na85

I doubt I'll reply. My country will grow on its own right. The telegrams don't have any effect on your nation's growth, but your Issues do. Also, once you reach 500 million people, you can create a custom title for your nation.

I chose Pearson because even though he never won a majority, I believe that he was able to see past the shallow politics of the House of Commons and look at the big picture, globally. That bit of political maneuvering in the UN was fairly adept. To my mind, being a leader means not only becoming someone that the country can rally behind, but also being selfless in pursuit of things greater than one's self. Had Pearson not pursued international peace so vigorously, it might have been that he won a majority. However I think that this is secondary to the drive and vision that Pearson displayed and I laud him for that. I'm willing to concede that I may have judged Harper too early, but first impressions can sometimes be a good indicator of things to come.

As for the telegrams, whether or not you respond to them is entirely up to you. Generally, if it is someone trying to get you to move to another region, I would recommend blocking them. Otherwise, respond or ignore at your own whims. Quid pro quo: Messages from the "Compliance Ministry" or whatever are automated and will ignore any replies sent.

Sounds almost like the liberals .... maybe not Na, Quick question. What do you do about telegrams? Is it wise to respond to these? Next, we have to answer another question about our country everyday? (i.e. today was compulsory voting). You technically don't have to answer a question every day, but if you have more than 5 in your "to do list" then they stop piling up. The only requirement is that you log in and do something once every 30 days, or else your account expires. What region are you guys in? Want to start our own region? We could ask Greg for a forum to discuss nationstates issues.

Sounds almost like the liberals .... maybe not

Well, that's not necessarily a good metaphor since one deals with rabid dogs by putting them down (or is it... ) One deals with a disobediant dog by teaching it its limits and who has the authority. In this case, we have the authority over what we print.

Actually if you asked me to dig up a politician from ages past that exhibited a natural leadership ability I would have pointed you to Lester B Pearson. Overstatement. He hasn't had one day as PM in the House of Commons and you can make a bold statement like that??? He led his party for much longer than a day. One's leadership abilities aren't judged soley by one's ability to act like a PM in office. Leaders exude a sense of vision, and inspire those around them to surpass themselves and the status quo. Stephen Harper does neither. As I said earlier, he is a decent politician but not a 'leader'.

It's available for the only REAL gaming platform. The PC.

Sorry, should have linked in the first post. Edited.

yes

At one point I was "civil rights lovefest"

I'm currently in the middle of a transition from being the UN category "Capitalizt" to "Free market paradise"

Agree.

He's not a leader. That much is evident from his personality. He might be a decent politician, but this is a far cry from being a good leader.

Yes and SHE ruined her own life. It is time people take responsibility for their actions. Like the theme to the TV show Barretta said "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Wait... let me get this straight. If a young woman gets slipped a roofie, raped, and gets pregnant, it's HER fault? Let me guess, she was probably 'asking for it' by dressing provocatively and acting out of place for a proper young lady, right? She didn't commit any crime, she didn't do anything other than attend a social function. People like you are what's wrong with society.

It's not funny, every joke is either about the dead grandparents looking down from heaven or the stupid dotted lines all the way around and through the yard. I suppose the author thinks it's cute, but it's just tedious. --- Regarding being politically correct, I both agree and disagree with spike. There is an alarming trend today of the notion that a person has a right not to be offended. What ever happened to freedom of speech? "Let me see you acknowledge a man who is advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours" It's like the whole Muhammed cartoon garbage. They're offended because of a satirical cartoon? That's fine, they can be offended, but no one can tell the editors to stop printing because someone is offended. Boo hoo, cry me a river. However, being opposed to political correctness does not mean that I am also opposed to "tree hugging" or "gay loving". First of all, the environment is a precious and fragile resource, so quite frankly everyone should be tree hugging. Without trees we'd be dead. Period. Finally, let's not start another gay argument in this thread. I am in favor of same-sex marriage because it is the right thing to do. Go refute it in the SSM thread.

Obviously this isn't about Canadian politics per se, but there's really no off-topic section. Anyone play Nation States? It's a political simulator of sorts where you create a country and run it any way you like. www.nationstates.net

You think Stephen Harper, Paul Martin, and Jack Layton are as good as it gets? You poor disillusioned boy.

While you raise a valid point, I very much doubt that gender roles are the leading cause behind the development (or lack thereof) of women's hockey. I would say that the primary hinderance to women's sport is that there just aren't enough viewers, and therefore the major networks are reluctant to carry the broadcasts.

Lots of people lie under oath. Murderers, thieves, Clinton, etc. The problem is that since polygraphs are not accurate enough and there is a general bias in favor of a woman claiming abuse over the man, even if the woman lied about being raped she still might get away with it.

Although I suppose we're still left with the whole "definition of marriage" can of worms

For the short while i've been here, I've noticed that shoop, tml12, newbie, and august all seem to take a fair amount of smack talk

It's a metaphorical bought na85. Though the $40mil that is up in the air might be enough. They paid her 40 mil?

Everyone always claims Belinda was bought. While it's true that everyone has their price, I can't see the libs being able to funnel enough of the adscam money to buy Stronach. I mean, she's rich as Roosevelt. Daddy made millions and she's got quite the nest egg as well. To buy her vote would take a lot, IMO.

:re-reads the last few posts: Sorry, my bad. Misinterpreted. Damn internet. Either way, my last wasn't directed entirely at you and cyber. T'was a rebuttal and also a general statement.