Alexandra
-
Posts
192 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Alexandra
-
-
Unless of course it means supporting Israel - then you would be back to where you are now. As an expat Canadian I now know why Canada has started to lose her reputation - it used to be the ugly American - it is now - more and more becoming the ugly Canadian - smug, self centred and oh so correct in their arrogance and ignorance
Borg
Bravo Borg. Being ex-pats and living/working in the center of the storm is a humbling experience with no room whatsoever for the smug, self-righteous and overbearing false patriotism Canadians are now becoming known for. Such as that on display by the poster you have replied to.
`
-
b_c2004 ... you can leave your democrats behind, K? and take some of our tories with you ... and wander the earth for centuries looking for a home ... only to return home finally recognizing that living in a place where people care for each other is really as good as it gets: a dash of socialism never hurt anybody!
But make sure you take Fox news with you, eh? And don't bring them back.
Oh gawd, it's you again, SAGA! How many incarnations is this after you have been kicked off this board a dozen times or more? Back again under Tango must mean you have been kicked off Babble -- again?
How about you take your own advice and wander the earth for centuries looking for a new Message Board to rant on ad nauseum about your tribes and six nations and, yada, yada.
Other more intelligent and moderate people than you have been shown the door from this board and why you persist in your efforts to return here again and again after people have complained to Charles about you and your 'agenda' just proves how desperate you are to have a space to rant and rave.
Try babble again.
`
-
I'm not the one arguing for a break-up the country.
Neither am I. Neither is the editor of the magazine which you are well aware of and if not, should be. Did you not know that discussing separatists/ism is 'treasonous'? tsk, tsk.
(must have hit the rewind button, hmmm)
-
Equally "treasonous". Anyone who makes an argument in favour of dismantling this country is against Canada. Those who wish for Quebec's separation are working towards the death of a country.
I’m all in favour of debate, but threats merely demonstrate the weakness in one’s underlying argument.Separatist arguments are the mark of a weak mind.
I couldn't agree with you more. Take it up with JDobbin if you wouldn't mind. This is his thread in connection with Separatists!
It is called = Irony. Obviously some fail to recognize same.
`
-
Equally "treasonous". Anyone who makes an argument in favour of dismantling this country is against Canada. Those who wish for Quebec's separation are working towards the death of a country.
I’m all in favour of debate, but threats merely demonstrate the weakness in one’s underlying argument.Separatist arguments are the mark of a weak mind.
I couldn't agree with yoou more. Take it up with JDobbin if you wouldn't mind.
-
I think blind loyalty and disdain runs up some other poster's alley, don't cha think? The Tory cheerleading goes as far as supporting western separation?
No, dobbin. Wrong again. Where I come from in the West all of the Tories I am familiar with are cheerleaders and support wholeheartedly Quebec separation.
`
-
jdobbin outperformed himself. There is only about 0.1% of truth in his post. This is a classical example of goebbelsian (liberal) propaganda.
*
*
Bad job, jdobbin!
Well, of course one such as dobbin tends to relish the latest and most provocative gossip-sensationalism about any other political party when one professes blind loyalty to his cause and nothing but disdain for those of a different political party.
Ignoring in total the other side of the equation, such as:
http://www.cfrb.com/node/901388
The dastardly Conservatives and their biased magazinesIn fairness to David, he may not know that this funding flows freely from government's of all stripes. I've worked in Canada's arts industry, of which most magazine believe they belong and I've seen the programs first hand. While those in the industry will always tell you there isn't enough government money, the feds spend plenty on Canadian magazines and it isn't limited to $27,124 in funding to a group of Alberta's conservatives.
Consider this line from the website of the fantastically left wing This Magazine, a magazine that just might consider Jack Layton a right winger
"This Magazine receives financial support from the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Publication Assistance Program and the Canada Magazine Fund. "
Count ‘em, four different types of funding from government, three of them from the feds.
The Walrus Magazine, another publication hardly friendly to the Conservatives or conservatism, was able to grab $110,522 from the Canadian Magazine Fund. If I was Report Magazine, I might be a little miffed that I didn't get more money, I mean even Urban Male Magazine got more money than they did.
As for worries that the feds are funding a publication that supports Western separatism but they would never give money to a publication that spoke favourably of Quebec separatism. We've all been funding Radio-Canada for decades, a place Pierre Trudeau was sure was filled with separatists, and the magazines, don't be too sure, maybe take a close look at that long list of publications.
The "Urban Male Magazine"?
`
-
Truth replacing satire?
A few Liberals thought it amusing.
`
-
Say it isn't so, mercy me, evangelical Liberals, now who will they do LOL Imagine, we could have an IDS (Iggy Derangement Syndrome)
We do have the IDS. Right on this thread. It looks like it's contagious too.
`
-
From the same Nanos poll: [but never on this Board has the following been linked to by any of the 'opposition']
QUESTION: Of the following individuals who do you think would make the best Prime Minister?
ANSWER: Stephen Harper
the 'following' individuals were:
Stephen Harper
Michael Ignatieff
Gilles Duceppe
Jack Layton and,
Elizabeth May
Canadians are a contrary bunch of people it seems
.http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W09-T362E.pdf
-
I'm still wondering if we will ever find out just what Trudeau's government paid BP, Gulf and those other companies to form Petro-Can!
That secret has been locked up tighter than a frog's butt, and that's water tight! A succession of Attorney Generals have tried and failed.
All we know is that those companies couldn't take the money fast enough.
Trudeau paid untold $Billions to buy a Belgian Oil company's Canadian subsidiary, Petrofina-Canada to re-name it Petro-Can:
Trudeau wanted Canada to be less dependent on the United States. He lobbied for increased Canadian ownership and protection of the country's resources. Creating Petro-Canada in 1975 was part of that plan. The Crown-owned company would develop and control Canada's presence in the energy sector.But throughout the energy crisis of the 1970s, a sense of bitterness grew in Western Canada as Central and Eastern Canada increasingly relied on western oil wealth. "Where were Bay Street and Montreal when we needed them in the 1930s and '40s?" the West asked.
In 1980, Trudeau's national energy program (NEP) further angered the West. The program aimed to give Ottawa more control over the country's energy, increase Canadian ownership of the oil industry and share Alberta's oil wealth with the rest of the country. It also included an expanded role for Petro-Canada.
When he became prime minister in 1984, Brian Mulroney dismantled the NEP and ordered Petro-Canada to focus on profits.
1975 - Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government passes Petro-Canada Act, establishing Crown-owned corporation to develop and protect Canadian presence in oil industry.
1978 - Alberta's Syncrude starts up. It's the world's largest producer of crude oil from oilsands. (Petro-Canada owns 12 per cent of Syncrude.)
1979 - Petro-Canada buys Calgary-based Pacific Petroleums. The company discovers (with partners Chevron, Mobil and Gulf) the Hibernia oilfield off Newfoundland.
1980 - First offshore wells drilled as part of oil exploration program off Labrador.
1981 - Petro-Canada buys Petrofina Canada, Canadian subsidiary of Belgian petroleum conglomerate, Petrofina SA. The move establishes a refining and marketing presence in Eastern Canada.
1983 - Company buys BP Canada, enlarging operations in Ontario and Quebec.
1984 - Petro-Canada announces discovery of Terra Nova oilfield on the Grand Banks, off Newfoundland. It's the second-largest oilfield off Canada's East Coast. Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney tells Petro-Canada to operate as a profit-driven company.
1991 - Mulroney begins process to privatize Petro-Canada. First shares of Petro-Canada sold to public at $13 per share, raising $525 million.
1992 - Petro-Canada sells off shares in several projects, including Wolf Lake oilsands (50 per cent), Westcoast Energy (37 per cent) and Internationals de Services Industriels et Scientifiques (27 per cent).
1995 - Jean Chrétien's Liberals reduce the government's interest in Petro-Canada to 20 per cent.
1996 - Company increases western presence with purchase of Amerada Hess Canada Ltd.; forms strategic alliance with Norway's Norsk Hydro.....
Petro-Can has divested itself of some(?) of those assets over the years and has had a reputation of poor management, vision, throughout the industry.
`
-
well - of course - as guyser was mimicking Steven Harper's Minister of Faith Based Science & Technology... we can accept your failing grade assignment on Goodyear's behalf.
It appears from the above IRONY is wasted on you. On Guyser, perhaps and then, perhaps not.
`
-
Here is your answer.... “I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate"
How is that for an answer?
Answer? Failing grade, Guyser.
Being deliberately obtuse doesn't become you.
`
-
I am going by the polls that say evolution is how we came into being as humans.
So you think evolution should not be taught in schools? You believe it is a religion? Do you believe creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught in schools? You believe that the Earth is 6000 years old?
Have you posted those polls which say evolution is how we came into being?
Jonathon Kay's discussion re "polls" vis a vis evolution - creationism - in today's NP:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/s...html?id=1399884
Canadians differ on whether a supernatural entity had a role in the creation of human life. In a 2007 Canadian Press-Decima Research poll, 26% of respondents said they believe in creationism, 29% picked evolution and 34% said they believe in some combination of the two.This is what started this contretemps:
In the article -- entitled "Minister won't confirm belief in evolution: Researchers aghast that key figure in funding controversy invokes religion in science discussion" -- Globe science writer Anne McIlroy breathlessly reported that "Canada's Science Minister [Gary Goodyear], the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution";And, this:
But that sort of intellectual modesty and agnosticism is boring: It too closely approximates the way millions of ordinary Canadians think about the mysteries of the cosmos. (And as we found out after the article was published, Goodyear does indeed believe in evolution; his insistence that his personal beliefs were irrelevant was made in good faith.) So McIlroy and her editors went out and got some sexed-up reaction quotes from outraged secularists who could be depended on to slam any inkling of spirituality as a portend of theocracy.The problem with the usual tempests in teapots is that by creating or seen to be creating 'news' there will always be another journalist or blogger whose curiosity is piqued enough by such teapot tempests to ruthlessly rebut with truth or facts the original reporter's truth or facts.
Jonathon Kay rebuts McIlroy's statement that whatsisname Goodyear refused to answer whether he believed or did not believe in evolution, hence, of course he is a 'creationist', whatever that is.
So, Dobbin. If 34% stated in a poll that they think (believe) it is a combination of both evol. and create. then how do you arrive at the 'majority' believe in evoluton? And, if this MP Goodyear actually does, as Jonathon Kay states, (who by the way is not a -- christian, catholic or evang.) have a belief in evolution, what purpose would McIlroy have in claiming this Goodyear was a -- cough -- bible puncher therefore ineligible to be a Minister of Science, or whatever?
Were you taught evolution, creationism or, a combination of both in your science classes btw? Of course you are not obligated to answer that question, are you jdobbin?
`
-
There are social conservatives in the Conservative party. We have seen that social policy manifested in the change on the death penalty by Day. The court ruled that he could not act unilaterally on the matter. That is the moderate Tory policy?
One of the main things that people worry about with Harper is that a majority will suddenly unleash a lot of social conservative policies even if incrementally. For example, it is easy to see the Tories try something like the death penalty for killing a peace office. They'd make it a wedge issue.
Yes, as there are social conservatives in the Liberal party. The death penalty? Where? Oh, are you referring to the murderer on death row in Montana? That death penalty policy -- in the United States of America? Dobbin, do you propose that Canada should act as Intervenor in death penalty cases in the U.S.? Are you suggesting that since Canada abolished the death penalty and if a Canadian citizen chooses to murder one, two or more Americans Canada's policy should apply in each and every State of the Union? If you do, then since there are States in the U.S. who still enforce the death penalty, California for one, would you agree that California's government should be given the same intervenor status in Canada if one of their citizens had been convicted of murdering one, two or more Canadians; -- that California should be given the right to enforce the death penalty in Canada? Simple, isn't it? Whatever gives Canada the right to dictate it's policies on the death penalty to the United States? The Appeal judge refused to speak to that niggling little question.
Oh, yes. suddenly unleashing so-con policies. Incrementally. Try that one again Dobbin but with less irony. If you believe that a 'moderately socialist' country like Canada would vote for a party - any party - that attempted to force death penalty policies or any so-con policies on it's citizens then - you must be desperate to convince me. Although you might check the local blogs in Vancouver and find a huge surprise. There are demands to bring back the death penalty. 40 plus shootings, 20 deaths and now the females are being gunned down as well as dodging bullets in the malls. The death penalty is looking attractive.
I am saying that some evangelicals might not be best served by voting for Tories if issues like the environment and the deficit are important to them.I quite understand what you are saying. Now that Master Ignatieff has proclaimed his affection for those Evangelical so-cons and wish those nut cases (smirk) to join and worship HE and his acolytes you, Dobbin, are fine with that.
`
-
What makes you think Coderre was referring to the Bloc. He didn't specify the Bloc. Maybe he talked to "fatigued" Parti Quebecois separatists.
That's possible.
We don't know whether Coderre is courting BQ, PQ or both.
No, I don't think all Bloc voters want separation. But neither are all Bloc voters willing to run for office.
From Radwanski's piece in the Mope and Wail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/WBwbradwanski
Even if you believe that's the case, Denis Coderre - for whom nuance does not exactly come naturally - does not seem like the best person to pursue it. The lines between nationalists and federalists in Quebec are more blurred than they used to be, and it's possible to pursue some initiatives that meet the interests of both. But inviting people who expressly seek the break-up of the country - or, for that matter, the weird collection of populists who comprise the ADQ - into your caucus is pretty well guararanteed to end badly, as it did for Paul Martin, or really, really badly, as it did for Brian Mulroney.But then, so is appointing a shallow opportunist as your point man in the most fraught province in the country.
There's an irony in Ignatieff going down that route. As Rob Silver notes, the Liberals' strategy these days is to figure out what Stephane Dion would do, and then do the opposite. But because their institutional memory apparently goes back only as far as December, 2006, the mistakes of Dion's predecessor - and their consequences - have apparently been erased from consideration.
"ended badly for Mulroney" = Bouchard!
`
-
I think Ignatieff might be able to reach some of Christians who believe in the environment and in fiscal conservatism, two areas where the Conservatives have not shown strength in the last years.
Oh, please. Dobbin. For the past three years on this board there has been attack upon attack on the so-called 'evangelical-right-wing-anti-gay-anti-abortion-anti-SSM' PM Harper and EVERY Conservative in Canada. No matter how many MODERATE Conservatives are actual supporters/members of the CPC and do in fact OUTNUMBER by far the so-called religious so-cons there are and have been condescending and nasty comments about all of those right-wing religious nuts, especially the PM, Stephen Harper.
Do not attempt at this stage of the game to again do a 180, this time, on your opinion of "Christians" and their conservative radical policies by classifying them as "some Christians who believe in the environment or are fiscal conservatives" who have not been served by the CPC. but who would now be served best by Ignatieff's NEW open policy to the EVANGELISTS. Ignatieff is attempting to snare the EVANGELIST christians. Not some greenie or fiscally conservative christian.
What you are really saying is: It is now just peachy keen for the less nutty christians to be conned by Master Ignatieff and his MP McKay to join and DONATE to HIS party rather than those crackpot christian Evangelists!
`
-
There's that "big tent" I was talking about in my post just after PT's. Didn't take long eh?
An obsessive compulsion perhaps, Cap?
As to the "Quebecers are a Nation"?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/WBwbradwanski
Congratulations, Michael Ignatieff. You've found your Jean Lapierre.Remember, this is the same person who tried to build support for his first leadership campaign by setting in motion the chain of events that led to Quebec being declared a nation within Canada. We don't know much about Ignatieff's policy views, of yet, but we do know that he's quite confident that the way to Quebeckers' hearts is through a softer version of federalism........ etc.
-
http://www.cfrb.com/node/88933
Now comes perhaps the more shocking news, the Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, are reaching out to religious voters.
Specifically, the Liberals are planning to try to reconnect with Evangelical Christians, MP John McKay is the man heading up the effort. Today Evangelicals are a group mostly thought of in terms of Republican support in the United States, yet at one point they did vote for Liberal MPs, especially in Ontario.
Michael Ignatieff wants to make sure church-going Christian voters feel at home in the Liberal Party. He has his work cut out for him, but John McKay is the right man to make the approach in Evangelical circles. McKay is the past moderator of Spring Garden Church in Willowdale and was co-founder of the Canadian division of the Christian Legal Fellowship, an organization of Christian lawyers. His voting record on same-sex marriage (he voted against) and his pro-life stance won’t make him many friends in some parts of the Liberal Party, but will help him in speaking to a community he knows well but that the Liberals have avoided like the plague.
Evangelical christians? How shocking, especially for Harper haters such as Normanchateau, et al. Unbelievable. Ignatieff's choice, McKay, to bring on in to HIS party all of those holy rolling evangelicals, etc., voted AGAINST same sex marriage and is an anti 'pro-choicer' ----
This must of course be the latest 'war room' strategy of that sue-em-all Kinsella! The GRIT GIRL (AKA Warren Kinsella) of the new liberal attack ads now playing on You Tube. Not too sneaky Kinsella since everyone in the know detected your 'catty' attacks on the first attack ad against the Conservatives.
Weep on and on Norman -- imagine an anti SSM'er being appointed to pander to the evangelicals for Master Ignatieff ....
By the way Mrs. Progressive -- where are all of those attack ads against Ignatieff and HIS party -- you know, the attack ads you wrote 20 or more threads on?
`
-
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...10?hub=Politics
Wonder how fast we will hear an apology.
As fast as Kinsella has withdrawn or not proceeded with all of the lawsuits he has threatened in just a few short years. Of course the $5Million libel suit he just filed against Ezra Levant is one of his more ridiculously looney flights of fancy.
The attempts to discredit both Kathy Shaidle and Kate McMillan he involved himself in with the jewish groups one of which turned around to bite him is just one of his now very public humiliations and, for him, unwanted publicity. Again. One of his recent mistakes was to threaten one of the most read blogging women in Canada-USA and after receiving such a smack-down he still tries his 'catty' little digs whereupon he receives another not too subtle slap up the side of his head from this very astute young Miss.
Kinsella has so many lawsuit balls in the air at any one time it must be difficult for him to figure out which one he must withdraw or make apologies for.
Dobbin, get with the gossip!
`
-
Well.....dont run a business then.....
DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENTDiscrimination because of gender identity is any action based on a person’s sex or gender, intentional or not, that imposes burdens on a person or group and not on others, or that withholds or limits access to benefits available to other members of society. This can be overt or subtle, and includes systemic discrimination, such as when there is a non-inclusive rule or policy.
Example: A transsexual woman is not allowed to use the women’s washroom at her place of work. Her manager defends this by explaining that other staff have expressed discomfort. This workplace needs a policy that clearly states the transsexual employee has the right to use this washroom, while providing education to resolve staff concerns and to prevent future harassment and discrimination.
There is a very simple solution to your Example A: Never, ever, hire a transsexual in a company which employs women.
`
-
The proposed changes would increase the maximum sentence for marijuana production to 14 years, from seven..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29432204/
Whenever one thinks that Harper can't possibly demonstrate more irrationality than he has in the past, he proves us wrong. Who in their right mind believes that gang-related crime will decline if the maximum penalty for producing marijuana is 14 years instead of seven? Stupid, stupid Harper. He continues to derive his anachronistic drug policies from George Bush and Richard Nixon.
Rather than linking to a Vancouver media source N.chateau and quoting a few of the main issues within the proposed changes your hissy fits when it comes to the marijuana possession thingie is so politically transparent. MSNBC? What, the Vancouver Sun is much too close to the subject to report the actual events? It must be assumed you do not read Kim Bolan's blog in order for you to be so out of touch with reality.
These are a few of the actual proposed changes which deals with the real organized crime and drug issues in the Greater Vancouver area:
"VANCOUVER - Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said new legislation introduced Friday will mean drug dealers caught with guns will face at least a year behind bars.
"And if they are dealing near schools, the mandatory term would be two years, Nicholson said.
"Mandatory prison sentences are appropriate for those who commit serious drug offences threatening our society," said Nicholson.
The provision include:
- A one-year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as marijuana, when carried out for organized crime purposes or when a weapon or violence is involved;
- A two-year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamines to youth, or for dealing those drugs near a school or in an area normally frequented by youth;
- A two-year mandatory prison sentence for the offence of running a large marijuana grow operation involving at least 500 plants;
- Increased maximum penalties for cannabis production from 7 years to 14 years imprisonment;
- Tougher penalties for trafficking GHB and flunitrazepam, most commonly known as date-rape drugs."
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mandatory...6577/story.html
How you fail to see, read, hear or smell the BC Bud being smoked openly on the streets, in cars, in street cafes, at parties at UBC and Simon Fraser, etc., etc. and throughout all of the Greater Vancouver area as well as all of the ski hills in the Interior and Whistler WITHOUT ANY ARRESTS by the local police forces is unbelievable. Yet, you continue to whine about any arrests and penalties for those caught with a big baggie full of the Bud for purposes of selling to friends and not so friendly friends.
As long as it isn't you or anyone else in the parking lot of the mall when the bullets are flying in broad daylight and one of the major gang bosses is shot through the head and chest while sitting in his vehicle and when the bullets stop a Doctor rushes out from a clinic, pulls this 26 year old out of his vehicle and attempts to stop the bleeding before help arrives and everyone picks themselves up from the sidewalk but luckily he is the only one dead, right Normanchateau? Or, when the 22 year old mother of two driving home with her 4 year old son in the back seat is shot to death by a cold blooded killer in the car in the next lane -- simply because she was married to a rival drug lord -- Oh, right, all of these killings no matter how many innocent people may lose their lives in Greater Vancouver are not nearly as important to you Normanchateau as your own political agenda. Of course those are just two of the dead in the past two weeks.
At last count the drive by shooting in Maple Ridge yesterday seems to have had only one victim. Good thing that. Broad daylight on the street in a family oriented area again. Right. We do not need tougher laws. One of the crime bosses walked out of court the other day on 11 gun charges - with silencer but then he has only been in court 60 times so far. He is 27 years old so he has at least a couple more years to either deal his hard drugs or die in a shootout on a street near you. All of the body armour didn't help the shots to the head of the other gang boss recently. The local police in bucolic Abbotsford are probably wearing their armoured vests to bed now and who would blame them with the rival gangsters trying to eliminate their rivals on a weekly basis? These are hardcore hard drug gangs Normanchateau not the BC Bud smoking thousands in Greater Vancouver. You would of course prefer that any tightening of the Criminal Code should have been enacted years ago right? Under a different Federal regime such as the Chretien/Martin gang? Oh, wait.
`
-
What I found interesting from the Back to the Future website, promoting the return of the Reform Party, is that they seem to have changed their platform. They still have a strong social conservative agenda, but are attempting to promote the Party, not as a Western protest group, but a national alternative to the present Conservative Party.
All criticism is aimed at Stephen Harper, the deficit, and the move away from their original principles. They plan to run candidates in all 308 ridings and now present a stronger economic and environmental platform.
A while back there was an announcement in our local paper of a meeting at a large local hotel, for all those interested in learning about the Reform Party, and the strides made to bring it back. I found it odd that they would hold such a meeting in Kingston, Ontario. I don't think we ever even had a Reform candidate run here, but they are obviously putting out feelers across the country.
I wish now that I had gone, just for curiosity sake.
Yes, it is a shame you did not attend that Back to the Future-Reform meeting. Although you are four years too late. Tell me, Progressive -- Do you ever read any of the stuff you post here in an attempt to back up your flights of fancy?
"Yours in Reform,
Paul M. Ellis
Mount Forest
Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey
A Proud Ontario Reformer
Sign up here to restart Reform alive in 2005!"
-
Dancer , it was reported on the news back in'06 on TV news , when he first went to the PMO and they were showing the front of the PM house and saying he had to go to get medical help for panic and anxiety attacks, that's why he gain so much weight in his middle. So your answer to which small appliance told me was the TV!!!!
Stephen Harper had an ASTHMA attack you silly twit. He is on prescription medication for his Asthma which has a side effect of weight gain. He has had Asthma since childhood. May the Gods strike your keyboard mute!
Oh Right. The tv was actually the toaster.
`
capital punishment
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Actually 'it' does not 'emanate' from any hardcore Alberta Con base.
It may seem it is Alberta which is most 'virulently' anti-Trudeau from where you sit in Ontario. From where I sit in B.C. except for the actual downtown core of Vancouver and groups of NDippers scattered around Greater Vancouver there are B.C.'ers equally if not more vociferously anti-Trudeau than many Albertans. For good reason. Many are equally as 'virulently' anti-Chretien as well; it may be that most B.C.'ers are very, very wary of Quebec and Ontario - period. When it comes to all of the sneering and disparagement of the natural resources of Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan by the Bob Raes, Ignatiefs, the Layton crowd of Babblers, the Quebecers braying on and on about the tarsands and climatebloodychange then is it such a surprise that Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan still loathe everything that Trudeau did to turn our country into the socialist nirvanna he paid such lip service to but in fact treated the citizens, particularly those of the West, with disdain. More contempt than disdain for the fools he believed us to be.
Trudeau and his official language Act? I mean really. Who speaks Quebec french in the West!
`