jbg

You are living in a bubble. Most Canadians see Canada as a different country from the US and would not quitely accept such an outcome. Being an American I agree. Canada is to the US as Saudi Arabia or Syria is to Israel. Very different countries.

Queen would personally rule.

The US's experiment with gasoline price controls was instructive. Prices dropped by about 7 cents per litre, from about $0.33 to $0.26, within weeks after the end of controls in 1981. During controls, we had two major spasms of gas lines at the pump (December 1973 - February 1974 and May-July 1979). Case closed.

I considered this discussion interesting enough that I placed a copy of this discussion on "upforthis", a new board. I in no way encourage people to leave here; I enjoy it too much. I'm curious as to how another group might react.

The problem is that when elders were revered there were fewer of them. Middle-age people rightly worry about the burden of caring both for dependent children and parents. Financial and time resources only go so far.

That assumes that anything at the CBC has brains to be washed. Why insult Americans? We provide your defense, and make your prosperity and freedom possible. Oh yes, Paul Martin was a great choice. Or perhaps Hedy Fry for PM? What a laugh.

Tuktuyotok (sp) is nice this time of year. Or she could travel to the Turks & Caicos, which has been proposed to join NS or become an eleventh province.

These are heartbreaking situations. On the one hand, if we simply subsidize and don't demand advancement and responsibility, we foster a reproductive boom that the land cannot sustain and taxpayers will be unwilling to sustain. If on the other hand we cut the chord suddenly, people will die, in large numbers. Perhaps the solution is individual vesting, ownership and alienability of property, with, clear, transparent titles to that property. If the people then choose to band together, as the Israeli kibbutziks do, fine. If the people don't choose that, fine. Meanwhile, perhaps the US welfare reform model of five years and out would be a good one. People who fear not being able to make it on the reserves would be free to sell their "property" and move on, perhaps integrate.

My overall reply is that ocuntries that are successful, such as the US and Canada should have the ability to retain what created their affluence, and not surrender it to impoverished hordes that want in on the "booty". Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living? See my post just above. Essentially, unions are more or less paper exercises, leading merely to spawning of bureaucracies. So do Canada and the U.S.A. have bureacracies to keep them together. Where is the connection to excluding Mexican migration? I certainly do not argue for excluding Mexican migration. Quite the contrary. I argue for keeping the numbers under some modicum of control, much higher than many other would like. I am not for uniting the countries because the social needs of the Mexican population would overwhelm the rest of North America. Also, the presence of another foreign language with that huge number of speakers would make Canada's Quebec problem look tame. A lot of commodities are traded that way. In fact, Canada and the U.S.A. and tons of other oil producers trade amonst each other in the same oil markets. What is so special? Where is the connection to excluding Mexican migration? We have little to offer them??? Sorry, amigo. No comprendo. My point is that th eonly advantage for them would be the availability of relatively wealthier people from what's now the United States to give assistance. Thus, Americans and Canadians would have to work even harder to sustain a lower standard of living. My point is the united Mexico would not lower the price we pay for oil since that is a market driven price. I agree. Why not keep our borders as they are but eliminate barriers to trade and migration entirely? Between the US and Canada that would work fine, providing that existing immigration laws are enforced and people who are not integrated into our cultures are induced to leave.

What, please tell me, is the "Quebec game"?And as for disunity, within four score and seven years of founding the United States, the states were not united and were embroiled in a bloody civil war that killed millions and took a hundred years or so to put into the past. Keep this all in perspective. The US was, by the time of WW I, pretty much a unified country. Racial divides continued, and continue to this day. The US had several baptisms by fire that Canada has been blessed, or cursed, not to have.

The problem is Dion is NOT the prime minister, Harper is. Stehen Harper is showing a definite disdain for the majority language of Canada and a lack of respect concerning the history of Canada. It is obvious Mr. Harper continues to pander to Quebec which is his choice but will be remembered by some Canadians come election day. Given that the choice is Harper or a real hater of English Canada, which would you prefer?

I agree. My wife give me a hard time when I bodily carry (don't even hit) my stubborn 10 year old when he defies bedtime.

Canada did not deliberately exterminate anyone. That is not fair. Smallpox took the laboring oar.

I thought maybe in "weird news".

Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living? See my post just above. Essentially, unions are more or less paper exercises, leading merely to spawning of bureaucracies. Mexico's main product, oil, sells on transparent markets at anonymously set market prices. Thus, we have remarkably little to offer them, and vice versa.

I agree with most of your post. I do not believe we are in need of the massive bureaucracy that an "EU" style union would entail. Your point that "we are already an intergrated union, just not offfically" is well taken. The US and Canada are bound together by common history, somewhat simillar languages and cultures (Canadian and English sound remarkably similar) and by a long-term absence of hostilities. Our countries' soldiers have in fact fought three major wars and several minor ones as brothers-in-arms. There are even a few cases of communities on each side of the border sharing fire departments. There is an operat house that straddles the Vermont-Quebec border.For our countries, a series of specific agreements such as NAFTA works quite well.. Europe could not be more different. In parts of Europe, a trip of 200 Trudeau Units in any direction brings youi into an entirely different culture, language and sometimes even alphabet. There was over 1000 years of more or less continuous warfare, ending tenuously in 1945 (the peace being enforced by English-speaking people). In short, there is remarkably little in common among most of the European countries (Germany and Austria being horrible exceptions). There is no natural coming-together of peoples in Europe, the way there is between Canadians and Americans. Thus, any attempt at integration (to foster a bureaucracy as much as for the stated aim of being a counterweight to the US) is unnatural, and requires compulsory process to make it work. Thus, I do not believe a formal Union is needed or desireable.

For a minority governmnent, not a bad track record. How much did Martin accomplish? Or for that matter Chrétien? In what time period?

No surprise. They served at the same time, and took similarly timid approaches to making changes that were needed. Reagan broke the grip here, Harper's now doing it there.

I meant, as PM what riding was he sitting in?

Where was Joe Clark from? High River Alberta. Link here. 30 mins south of Calgary, mostly farming/retiree town now-a-days. Didn't he sit in a Calgary riding?

Where was Joe Clark from?

What language does he speak, Canadian or Newfanese?

My own pet theory on Bin Laden's non-capture is that Pakistan has made it clear that country will blow if he's caught. As it is Pakistan still has some ambivalence about whether it want to be a British-style democracy (cricket is still the national sport there) or an Islamofascist state. Better a tenuous balance, with out-of-control tribal areas, than have the lowlands/coastal areas also become ungovernable.

I can't think of any provincial premiers that have become PM's in Canada's history. By contrast, in the US, the following recent Presidents (arbitrarily starting in 1900) have become Presidents, and every one except Jimmy Carter was re-elected once (now the maximum re-elections): Theodore Roosevelt (of New York) (President 1901-1909) Woodrow Wilson (of New Jersey) (President 1913-1921) Calvin Coolidge (of Massachusetts) (President 1923-1929) Franklin Roosevelt (of New York) (President 1933-1945) Jimmy Carter (of Georgia) (President 1977-1981) Ronald Reagan, (of California) (President 1981-1989) William J. Clinton (of Arkansas) (President 1993-2001) George W. Bush (of Texas) (President 2001- ) You can see that with very few exceptions Presidents during modern times are former governors.

You may be heading there in this forum. With free speech comes responsibility. Do you really think you're contributing to the spirit of debate with your Liberal bashing poetry? And just to think the other day I got reprimanded for using a very common slang terms for Liberals. As did I.