Claudius

That's funny, because you just admitted the process I'm talking about.Whatever Waldo. It's obvious you have no intention of considering this honestly. You're right: English Ontario is perfect. They never ever ever had anything against all the Europeans coming to Canada, and even if they did that kind of immigration history could never ever ever affect attitudes today, just like they do in other countries. You're so very right and it's so obvious absolutely nothing in the studies or books I've linked to. Have fun arguing with yourself.

No just honest. Obviously nothing like this can be described as absolute. That's just the nature of a society of millions. (sigh) They do the very same thing today. Judge immigrants on a case by case basis. Yes I have. Like I said, any child can answer back, "Nahuh! Is not" to any reality they don't like.

Um, because that was the undeniable policy? It was your childish vanity that decided I was equating the East with "Bad". (sigh) And he wasn't Western, i.e., Manitoba and West of. As I just pointed out he came from Western ONTARIO, not the West we're spaking of and have been ever since you decided to pile on your non-stop drivel in some kind of attempt to, I don't know really, just fight for the hell of it I guess. Once more: Western Ontario is not the West. Newfoundland also has a Western portion, one would be arguing from a pretty desperate position to call Newfoundland "The West" however.

Soooo....what you're saying is even when I'm right I'm still wrong? It was Lauriers policy, he just chose Stifton to implement it. By the way....A "Western boy"? Yeah right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Sifton Try reading your wiki's better. We're talking about the West here, Manitobia and west of, not "Western Ontario". Just the ones who stubbornly refuse to accept the obvious. ^Proof positive that you haven't been paying attention to anything that I've said, even though you vehemently disagree with it (even though you apparently don't know what "it" is). Never suggested the East was "bad" that's your mischaracterization. I merely dared to equate them with human, complete with all the vanity that comes with it.

Oh one more thing Waldo, just to tie in the policy that directs one group to the West while keeping another in Ontario (generally speaking of course). Immigration was decided upon on a case by case basis, depending on what the government thought people were best suited for. Stifton decided that only prarie farmers need apply for the West, and this ended up sending mostly Europeans, not English to the West: http://www.british-immigrants-in-montreal.com/clifford_sifton_policy.html I can find other quotes that more specifically points Eastern/Western Europeans over British Isles people if you like but there it is for now.

zzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzz 7th post of nothing from you.

Yes I have, just not to you satisfaction which is irrelevant to me. If you don't want to read and learn there's nothing I can do to help you. Once again: http://www.british-immigrants-in-montreal.com/clifford_sifton_policy.html and... http://www.tandfonli...030923700100302 It has been established for anyone honest Waldo. Nope. For anyone who can read and understand what I've been saying has been pretty consistent and understandable. If you want to keep yourself protected in your little world where you can tel yourself English speaking Ontario never ever ever had anything against all the Europeans migrating to Western Canada then you go ahead and stay in your comfortable little shell. For the rest of Canada who actually went to school and paid attention and then further went to university after what I describe about the developing attitudes in Ontario/Quebec towards the West is a given, a basic truism. I don't need to spend all day explaining it to someone who didn't understand the first time he was taught and refuses to read the links he demands to prove it now.

Yep that's how it works, but I didn't say from Alberta to another province, (and we havent' factored in Federal industrial taxes which do not come back to the province), I merely pointed out that Alberta has no say in where those transfer payments end up, which is what your example illustrates....however of course not getting a tax kickback for decades does kind of mean that at the end of the day the province in question loses money rather gains or keeps it. Following your example, what if the "have" provinces who continually put in, never really get anything back? Alberta has benefited from transfer payments 3 times to the tune of about $90million. This contrasts with continually paying in for a couple decades now. Alberta may find itself in economic trouble sometime in the future but I sincerely doubt they'll ever get double-digit billions to help them out.

And the seeds of bigotry against Western non-Britons: http://www.british-immigrants-in-montreal.com/clifford_sifton_policy.html ...how many more links would you like waldo? 6? 12? 20? Gee it doesn't look like it's only in my head after all does it? Maybe you should've paid closer attention in school.

Nope, as I said for anyone who made it through grade 12 social studies or went on to university....it's a given. lets prove you to be the disingenuous poster you are. You want proof ( you don't but let's go with that assumption)? OK but you're going to have to read to get it, are you prepared to do that? Doubt it but here it is anyways: Right here, very first page, synopsis of the book: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0030923700100302 Also... http://www.answers.com/topic/canada#ixzz1wYiRseTK So I've proved the policy (I linked to it in black and white just a few posts ago, no doubt you didn't bother to read it) and now I link you to an entire book on it's sociological effects. I await your childish "Dat don't prove nuttin'" response shortly.

No I have and anyone who made it through grade 12 social studies also knows it. I have substantiated it in the post you quote and about 4-5 since then.Naturally sir, you will find it hard to find an internet link or wiki describing the discriminatory attitudes by predominantly English Ontario against the predominately German, Skandinavian and Ukrainian immigrants who went West to farm the lands. I have substantiated this trend but any child can come back post after post and claim "Nahh uh, is not!" I could link you to a couple books that mention it but you wont read them. I could probably link to a couple of blogs that speak about the same phenomenon but you would just discount them out of hand with the excuse that they're blogs, even though the real excuse will be because you don't like what they say. Everything I said about the early immigration policies is correct and everything I said about the Central Canadian attitudes towards those Western bound immigrants is also correct. That you refuse to even consider it is meaningless both to me and reality.

Wake us when you have something relevant to say.

If you took the time to read the context you can see we were talking specifically West/Center-East comparisons. Montreal would land in the same group.

Current ethnic spread of Canadians, you'll notice where all the Germans and Ukrainian are:

I wish. Nothing wrong with a little regional rivalry but it so easily gets blown into full out bigotry for no good reason at all. It's one of the very disappointing things about Canadian society.

No the deep seeded hate and mistrust came about because of the government immigration policy. It's a pity you didn't pay more attention to high school you'd know all about this fact of Canadian history. Naturally google is going to have a hard time coming up with the sociological affects of policy, but that hardly means it didn't/doesn't exist. Here you go: First thing Googled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_Canada Homesteading act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Lands_ActMore: Most of the British and French went to BC or Manitoba respectively. http://www.akcanada.com/lic_saskatchewan.cfm No I didn't. The topic was narrowed by you to 'urbanites' so naturally Toronto came into play. I didn't narrow anything.

Contradicting statements. Yes that's right, except for threads about Dutch Disease and "Alberta sausage fests" and a dozen or so others....yeah, you guys hardly think about us at all, lol! (rolls eyes). Except for jobs, quality of life, cost of living and hockey. Keep rocking back and forth telling yourself you're important - more important than everyone else in Canada. lol. Thanks for making my point for me.

If you have nothing to offer against the argument, attack the person/group presenting it, right? Have you ever looked at them? http://www.pembina.org/about/about-pembina

How is it uneven? It's $19billion in transfer payments each and every year. That's almost the entire cost of Ontario healthcare. It's not like the West gets to decide who gets that money. What's really funny about all this dutch disease talk is - and everyone knows this - is that Ontario, long before any "Dutch Disease" came along has tried and failed 3 or 4 times in the past 100 years to generate life into a manufacturing sector. Now the oil and gas is floating this country and all anyone can do is spit at the people producing it and blame them for job losses. If it weren't for the oil and gas people would be a hell of a lot worse off because there's nothing in the history of this country to show that if there was no dutch disease that Ontario manufacturing would "take off" as it is always predicted and always failed to do. The D.D. is just a convenient excuse this time.

No yarn to it. That's what happened. Must be nice to look at the facts of the history of this country and the sociological implications and just say to yourself, "I don't like that story, so I'll just reject it out of hand". It's the truth whether you want to hear it or not. Western urbanites? Obviously you mean the ones developed within the last 20 years, 30 maximum? Because that's how new they are. Denying it is funny but pointless in a thread started by someone from Ontario the only purpose of which is to 'point-and-laugh' at one of the Western provinces. The story itself is barely interesting unless you're a bigot with an axe to grind. ....oh and case-in-point: if you ever speak to someone from/in Toronto about Western "urbanites" get ready to be quickly reminded that Toronto is the king of cities in Canada (rolls eyes), and whatever the West considers to be a city (with the possible exception of Vancouver) is nothing more than a joke to them.

Maybe but the history of this country speaks to a deeper seeded hate. It starts a century ago when new immigrants were courted to this country and then sent to different areas depending on their nationality or creed. If you were English or Scottish you were allowed to move to Ontario, usually because you could point to a relative there or because it was thought that you (or more likely your children) would do well in English speaking university. If you were one of the mistrusted slavs, Polish, Ukranian, German etc. your only choice, generally, came down to being offered a free plot of land (if you did the work to clear and farm it) in one of the Western provinces. To this day in Liverpool you can see advertisements painted on the side of buildings courting Eastern Europeans to the farm fields of Western Canada. Over the years the "enlightened, elitist" British Isle stock in early Ontario generated quite a bit of mistrust and bigoted attitudes towards the Western provinces, to them the dominion of mere slavic troglodytes whose only purpose or possible aptitude in life was to work the fields. These attitudes persist today in an evolved form. When you ask "Why does the West 'hate' Ontario/Quebec"? The answer is "Because you hated them first."

Yep, that is exactly what life in AB is like.And the OP is spot on about the lack of infrastructure, if only we had schools and hospitals here. MMMmmmno. That depiction of young males would just be relevant or accurate if the story took place in BC, Manitoba or Newfoundland. Nothing like relying on comedic fictional movies to use as a source of social examination (rolls eyes).

Your hate for a part of Canada you've never been to is as obvious as it is amusing. Good to see Ontario is still raising haters. If it's not Alberta then they hate the "newfies" or the "BC Treehuggers" or "Saskatchewan dirtfarmers", or occasionally when they're really frustrated, "Frogs".....(sigh) Yes we can see Ontario is still the capital of bigotry in this country. It's always been that way. Comes with being constantly told you're more important than everyone else in the nation and never leaving your home town.

LOL! More propaganda brought to you by the venerable "Hate the West" centralists. Couple things. One, when your population jumps 25% in 4 years it is -impossible- to keep the infrastructure up to date. Anyone intelligent understands this. Anyone unable to understand this is unintelligent. Why has the population jumped that much and is still rising? It's not because it's a horrible place to live. Jobs that destroy your life? Lol. Where do you get this? Straight out of your behind? Or is it you just can't stand it when you see people working? Higher cost of living? Nope. http://www.albertacanada.com/about-alberta/cost-of-living.html http://www.livingin-canada.com/cost-of-living-in-canada.html I love to watch Centralist yuppy-larvae babbling about how they know all about Alberta or the West....I especially love it when they use a southern drawl to mimic them, proving only that the person in question has never left their home town. The hate the Center/East has for the West is amusing if only because it makes them look so very stupid.

lol. Um yes you do, and it's obvious you don't. Aprils data IS "Proper" data and it's "recent" data as well, and a trend can't be established using one single instance of the most recent data alone. A trend needs a long continuous string of data, y'see. That would be May and data from April and March that you consider somehow "improper" simply because it was 30 days ago, it would probably also include data from June. You would've learned that if you had read the link I provided, and then maybe you'd be a little bit closer to knowing what you're talking about. A trend doesn't consider last months data to be useless as you do. Last months data would be part of a trend, y'see, part of those multiple instances that are required to establish said trend. You want to yak and yak like you know what a trend is, but obviously you don't know what it is, because if you did know what it is you'd know that last months data would be a integral part of it. In this case "recent" would be the end of April every bit as much as the end of May which is why I pointed out that the difference between April and May in terms of "recentness" isn't much and doesn't mean much. It's a difference of one month. Big deal. If you think 30 days invalidates polls as data you're clueless and should get one. To recap, Mr.I-think-I'm-all-that-because-I'm-the-one-handing-out-"clues"-when-I-don't-even-know-what-a-trend-is: You cling to the most recent data as if the most recent data couldn't possibly be a surge or an inaccurate bump, which it very well could be, meanwhile I point out the difference between what a trend can tell you and the danger of just accepting whatever the most recent single-example poll says. You act like you know the difference but obviously you don't, and obviously you're refusing to learn. Since you think the difference between what is reported in April is now completely utterly unimportant and that whatever is now reported in May simply must be more important than considering the two of them as part of a trend, then that means you'd be the one talking out your act-like-you-are-all-that arse and don't have a clue what you're talking about. Let me know if you're still having problems understanding the difference between a single instance poll which is absolutely meaningless and a trend which is the only thing worth looking at and I'll see if I can't make this simple Stats 101 principle clearer for you. lol!