Semperfi_dani

Well he is entitled to as a citizen of Canada to a) challange allegations against him and b ) be presumed innocent until proven guilty. He has a right to a fair trial under the court of law and a right to an appeal. And although he swore a oath to tell the truth at the inquiry, he did not get a chance to have his laywers counter with their own questions to him. Nor did his laywers get a chance to question the other witnesses. And anyone can argue that the questions asked to him have a bias. This was an inquiry..not a court of law. Who the hell knows at this point where this will go. But he is well within his legal right to appeal.

Road to Avonlea did well too Seriously though now, Canada puts out great television programs. Hell, imo patriotic humble opinion, we do alot of things well (Movies, TV, Music, Literature).

No..it is important. But i honestly do not feel that any party can provide that. I live in a Liberal led country, a conservative led province, and a who the hell knows left wing lunatic run city, so i distrust all partys at this point. Honesty is one of those rare things. Unfortuneately there are not enough Chuck Cadmans in politics. But i have also said before, that my vote has to be earned. Right now, i vote Liberal. If the Conservative member in my riding can conivince me otherwise or present him/herself honourably, i can vote the other way too. If its moderately conservative..yes. The thing is...i agree with conservatives on certain financial principles. And on their stands on some topics. But i don't agree with moral conservatism. If i wanted moral leadership, i will go see my local priest. And i most certainly don't agree with social conservatism. I feel that the current party takes the bar too far to the right. The Liberals right now, at this point in my life, best represent me on issues that are important.

There are certain principles that I agree with on the Green party overall..but i do not vote for a "issue" party. I vote for a party that on whole meets all my needs. But with that said, maybe there needs to be some "green" representatives on the Hill to raise the importance of environment issues on a more consistant basis.

I agree in principle with FTA Laywers argument. Very well reasoned out! But I will still vote Liberal in the next election, because there are other issues in my life that take far more precedence that a sponsership deal gone sour. Governments of all stripes can't help but get their paws dirty. I accept that. So therefore, i will vote on issues that concern me and which party will best meet my moderate views. Unfortuneatly, the PC party is dead now (not completely..they have a splinter Progressive Canadian party with the old bylaws). I would vote for a moderate conservative party like the old PC. But the Reform party took away that option for me. So i choose the lesser of two evils. Cheers.

Yah, I hear ya. If you look at all that members post, a good 95% are derogatory to the person making the post, do not contribute in any meaningful way to the debate and this individual cannot seem to muster anything beyond one line responses. He/she/it seems to have a problem with people hijacking his posts, but he/she/it has yet to answer the referendum question. Apparantly my age and astrology is more crucial to he/she/its life.

Well i guess i could. But being that others have asked and not been accomodated, than i guess we can communicate wherever we can. Noone else seems to have a problem hijacking posts with useless inquiries....*see your own responses to any of my posts* Oh..and semper is a girl. I would almost say you were stalking me, but ill just say troll and leave it at that.

Its one event where people can let down their hair a bit and joke around. Relax everyone. Canada's not going to hell in a handbasket just because there is one night in the year where they can let there hair down and joke around.

I don't have a husband. hehehe. I do have an close dear friend (we were boyfriend and girlfriend..but he was deployed in January and we decided to step back to friendship level). He is Enlisted (E-6) and a gunnery seargent with the U.S. Marine Corp, stationed at Cherry Point. He is in intellegence, so he doesnt technically see alot of combat per se. He if the military gets their shit together, should be coming back in November...but per OPSEC, I can't confirm if that is true or not. And who knows where our relationship will go from there. We have other issues like he being American and me being Canadian. Not too sure if i want to give that up or not. Ok..should probably not be so open about my relationship on a board that eat their dead. Hahaha.

Gemini actually.

What a sad story this is! I think normally they keep this stuff confidential..but obviously he must have been "active" in the community for them to issue a warning.

Yodeler..have I offended you in any way? I did not even know who you were or that you were a poster here until you have responded to me rudely in this post and in another post. Again..if you think I am some previous memeber, i can assure you that I am not. Greg can confirm by running a simple IP check. I would suggest instead of you being the self appointed board police that you go back to responding to posts in a meaningful manner...engage in a thought out debate. You are capable of such action, am i correct in assuming?

Ummm..dude..i never even responded in the Baby Boomers thread. You must have me confused with another poster. I suggest you go back and read. I am 28 now. I was 17 at the time of the referendum. Not really sure what your point is. I have a feeling you think i am someone else. Greg can easily check my IP addrees and confirm otherwise. Cheers.

1- Do you remember where you were when this referendum happened? I was in Grade 12..in my final year of Highschool. 2-How did you feel at the time? I was very concerned, especially in the weeks leading up, that this might be a reality. I remember being mobilized at my school to sign "We love Quebec" type posters. At the the time, the internet was only just coming out in full force, so our movement really had a group purpose to it. 3- How have you felt since up to today? I have felt that as much as I love Canada, the Canada today is perhaps not the best it could be in dealing with regional issues in meaningful ways. If seperation happened, i would care in the smaller sense, but i am not convinced that my life as i know it would change. So its perhaps not as big as a deal as it could be. But of course, my feelings could change. 4-Would a vote for succession have a better chance today than it did 10 years ago? I think so, but not because i think there is a desire to seperate. I think that it could happend because of the internet. Back when this first occured, internet usage was small, so you relied on biased media images and group discussion in schools, halls, on the news and so on. Now, we are far more tuned to the net and blogs, and therefore less influenced by biased media forces. I could form my own opinion..but i would not be mobilized as a Non voter as much as I would have been 10 years ago. In this age..would a rallylike that turn out? And would it make that much of a difference? 5- Does it matter to you today like it did 10 years ago (assuming it mattered 10 years ago)? Yes, it matters. But like i said...if seperation were to occur, i don't think the sky would fall either. I just hope my apathy is not shared by everone, or seperation would be a real possibility. Again..my thoughts could change if this becomes more of an issue and maybe i will be more passionate. I don't live near Quebec..and I live in a province (Alberta) that maybe one day would follow in the path. But if an election were to occur and they lose again..Quebec should be forced to sign the constitution. This should be a shit or get off the pot type vote. We cannot go throught this every 10-15 years.

Every Canadian channel, from CTV to CBC to CPAC is falling over themselves to cover the 10th anniversary of the Quebec Seperation Referendum. What is interesting is that there seems to be a movement that has sprung in Quebec to revisit that topic of seperation in light of the recent government scams. There is certainly thought that it is the perfect time in the forseeable future to start this movement again, after 10 years of seperation fatigue. I read on CBC.ca today that Gilles Duceppe won the confidence vote of his party by 96.8%..the highest in years and certainly the highest confidence measure of any of the federal parties. CBC.ca~Gilles Duceppe What is most alarming *if that is the word to use* is that there have been recent motions in the seperatist party that if seperation were to happen, that a) they agreed in principle to form their own army and B ) to secure the St. Laurence Seaway. With nostaligia in the air, general dissatisfaction in federal politics on the rise, and increased regional disatisfaction...do you think that in our lifetime, the breakup of Canada will occur? It seems to me that they would posture this time to completely seperate from Canada, as opposed to the motion last time to renegotiate their role with Canada..which was vague. Also, the pivotal leaders at the time have either moved on or died (such as Chretian, Parizeau, Bouchard, Trudeau and so on). I also watched a news clip the other day ( i think ctv???) where they interviewed Ethnic minorities, and this time around, a great deal would support seperation, because they associate their freedom and opportunity with Quebec..not Canada. So I have five questions... 1- Do you remember where you were when this referendum happened? 2-How did you feel at the time? 3- How have you felt since up to today? 4-Would a vote for succession have a better chance today than it did 10 years ago? 5- Does it matter to you today like it did 10 years ago (assuming it mattered 10 years ago)?

Hey..for the record..if there was a vote to make Canada into a republic..i would vote a sound no..unless I became queen in lieu of. I would than make you Leafless my advisor on all things monarchy. I would insist on a four day work week. hahahaa. Now, all i ask in return is that they change the 20 to a picture of moi! I think i will opt for a image of Anne of Green Gables house on the back! Hehehe. Just kidding.

It's the press gallery dinner...not a visit to the Whitehouse. I thought she was amusing. In light of her touching visit to the WW1 and 2 cemetarys in France, and meeting with aboriginal youth, she has done her job very well..as can be expected in that role.

Does that change the fact that the average tax payer could care less? There have been countless times in when the question of footing the bill has come up. When there are a great number of people that would do away with the monarchy altogether. Yes Canada has rightfully so accomodated the royal family in the past. But the conditions have to be there. When the governing party could fall at any opportunity, especially after next week with the release of the Gomery report, would the conditions be right to have them over? No. Who knows, maybe next year they will be hosted. But now is not the time. And when government spending these days is under such scrutiny, it does not make sense to accomodate a royal couple at the nations expense right at this very moment. It would be one thing if there was a major event going on that would warrent an invitation. But nothing is coming up and for a royal to call and invite themselves over... So I am not slamming the monarchy. I am not saying...boo monarchy, lets become a republic. I am saying however that there is a time and a place for a royal visit.

Good for her! Have you ever seen my boss at a company function? Good to know she is just like the rest of us. Goes out, has a good time, and gives a speech have slurred. I think this makes me like her more and more.

Just to clarify my statement... Its not IF he is like that..cuz you know, for all i care, he could be one step away from Sainthood. That's not the point. Politics is perception, and as long as he is, fairly or unfairly, to be the the way I and other have laid out, than it will always be a hinderance. And for the average voter who doesnt bother to inform themselves beyond the blanket issues and media flash points, thats what they judge. If their neigbour says "Harper is a racist", and than they take a stand against immigration in the election, than people naturally put two and two togehter. They come up with five..but to them its a four.

So i went back in my post, which states political fact, trying to see where i discarded the monarchy as trivial. I didn't see any to warrant an immature statement as is quoted. In fact, I am very much in support of the monarchy in so much as the way the constitutional monarchy of right now stands. So where you got that statement...I suspect out of your ass....baffles me. All I stated was does it matter if a man who has himself changed the way the monarchy functions (divorce, remarriage) warrants a stop and drop roll out as a validation tour for the new wife. When those plans were initiated, at the time, there was a very good chance of election. If you fully respected the monarchy leafless, you would respect that in good nature, the Royal family should not visit a country during an election, as it would show bias. I suspect i might have to type slowly for you to understand the rules. Btw..thanks for the History lesson. I will add that to my History degree credit.

The difference being the country in which Bush and Harper live in. A Republican party lead by George Bush would never have a chance in Canada, because for the most part, we are a moderate country. Weather that be moderate Conservative or Moderate Liberal, the extreme party's don't do well here. We have more than two partys in Canada. So we have party's that will suit your conservativeness or liberalness. And Moderates (on either side) tend not to want to involved moral issues on a larger political spectrum. Unfortuneately for the conservatives under Harper, that is not the case. He caters to the small conservative ideologue section of the party. Most conservatives themselves would consider themselves to be progressive. Makes one yearn for the old PC party..but thats another thread!

Okie dokie..did what you suggested...and yah, i don't see either of my requests happening anytime soon! Thats ok. The bandwidth thing i totally understand! Although..i admin on another Invision board like i mentioned. It takes all of a few minutes to add one Off Topic forum...so pretty pretty please? *Insert image of a Canadian girl batting her eyelashes* Maybe you mark it as a private forum for memebers only? That would prevent off topic things coming up in other forums. Really, politics is not just the whole but the sum of its parts.

And also remember at the time the calls were initiated, there was a very high chance that an election could have been called. And who knows..and election could still be called. Both the Bloc and the Conservative Party has rumbled in opposition of the Ammendent to the Official Languages Act. (Bill S-3 I think its called). The Bloc outright oppose it. The Conservatives will only agree if their ammendment of non-application to provinces goes through (which would considerably weaken the bill). So it could be something like this that could turn the tide. You never know.

Canada will host anyone who comes here..of course. But vistits, official or otherwise, need to be mutually agreed upon by both sides in order to be formerly hosted for extended members of the family. The only actual obligation we have in regards to "non mutual" agreements is the sitting monarch, who could call tomorrow and say "I want to come to Canada next week" and we as taxpayers would be obliged to foot the bill of accomodation and security without question. So Charles, not being a sitting monarch, needs to have his visits cleared before hand. And yah, while it sucks from a monarchists point of view to not have the visit, I am sure the average tax payer cold care less.