Mad_Michael

Excellent point.

Really? This would be funny if not for the bigotry and hatred it tries to conceal. First of all, it was the Liberal Party of Canada that passed the same-sex legislation in response to the fact that the Courts had struck down the previous law as unconstitutional. Essentially, gay people had nothing directly to do with it.Besides which, legislation is passed through our legislature at the behest of much smaller proportions of our populace on a regular basis. Indeed, I'm aware of a couple of pieces of legislation that have passed the Canadian Parliament for the sole benefit of a single family. Huh? This makes no sense. Please explain. Why not? Society previously sought to ban said culture and persecute gays for being distinct. Make up your mind. Bemused giggles. Everyday is a straight parade! Why do straight people always try this argument? It is absurd. If you want a straight parade, go ahead - nothing by your own laziness is stopping you. If you can find enough sponsors and enough community support, go for it. The logisitic arrangements are enormous and the commitment from the organisers has to be second-to-none.

The difference is that Nathan Philips Square (in front of City Hall) is owned and totally operated by the city. Thus, all events at Nathan Philips Square are "g-rated" for family entertainment - with typically bureaucratic rules of political correctness. A couple of years ago the Bare Naked Ladies were prohibited from playing at a City Hall New Years Eve concert due to their name. In contrast, the Gay Pride Parade is entirely a private organisation, held by a notable community group, funded by private sector donations. The decency standards applied to this event are those of the relevant community - which one might say are somewhat more lax than that of the uptight city bureaucrats. Thus, the two events are not comparable. Try comparing two City Hall sponsored events and show me the same 'inequality'. Or perhaps, show me two separate private events on city streets and show me the same 'inequality'. So, in conclusion, I must say, you most certainly are looking like a bigot here. You appear to be looking for some thing to rationally justify your bigotry. Like most bigots, your facts have been cherry-picked for the purpose of expressing your bigotry.

Not quite. If anything was this simple, countries all over the globe would be playing this trick. Repudiation of debt is very, very serious and no aspiring separatist nation can possible consider this possibility with any seriousness. Repudiating debt would paralyze the banking sector of any region upon doing so. A newly declared state with a 'less than junk bond' ranking on their sovereign debt ain't going to last long in this world given that export economies are underwitten by government loan guarentees - loan guarentees that would not be available if one repudiates the debt. The ultimate irony is that by any reasonable consideration, the largest portion of the Canadian national debt is due to Quebec (or Quebec was the primary or majority receiver of such spending). Interestingly enough, according to the studies I've seen, if Quebec were to separate from Canada, that would result in a 10-15% drop in Quebec's GDP and a corresponding 10-15% increase in GDP for the rest of Canada. That ought to tell you who fiscally benefits the most from Canadian confederation.

Actually, I've offered Leader's Circle an argument, but he appears to be disinclined to take it up. Thus, I should think his real goal is to just help to spread the propaganda and to hide when challenged.

It seems silly to have to say this, but evolution and big bang theory are both accepted as compatible with Christian theology by the largest Christian church in the world (RCC) under the analogy of the 'watchmaker'. This was made official back in the 1960's.

I'm definitely missing something here. Thread seems more accurately named "fallacies of foolish people".

As far as I understand economics and the historical record here, the Canadian dollar moves in direct proportion to the world commodity price index. Previous high level in this index correspond to the later 1970's period, with a low point in the mid-80's. Both of these points correspond to the high and low point of the Canadian dollar. At present, the world commodity price index is on a solid upward trend for the last couple of years. Thus, so is the Canadian dollar.

Northern Ireland, the Basque, Southern India, Indonesia and early 1970's Quebec, all offer examples of separatist terrorism.

Actually, I have three degrees, but felt that to announce that would have been pretentious. I only add the information now since you seem set upon mocking me and that is tiresome. That much is obvious. Absolutely. However, what I do know is that a lot of what you are saying about Albertan separation is as honest and truthful as that which is commonly asserted to support Quebec separatism. In other words, lots of lies and propaganda. When I'm familiar with the data or the issues, I'll do my best to correct any erroneous assertions. Yes, you have the right to hold any opinion you like. However, the minute you go posting that opinion in a public discussion forum, others can and will hold your words to account.

No, a rebuttal would reply to the points I've made regarding the position that you've put forward here. I have called into question the veracity of some of your statements. $20 billion figure is the NET loss of tax funds in Toronto. It is gross-receipts.Speaking of which, the $11 billion figure given appears to ignore net receipts to Alberta. The SPA website mentions this. I find it hard to believe there are no hospitals, universities, mortgaged buildings, airports or bridges in Alberta, let alone any old people or welfare cases. Provinces receive general funding back from the Federal government to fund these various services. No one disputes that Alberta is a 'net' tax contributor in Canada, what I object to here is the assertion that Alberta is unique in this respect. When it comes to paying for Canada, Ontario pays the largest share and has been doing so since day one. I consider that name to be insulting and therefore would request that you do not use it. It is not my name.And Pierre Elliot Trudeau most certainly did not start the national debt in Canada - not even close. If you are obsessed about who created debt in the country, the Administration of Brian Mulroney (which was strongly supported in Alberta I might add) accounts for by far the largest share of the Canadian national debt.

Am I correct to presume that you have no rebuttals to any of my arguments or statements?Not surprising, separatists love to rant, rave and whinge, but rarely are capable of substantiating or justifying their position to anyone but a fellow true believer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> whinge..... do I smell a former banned poster? or just another TROLL? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, you smell someone with a degree in political science and twenty years of following Canadian politics.

Righto... under the heading of "National issues that waste taxpayer dollars and frustrate Albertans: " We find... "No Serious National Debt Reduction" - which is true only if you ignore the seven consecutive years of Martin's national debt reduction policy. And of course... "Out of control National Debt" - yes, under Martin's direction, Canada will next year become the owner of the smallest per capita national debt in the Western world. If this is the kind of crap the SPA is shoveling regarding debt, I wonder how much else there is bullshit... when I have more time, I'll be sure to have a look. No surprises really - Quebec separatism has always been built on lies and propaganda, I can't expect Alberta to be any different.

Per capita, or total? Where are your numbers derived from? Your comment seems to contradict itself. On one hand you can't calculate Albertas portion and on the other Ontario pays more. Please clarify. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Makes perfect sense. You can't calculate a perfect per-capita contribution rate from each province specifically. All you can do is apportion the total by provinces and on this basis, Ontario supplies vastly more funding to this than Alberta due to the vastly higher population.

Am I correct to presume that you have no rebuttals to any of my arguments or statements?Not surprising, separatists love to rant, rave and whinge, but rarely are capable of substantiating or justifying their position to anyone but a fellow true believer.

I think you're confusing me with a politician. I'm not a member of any political party. I'm an independant who leans "right" in my political viewpoint. I supported the Common Sense Revolution under Mike Harris, and as I stated previously it's my opinon that Ernie Eves was steering the Ontario government away from that philosophy. The Common Sense Revolution being a spent force, I voted not FOR McGuinty but AGAINST a PC government trending left, as a strategic vote. My hope is that the effect of the PC's losing power would be to wipe the Ernie Eves cadre from power within the party, which more or less happened. (That the wretched John Tory was selected for his replacement is another matter altogether, and nothing I had any say in.) You've apparently never considered anything other than a partisan political position for yourself. But do you really think it's that unusual for an informed voter to remain independant? Your strategic voting has given you a McGwinty government and control of the Ontario Conservative Party to John Tory who is even less a Harrisite than Eves. Doesn't seem like your strategy is very well founded. I'm not blaming Harris for current health care problems. I'm merely pointing out that Harris made existing problems worse. No it is not. Have you ever studied any data on urban amalgamation? Probably not. Mike Harris didn't either.According to a wealth of data from the USA where hundreds of cities were forced to amalgamate through the 1970's and 1980's, there is a notable trend in the results. Amalgamations where the resulting city size is less than 250,000 produce excellent results and large fiscal savings. Amalgamations where the resulting city size is more than 1 million population do not produce and additional efficiencies of scale and tend to cause more problems than they supposedly solve. All of this data was available prior to Mike Harris' election so one can only assume he and his advisors chose to ignore it. Cost of government in Toronto and the total number of City employes has risen constantly in every year since amalgamation. Confusion still reigns 5-6 years later. Bottom line is that Harris ordered Toronto amalgamation out of political spite in one of the stupidest and short-termed decisions of all time. Out of frustration with a left-leaning Toronto Council, Harris has created the largest popularly elected office in the country - one who's electoral power and moral authority is likely to make governing Ontario more difficult. The smog problems come mostly from Ontario Hydro coal-fired emissions with a majority of such coming from Ohio valley coal-fired emissions. Harris reduced the regulations on Hydro generating plant emission standards - allowing the old coal-fired plants to keep going and ignore required emission standards. Yes, a reasonable job of explaining your position. But the bottom line is that Harris was a mediocre premier that did great damage to the political environment with his confrontational tactics contributing to an environment of distrust that persists to this day.

I voted "absolutely nothing" as that's what I think Harper's electoral prospects amount to. Seems like a relatively fine fellow and reasonably intelligent, but the baggage of the Alberta Reform block is like an albatross around the neck of any leader they might replace him with, so that's a moot point (Preston, Stockwell or Harper, doesn't make any difference at all - same game).

By this reasoning, Toronto alone has 20 billion reasons to separate. Because Alberta was legally incorporated under the Canadian Government - thus Albertans have a proportional share of said debts, incurred to the theoretical benefit of Albertans. Repudiation of said debts would turn Alberta into a banana republic. You are showing your ignorance of actual facts here - which really calls into question the validity of your other statements. If elected representatives were required to have a poll election or referendum in every riding of the country for every decision as you are suggesting here, I respectfully submit our governance would be worse (and far more annoying). I'm still waiting for the first valid reason to be given. All hear so far is just whinging. So long as that Alberta 'Reform' group controls the Conservative Party of Canada, there is no one else who can form a Government in Canada besides the Liberal Party and thus, endless Liberal election victories are foreseen as probable. Eventually Albertans might figure it out that they are the ones causing the Liberal majorities, not Ontario.

"Save"??? Marriage has always been a governmental concern, a concern that long predates Christianity. Thus, you are not proposing anything "traditional" here - rather you are proposing something that sounds even more radical than same-sex marriage. Funny how in the defense of tradition, conservatives are willing to be extremely radical and revolutionary. I guess consistency of principle isn't important - as long as you get what you want. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Canadian government predates Christianity? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A lame attempt at humour? I've made no such statement as you suggest.

None taken. Just that name is always used for taunting/teasing/fighting in my life so when I hear it, I'm ready for battle which is not a good way to approach a polite discussion.

For a veteran poster here, your response here seems a bit much. The exchange seemed reasonable, yet you just had to jump and make it personal.Intelligent posters who engage in quality discussions tend to avoid forum sites where there is too much of this ego-thumping kind of crap. Just my two cents worth. I'm a total newbie here and I'm not interested in the merits of the dispute itself.

Well, he'd certainly fit in in Toronto, then. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, that may be true, but it does suggest that the stereotypes are alive and well since this is all quite recent. And the fact that half the 3rd world is trying to move to Toronto is not a diss on Toronto - indeed, it is a compliment to our fair city.

If this be me you refer to, I'll ask you not to use such a diminuative. If you must shorten a username, I much prefer MM.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but these are clearly typographic errors by the look of them. I can't imagine why anyone would bother to point such things out.

May I use that one? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As long as there is no little 'circle-R' thingie, it is public domain. Please feel free.