jbg

First, the CPC ridings in QC are all in one small region. What's the sentiment in those ridings? Second, the US stood up to the South, which had its own separatist movement, resisted the US mandate towards racial justice, and which had caused similar dysfunctionality as caused by Quebec. Now, the South is a vital part of the US.

3 days in a row of Internet casualty counting?

Surely you jest. They see themselves as the very definition of refined civilizatin, when the term "charnel house" would better describe Europe's history through 1945. This alleged not being nationalistic is more a surrender than anything else.

Same as when people of your general beliefs change the topic from September 11 or the latest suicide bombing to the "injustices" done to the "Palestinians".

I get the idea that gerryhatrick doesn't like Harper much. Unless I'm reading him wrong.

So that they can draw the line where the benefit of a kid bringing a dog is purely companionship/psychic, as opposed to being a practical necessity. I know, or think, you're being satirical, since you don't consider terror to be a serious problem. That being said, golden and labrador retrievers, the most common service dogs, are also among the world's most vicious breed of dog. They can and do attack using their tail, as well as their paws and the dog's usual attack equipment, their mouths.

I agree. I have a son with a disability. He's mildly autistic. He needs a doctor's prescription for the occupational therapy and physical therapy given to him by the School District per an Individualized Educational Plan ("IEP").

Any high school kid who is afraid of a big freakin' poodle has serious issues and they shouldn't effect this dude in the wheel getting the help he needs. I thought that service dogs are an exception to a "no-animals" policy. I cannot imagine any actual student, at least one with an ounce of compassion, objecting. After all, most people are familiar with and accept seeing-eye dogs in places with food on display, such as supermarkets, despite the known vicious propensities of typical seeing-eye dog breeds, golden and labrador retrievers.

Just listening to the flatulence concerning Harper's failure to attend the conference, imagine the sulphorous outcry if he denied visas?

That's not your everyday "oops". Lots of Jews needlessly died, and as I pointed out now you're filling up space with non-workers. The only "debate" was how long to lag behind Britain to illustrate independence. FDR was sympathetic to everyone, much the way one is at a funeral. He shouldn't have that support. Paul Martin mostly dithered rather than came down decisively for Israel. Yes, until John Napier Turner's leadership, that is. After then, there was little devotion to Israel. Proof?

Good point. I forgot why the US changed over to popular election of Senators. "Senior moment" there.

I don't think there is much patting on the back to be done for taking a powder while other nations did the fighting. As far a secret lend lease, it must have been so tiny that Congress was barely aware of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_hist...ng_World_War_II Jdobin, let me make one thing clear. As a Jew, I am appalled by America's stand prior to entering the war. The US's position in not joining both Wars on behalf of the people whom they shared deep, very deep ties of blood, language, business and culture is a moral blot that will never go away. Further, my people took a 33% population hit while both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and William Lyon Mackenzie King (may they share a room in h*ll together) "took a powder" on rescuing productive, hardworking Jewish potential immigrants, preferring to see them die. Now, both of ou countries are filling up on immigrants that don't want to learn our language and culture, and in many cases contribute nothing. The entire free world paid a high price for the US's moral ambiguity with regard to entering both wars, but WW II especially. And your country is not wholly innocent on the fate of the Jews.

I have expressed my views on ignoring the obvious elsewhere. I'll flip your post around by saying it isn't. I'll explain the reasoning below. My ancestors on my father's side came from what was then loosely defined as Hungary (now in the Czech Republic), part of the Austo-Hungarian Empire, somewhere between 1890 and the outbreak of WW I. His mother and father's side arrived at different times. Allegedly, his mother's side left behind a large house, which employed many servants. The ancestors on my mother's father's side came from what's now Poland during the same period; tancestors on my mother's mothers side came from what's now Ukraine during this time. The telephone had been barely invented, and I estimate that a three minute call would have cost well over $200 in today's money, enough, even at current incomes, to make keeping one foot in the "old country" prohibitively expensive. Of course, initially they all barely scraped by. Travel back and forth, in the absence of non-stop and safe air travel was also impractical and expensive. The net result of this was that people who came to the US, Canada or Australia then were severing all ties, with the exception of sending back money for their relatives to join them. Thus, they had no choice but to learn English and assimilate. CUrrently, people who come over can call home for pennies per minute, "instant message" for free, and even travel back and forth with relative ease. Even a cab driver can afford to, psychologically, "straddle the ocean". Thus, the institutional pressure to assimilate is far lesss. When governments ease the pressure on immigrants to learn English, in the case of the US or Australia, or English or French, in the case of Canada, this makes assimilation even less likely. Thus, while my ancestors, and other assimilated, white, affluent people don't even know of or care about whatever rivalries or hatreds existed or still exist back in the land of their ancestors. today's immigrants continue to live the daily struggles of those they left behind. Thus, if the imams in Pakistan are fomenting hatred of the West, that hatred spreads like greased lightning back to Canada. In the case of the US, this happens, but somewhat less, since the US basically lacks a social welfare system. Thus, "JerrySeinfeld", pointing out these obvious facts is not at all racist.

I'll flip your post around by saying it isn't. I'll explain the reasoning below. My ancestors on my father's side came from what was then loosely defined as Hungary (now in the Czech Republic), part of the Austo-Hungarian Empire, somewhere between 1890 and the outbreak of WW I. His mother and father's side arrived at different times. Allegedly, his mother's side left behind a large house, which employed many servants. The ancestors on my mother's father's side came from what's now Poland during the same period; tancestors on my mother's mothers side came from what's now Ukraine during this time. The telephone had been barely invented, and I estimate that a three minute call would have cost well over $200 in today's money, enough, even at current incomes, to make keeping one foot in the "old country" prohibitively expensive. Of course, initially they all barely scraped by. Travel back and forth, in the absence of non-stop and safe air travel was also impractical and expensive. The net result of this was that people who came to the US, Canada or Australia then were severing all ties, with the exception of sending back money for their relatives to join them. Thus, they had no choice but to learn English and assimilate. CUrrently, people who come over can call home for pennies per minute, "instant message" for free, and even travel back and forth with relative ease. Even a cab driver can afford to, psychologically, "straddle the ocean". Thus, the institutional pressure to assimilate is far lesss. When governments ease the pressure on immigrants to learn English, in the case of the US or Australia, or English or French, in the case of Canada, this makes assimilation even less likely. Thus, while my ancestors, and other assimilated, white, affluent people don't even know of or care about whatever rivalries or hatreds existed or still exist back in the land of their ancestors. today's immigrants continue to live the daily struggles of those they left behind. Thus, if the imams in Pakistan are fomenting hatred of the West, that hatred spreads like greased lightning back to Canada. In the case of the US, this happens, but somewhat less, since the US basically lacks a social welfare system. Thus, "JerrySeinfeld", pointing out these obvious facts is not at all racist.

Don't we already have that? First line under BOARD STATISTICS -Today's active topics Where do you go to find that?

The U.S. sat on its ass until October 30, 1941. The entire burden of actually fighting the war fell on other allies until the U.S. was bombed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_lease There were activities prior to Lend-Lease. Lend-Lease made public what wasbeing done in secret before.

As always, political correctness run amock.

If he had the balls, he would abolish the Senate like many premiers want. A bicameral legislature can be useful as a check on "tyranny of the majority". It should, in some sense, be elected, but elected in a different manner from the lower house so that it doesn't wind up as purely a rubber stamp. In the US, State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Perhaps that would not be a bad approach.

The U.S. didn't enter World War II at Britian's request. It was invited to the conflict by Japan. Only in the very narrowest of senses are you right. The US was hardly a neutral when attacked by Japan, at least in the Atlantic Theatre. Whether we deserved to be attacked by Japan is a close call; certainly, if Japan and Germany were coordinating, the US was already a belligerant in all but name.

And would that be demonstrated? Mr. Alphabet's statements about Israel on his "fact-finding" mission for starters. Or Michael Moore's statements when he was arrested.

Great observation. One can understand the feeling of the Eurotrash though. They spent approximately 1000 years, leading up to 1945, fighting over who would rule Europe, and thus the world. Meanwhile, the best and brightest of Europeans either left of their own accord or were driven out to make the US, Canada and Australia better places to live than cramped, creaking, antiquated Europe. The US, economically and politically, was barely a footnote in world consciousness prior to August 1914. Then, Europe's self-immolation went into full throttle, and Europe just cannot live with the reality that no one cares about Europe any more.

Your perseverative fascination with Harper is what's "pathetic" in this thread.

There are still far too many domestic issues that liberal Jewish voters don't have in common with the Conservatives. A new Liberal leader will likely make a huge difference to the Jewish community this year. Hopefully, to illustrate forcefully that the Left is not a friendly force to Jews.

There were conscripts in both wars. Thus the argument I'm having with some others about Borden in another thread.

I think your point is somewhat well taken. Britain's position is more akin to a "mother country" to both the US and Canada. The US got involved in both World Wars largely at Britain's request, sort of the way a grown son or daughter, feeling guilty, comes home to help aging parents. Canada is more of a sibling to the US, in terms of relationship, than a parent, i.e. closer in relation in some respects, but always a rival.