Charles Anthony

-- and you see none of that changing.

It would probably be easier to let the people who live in those areas decide for themselves. Why should people outside of those areas be giving or taking anything?

You are not the only one who has family in Quebec. There are many people throughout Canada who have family and heartfelt ties in Quebec. It is completely absurd to fear civil war. Canadians, whether they like eachother or not, depend on eachother for their own individual livelihood more than they need war. Who would fight who? You are your own human shields to eachother! Do you get it? Only stupid people would fight and stupid people do not last long. Now, I ask for a convincing argument. Why would that be the most rational? That is a diversion. Who cares what Quebec separatists want? If I were to tell a non-Canadian about our governmental irrationality, would it be fair to ONLY tell him about Ed Broadbent's party? or about Pierre Trudeau's egomania?

On a small scale, what Rona Ambrose does now and who replaces her is irrelevant. I find this (and the whole tactic of shuffling cabinet positions) to be exceedingly bizarre and laughable. Why does the public accept this? Why does the government do this? Here are my conclusions: The cabinet ministers do nothing anyway. Therefore, it does not matter. Worst of all, the public truly likes it that way. They do not want the ministers to do anything.

You, sir, are a pure old-fashioned same-old - same-old Liberal. Politics is all just show-and-tell for you guys. Wow! What an original idea! What color will it be? Maybe it will be the reverse for the Liberals. Canadians will probably dump the Liberal Party long before the Liberal-managers do. Perfect strategy! All the Liberals need is a main act to get everybody in the tent.

Trim Your Posts and Quotes -- Don't just hit "Reply"The majority of this thread is repetition. At least half of the posts so far in this thread repeat the immediately preceding posts entirely. That is unnecessary and bad form. Each of you should go back and remove redundant quotes. If you are not too sure about using the formatting or editing functions, I will be glad to help you. Just send me a PM directly and I will walk you through it.

Nobody needs to show you that. You know it. Now you are just being ornery.

I am reluctant to pass judgment on who should be at fault with this case or any other case -- I have no reason to trust the Tripoli justice system. It is difficult to put ourselves in their shoes. The people in Libya may be choosing between used syringes or not enough syringes to go around. Which of the two is better? I am uncertain. However, any health care worker who either decides or accepts orders to re-use a syringe is complicit in transmitting infection. It is analogous to driving recklessly. There is no excuse for re-using a syringe without the recipient being informed -- and I am hesitant to even condone that!

Whoever was acting on behalf of "Canada" by giving that order is complicit in Arar's kidknapping. What difference does it make? A crime was committed against Arar by a Canadian. Focus. Focus. Arar can sue Syrians later. Does Arar have to sue Syrians right now?!? right this instant?!?

Of course. Allegiance to a nation (we have a new definition, now!) is not the same as allegiance to a specific form of bureaucracy. [Does a family break-up every time a child wants to move out? Certainly the family finances change.] Would YOU fight? and if so, for what? It may only be a dumb idea if we are looking at a statistical macro-economic perspective. However, for the individual, it may be advantageous to have only one small government. No. Separation is about refusing to be screwed by your neighbors. Good fences make better neighbors. I think the separatists will compromise. I place my bet on the invisible power of the market.

No. Canadians can thank themselves. Unfortunately, it is still advantageous to each party to maintain a first-past-the-post electoral system. extracted from The Achilles' Heel of the Federal Liberals ...or why the Tories might win a majority Forgive me but saying "shift further away from the center" sounds magical. Somehow I do not think it is sufficient to describe politics in this way any more. If I am wrong, we may as well describe politics in terms of secret potions. All we (as voters) have to do is choose the magician who offers the potion that tastes the best. All the magicians have to do is mix a little more of their secret sauce into the pot to please the average customer demand. Strategically it makes sense for EVERY politician to attain and keep a majority government. Furthermore, the tools available to a politician to gain power are the same whether a majority or a minority is the goal. In other words, there is nothing a politician can do differently if his goal was only a minority government. Saying this: is empty. It belongs in the Politics column of a high school newspaper.

I agree. In fact, I believe they should have their "pseudo-citizenship" revoked anyway.

I wonder who will receive this flag of signatures? Will these troops in Afghanistan learn that these loyal hockey players were threatened with expulsion? The coach of this hockey team does not believe in freedom of expression.

Canadians commonly have a reflex thinking that a majority government is the key to a successful Parliament. I wonder if that is so. My question is derived from the thread: The Enigma of Quebec City, Clueless BQ The Bloc may certainly lose seats. However, the Bloc has been at the fore-front of promoting provincial rights. Objectively, an outsider could say if it were not for the Bloc, Ottawa would only house big central governments. The Bloc has cleverly made it so that no party can easily hold a majority without sweeping Ontario. Is it to the advantage of individual Canadians for the federal government to hold a majority? Who benefits from a majority federal government? Who benefits from a minority federal government? My opinion: I am leaning towards a preference for federal gridlock. [The less the federal government actually does, the better we are for it.] More importantly, I trust a minority government to be more cooperative and more successful at balancing out the demands of the entire country.

In post-Trudeamaniacal Canada, it makes less and less sense to look to the government to solve an individual's problems. Furthermore, nobody can take the future for granted anymore. We are seeing a cummulative effect. My best guess is that less and less people in Canada can afford to live on promises. More and more people, whether they are stupid or intelligent, must depend on their own hard work. People are no longer hired nor fired based on their level of intelligence.

The government should not even be entertaining such offers. If anything, the government should be in the business of governing and nothing else. Any "opportunity" that is not already undertaken by private industry is likely to be a crony / make-work crock.

Before this thread turns into a scrolling quotation fun ride, I am stepping in here on a point of order: Guys, trim your quotes! The majority of the posts in this thread have the same amount of whitespace as the added replies.

Correct -- all of them. In the U.S.A., "they" could be the military industry. In Canada, "they" could be airplane manufacturers or gasefication plant manufacturers or coal industries or automobile manufacturers or teachers unions or a non-existant advertizing firm or a closed-contract public-works bidder or any crony-friend of a politician. I have. Every day, I open my window and take a look outside.

The Bloc may certainly lose seats. However, the Bloc has been at the fore-front of promoting provincial rights. Objectively, an outsider could say if it were not for the Bloc, Ottawa would only house big central governments.

I agree. I believe that a separatist threat is healthy because it keeps centralist-big-government-federalists in check at all times. Why do you fear that it will bring out the worst in people? Have faith in the market. In practical terms, my instinct tells me that our dependence on capitalist-cronyism will make sure that separation is peaceful. The banks will come knocking. In other words, when the time comes to a definite declaration of indepence, the rich guys will get on a telephone conference call with the Premier Klein or PrimierMinistre Bouchard or Prime Minister Chretien and a quick deal will be made over-night. No ifs ands or buts. Alberta does not have a police force? Fine. The banks will finance one. Why?? because the banks need civil obedience more than anybody else in the economy. I see no reason to fear civil unrest. In fact, I am willing to bet my life that the banks have already been planning this ahead of time. It is completely foolish for them to NOT already have a contingency plan.

Nobody. Be practical. What would these reserves want? to remain part of Canada? Alright. Everybody in Canada will likely say "To hell with you! You are now in Alberta! We do not want your reserves!" Problem solved.

I may have said it but I just stole it from Aug91 who explains it well: from Democracy ... why bother? I agree. I truly believe it is wiser to put up a lawn sign than to actually vote.

Although I do not vote anymore, I have a devotion to one party: the Bloc Quebecois. Throughout my voting history, I have only one regret: I did NOT vote for the Reform Party when they first ran. At the time, I honestly thought they were a waste by splitting the votes. I did not even read their platform and I wish I had. How about you, ClearWest, do you really think your vote makes a difference??? I have to laugh. Do you really think that the Alberta PC Party needs your support?? That is like saying "I am a member of the Revenue Canada Party!" I never put much thought into any of my voting choices. It was always like going to church. Over time, I just got more and more extreme until it became obvious that none of the parties represent me. At that point, it was also explained to me that voting is actually wrong. However, I wish I had figured out that voting was a waste of time a lot earlier. CAVEAT: the above is conditional on the delusion that my (or any one person's) vote makes a difference. The concept of "strategic voting" is the ultimate defiance of logic. I wonder if "strategic voters" also have "strategic opening moves" to secure a win in a chess match.

I guess I am focussing only on the practicalities. Although I never thought of it that way before, I concur that a unilateral declaration of independence is technically the same as a declaration of war. Whether it be Quebec or Alberta, I am convinced that there will be little hostility. It is in everybody's commercial interest to be peaceful.

Big deal. None of that matters if there is a unilateral declaration of independence. Who cares about the rules? Unless rest-of-Canadians can enforce those rules, the discussion is a waste. Yeah, I can see armies of federal public servants and provincial public servants fighting over turf. Everybody else in the country will either change the channel or go back to work. An offer of what? The only thing that will be under discussion will be the division of debt -- and the banks will decide that on our behalf. No need for consulting "the democratic majority" there.