 PM

^ Every day is "I don't need no stinkin' proof" day ;)

:whistle:
cervisiam tene rem specta

#33 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 04:39 PM

the'Hawk, on Apr 22 2004, 01:50 PM, said:

Never happen. Canada's been through worse crises than the ones you're describing above, and nobody split. It's just not going to happen................................

And Mr.Calgary, I'd disagree about apathy being what's going to tear Canada apart. It's probably the only thing that's keeping the country together.
:yin-yang:

So Canada will never split apart as long as apathy holds its grip on most of us. :wacko:

Hmmm.

I see us riding the rails like the Soviet Union was (remember them?)

At some point there's going to be a missing bridge.  


Posted Image
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#34 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 04:47 PM

Mr.Calgary, on Apr 22 2004, 08:28 AM, said:

:eek4:  :dizzy:  :Oo:  :eek2:  :crazy:

No danger!! Ye gods man.  We're sliding into the toliet! :(

I'd place apathy as the number one danger to Canada.

As a fellow Albertan, I consider myself a nationalist. (the main reason I went NDP in my teens and twenties)

However, even as a Canadian nationalist, I'd vote yes in a separation referendum.

Canada as a country is broken and the folks with the power aren't all that interested in fixing anything. (unless the 'fixing' puts money in their pockets.)

I'm flabbergasted how anyone could say we're in no danger.



Posted Image
What specific dangers are we facing, Mr.Calgary? They're slowly shrinking the national debt, and all the other numbers are more or less on track...

Imo, the current government is a bit like Velveeta. There's a little bit of everything blended together into a composite that's more or less healthy, but not very extreme. There's nothing to get excited about, but nothing horribly wrong either. (Aside from a few Chretien-era problems like the Sponsorship Scandal, the Sea Kings, and the Gun Registry.) Martin's Administration is probably the least exciting regime in many a year, but that has its good side as well as its dull one.

Imo, it's very refreshing to talk about domestic politics for once! We're always discussing foreign affairs here. :p

Edited by Kevin Street, 22 April 2004 - 04:48 PM.


#35 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 04:49 PM

Kevin Street, on Apr 22 2004, 01:45 PM, said:

........The scenario of a separatist Alberta is viewed around here (in Alberta, that is) with about the same amount of credibility usually reserved for stories of alien abduction, because Albertans generally view themselves as Canadians first, and Albertans second.
:yin-yang:

We have completely different impressions of what's going on in this province.

Albertans, I would generalize, see themselves as doing a lot of the financial heavy lifting in this country and getting pissed on for our troubles.

To paraphrase J. Chretien when he was Prime Minister....."they're not the sort of people I like to do business with"

I would say a seperation referendum would get a bare minimum of 25%.  That's nothing to sneeze at.  A lot of folks would jump at the opportunity to land a haymaker on Ottawa's chin.  Which would move it beyond 35%

I'm sitting here still pondering Hawk's thesis of apathy as a good thing.  :wacko:  :wacko:  :wacko:
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#36 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 04:53 PM

Kevin Street, on Apr 22 2004, 02:45 PM, said:

What specific dangers are we facing, Mr.Calgary? They're slowly shrinking the national debt, and all the other numbers are more or less on track...
I've started my list........

I'll keep working on it around my other time demands. :bigsmile:
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#37 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 04:53 PM

Mr.Calgary, on Apr 22 2004, 02:47 PM, said:

I would say a seperation referendum would get a bare minimum of 25%.  That's nothing to sneeze at.  A lot of folks would jump at the opportunity to land a haymaker on Ottawa's chin.  Which would move it beyond 35%
I guess we hang out with different crowds. Most folks I know would be surprised that the question was even on the ballot, then they'd vote "no" and go back to whatever they were doing. ;)

Edited by Kevin Street, 22 April 2004 - 05:08 PM.


#38 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 05:03 PM

Mr.Calgary, on Apr 22 2004, 05:47 PM, said:

I would say a seperation referendum would get a bare minimum of 25%.  That's nothing to sneeze at.  A lot of folks would jump at the opportunity to land a haymaker on Ottawa's chin.  Which would move it beyond 35%
Quebec got 49.6% and they're still part of Confederation.

What's your point?

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#39 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 05:06 PM

The Sponsorship Scandal was mentioned earlier, for those of you who have no idea what that is go
here

And here to get a basic overview

mystic

Edited by mystic, 22 April 2004 - 05:06 PM.

If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#40 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 05:14 PM

Quote

Jid: Certainly in central Canada, their mandate of cleaner industrial emissions is well founded.

Yeah I’m well aware of that fact.  New York is suffering from the environmental follies of central Canada.  Mmm Acid Rain!  I’m meeeelllllttttttiiiinnnnggggg!  

Quote

Jid: So, federally, we're at odds over regional disputes. In short, we're all screwed, because the ruling party draws its strength mostly from Central/Eastern Canada, the Opposition represents almost exclusively the West, and the third most popular party is a representative of a bit more than half of Quebec.

Those are the regional disputes that are not going to go away.  If anything they will grow greater over years and have been steadily growing greater. Alberta and Quebec are the linchpins of the matter and if either decide to cut and run then it will be the first dominoes.  Considering Quebec all most did cut and run last time.  Alberta is just a question of when they start to feel that too much is being taken out of them for the benefit of the nation rather than them.  

Quote

Kevin Street: The thing is, we're just as nationalistic and patriotic as the people of any other nation, even if we don't show it. The scenario of a separatist Alberta is viewed around here (in Alberta, that is) with about the same amount of credibility usually reserved for stories of alien abduction, because Albertans generally view themselves as Canadians first, and Albertans second
.

And as mystic said no one knows what the future holds.  Canadians in Alberta may still be largely in favor of being part of Canada but nothing prevents that from changing. As the economic situation falls further apart in Ontario and other provinces continue to call for more, as the nation ages Alberta will be the one that is turned to.  I notice that no one has yet to refute that Alberta is the cash cow for funding the other provinces.  Albertans will either have to accept the fact that they will be dragged down and cleaned out by the other provinces.  Or they will have to cut and run before it gets to be too much for their economic situation.   People are not going to sit there indefinitely as more and more money gets taken out and less comes back to help them.  

The assumption that Canadians are nationalistic and patriotic today will remain the same for the next two decades is rather silly.  You might as well say that because the United States had a high degree of patriotism and manifest destiny prior to the Civil War that we should have never split apart then.  Populations and what they seek change with the conditions around them and Canada is in a state of changing conditions that are worsening.      

Quote

Street: In an ironic sort of way, the Bloc and all those silly separatist men with their endless whiny demands helped pull Canada together by showing us how distasteful the alternatives were.

Yes with a vote backing that up that came within a few percentage points of ripping the country apart.  And unlike Quebec you have the matter that Alberta will have very real and tangible reasons why remaining as part of Canada will wear them down.

Quote

Hawk: The only proof I need is that, were I to throw the same allegation back at you replacing my country's name with yours, you'd argue vehemently that it'd never happen.

Actually I’ll argue that many of the same stresses will be very present in the United States during that time.  It would be namely the effect of an ageing population that desires to have more services from the government and a nation with a changing demographic structure.  The major difference is in the US the burden of the cost is less for the more wealthy states and spread out more so than in Canada.  We don’t have an Alberta that is paying for everyone else and their free ticket.  

The second matter is the big one on the matter.  The question of secession was solved in the United States years ago. As I said above it died at the mouth of cannons and under the boots of armies.  Secession from the United States is an extremely dead concept.  If it wasn’t for that reality I might agree with you that some portions of the US might be looking to split away by 2050.  I’m mostly thinking the Southwest and how the demographics will make it very different that say the Northeast.  The big difference is we don’t have secession and the last time it was tried a lot of people died with the matter being solved.  

Then you have Quebec and your system of being able to have a referendum on the matter of secession.  That is the very critical difference.  Then you have just how very close the last referendum was.  A few more percentage points or different wording to the question then we would be having a alternate history debate here.      

Quote

Hawk: Sure, maybe you'd actually offer proof, but I don't need to.You're wrong.

Nick put it very nicely above.  If you think I’m wrong then prove it with some facts and an argument.  

Now for some fun polls even if poll data cane be off it is still fun.  

Quebec:Separatism stronger

Quote

Quebecers' support for separatism has grown in the wake of a Liberal victory over the ruling Parti Quebecois, a new poll has found. The survey reveals that if a referendum on independence had been held in September, support for the "yes" side would have been about 47%. That's up from about 40% in 2001, according to the Centre for Research and Information on Canada which commissioned the poll.

Poll on Alberta:

Check Page 14.  You'll find that according to this poll 16.4% of Albertans favor separation with 17.4% favoring the status quo.  Then you have 44.1% favoring more power to Alberta in the confederation.  And then 9.1% can’t decide between any of those options.  If anyone thinks that the Separatist happen to be “sellouts” and just a fringe element is calling nearly 20% of the population of Alberta that.  Those numbers indicate that a serious amount of concern should be warranted but many Canadians choose to ignore it and assume Canada will exist forever.  As Alberta gets squeezed more and Ontario/Quebec refuses to release more power to Alberta that 44% and 9% will shift to favoring independence.  

Quote

Mr. C: I see us riding the rails like the Soviet Union was (remember them?)
It could be said that history has taught us that apathy only runs so far before it runs out and turns into resentment and then action.

Quote

Mr. C: I would say a seperation referendum would get a bare minimum of 25%.

Well I found a figure of 16% but some polls that I tossed aside for not looking as reputable and maybe too generous indicated between 20% to 30%.

Quote

Mr. C: I'm sitting here still pondering Hawk's thesis of apathy as a good thing.

Well if Canada went out Soviet Union style you wouldn’t have to debate about sending peacekeepers overseas or pay for travel expenses because they could work at home. ;)  And that was a joke. ;)

Quote

Hawk: Quebec got 49.6% and they're still part of Confederation.
Playing on the issue of wondering about apathy.  Exactly how is being a few points of a percentage away from separating a good thing?  :blink:


Quote

Street:
Imo, it's very refreshing to talk about domestic politics for once! We're always discussing foreign affairs here.

And it isn't Canadians going on about US domestic policies for once. ;)  We get to talk Canadian domestic policies.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 22 April 2004 - 05:25 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Media, Vietnam era, Op-ed

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users