Jump to content

M.Dancer

Member
  • Posts

    20,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by M.Dancer

  1. That's strange because he said it was a "good" article that took a "deeper" look into who the rioters are.

    Shall I mock your lack of comprehension?

    Go ahead...

    And I shall mock you back if you think that an article that is claimed to have looked deeper...isn't claimed to be deep itself.

    Here is well a very shallow article which tries to look deeper, it doesn't, but hey, this post isn't about JoooS!!

    !

    Your ability to mock would be deep as a sheet of glass.

  2. The Canada Act is the name the Canadian Constitution took when it was amended in the 1980s. They are one in the same. Wow you really don't know anything do you?

    You and Harper are not Federalist and are quite clearly less Federalist then the NDP leader. That has been my point this whole time. Thank you for proving my point.

    'scuse me..Canada Health Act

  3. Mark Duggan did not shoot at police, says IPCC

    IPCC releases initial findings of ballistics tests in police shooting of Mark Duggan, whose death sparked London riots

    link

    there was no shootout. the police killed a man who did not fire any shots. but the police lied and said there was a gun battle. people suspected that he was assassinated and now it's turning out that the suspicions were true.

    Ahem....could you show where the police said the drug dealer fired his loaded gun?

    ThanKs!

  4. No see how you are changing the argument? My question is do you agree with what the PM at the time said when he was agree with the Bloc and PQ saying that Alberta should break the Canada act? Also would you say what he was arguing for is not Federalism but very opposite of that? I am just proving my point that Conservatives don't know what Federalism is.

    How many times must I say it. Yes I agree with Harper.

    Breaking the Canada Act is not breaking the constitution...it is however fixing the problem.

  5. No I think in a strong Federation Citizens are entitled to the same standards across their country. You know I believe in what Federalism is, and has always been in this country. Nice link what a Federation is that doesn't speak to what the Definition of Federalism is in Canada and what Referendums have been fought over. Seriously please learn some history of our great country what political terms mean in this country and educate yourself. Maybe then you wont go on witch hunts when the real anti-Federalist witch is leading the country.

    PS I just want to note you can be an Anti-Federalist in this country that isn't a crime it is a legitimate belief. You however can not be an Anti-Federalist who hates the Constitution this country is government by while at same time lying about it and even worse labeling those who believe in Federalism Separatists. That is wrong. It might be good politics but it is wrong.

    Oh..so now you are arguing we are a federation.....how convenient for you

    Again not a Federation remember CONFEDERATION July 1, 1867? We are a confederation.

    You remind me of the bass my son caught on the week-end...flip flop flip flop

    In fact Harper in 2000 spoke of Alberta separating if they did not get the powers they wanted because he did not like the rules that the Confederation we have. Yes that Harper PM Harper is a bit of separatist himself. He certainly is a hypocrite.

    Of course he didn't, but honestly is not your card to play right now

  6. No see how you are changing the argument? My question is do you agree with what the PM at the time said when he was agree with the Bloc and PQ saying that Alberta should break the Canada act? Also would you say what he was arguing for is not Federalism but very opposite of that? I am just proving my point that Conservatives don't know what Federalism is.

    Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.
    In Canada, federalism typically implies opposition to sovereigntist movements (most commonly Quebec separatism).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

    You still seem stuck on the difference between being a federalist and federalism.

    The Bloq and the PQ said that Alberta should break the Canada Act?

    Hmmm...I thought it was an original idea.

    Why should a province be married to a federal policy that fails the province? You agree then, sub-standard care for all....simply because you think a nice big central government is somehow what Canada is?

    Sorry, that fat pig don't fly...

  7. I am sorry you are right it was his Alberta Firewall letter where he urged his government to break the Canada act.

    See how he is agree with long time Separatist policies? Harper hates federalism. So you agree with the Separatist that runs the country now? Should the West break the Constitution?

    So you believe that Albertans deserve long waiting periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian medicine.....jst because BC and Ontario does...?

  8. I am sorry you are right it was his Alberta Firewall letter where he urged his government to break the Canada act.

    See how he is agree with long time Separatist policies? Harper hates federalism. So you agree with the Separatist that runs the country now? Should the West break the Constitution?

    You realize that it would not "break" the constitution... don't you. I mean partisan rhetorical hackery is one thing...but partisan rhetorical stupidity is quite another.

    ...nor is any of that, separatist policies....just about all of Quebec's moves to greater autonomy came under the Duplessis, Lesage (especially Lesage, Maitres Chez Nous dontcha know) and Bourassa regimes.

    So you want to call that illegal too? You want to say that Quebec has broken the constitution?/

    Would you say it on the podium of the next NPD convention?

  9. The majority of Americans never leave the country, even once, for their whole lives. In fact, a good number of them never even leave their home counties. What does that tell you?

    That the rates for passport holder in Canada and the US are not vastly different.

    Also, Americans are much more likely to want to see their own nation than Canadians theirs.

    Sad to say, I know too many people who would rather visit the Alps than the Rockies

  10. What are you talking about? Yes the provinces provide delivery however it is the Federal government's job to make sure that delivery is the same across the board.

    Something they plainly do not do.

    Welcome to Federalism 101. I notice how you have changed your opinion though and also how you now disagree with Harper's stance on Alberta holding back their equalization that we wrote about in 2000. Again stop trying to have it two ways. Typical conservative talking about of both sides of his mouth and lying out of each one.

    So you disagree with Harpers stance?

    What are you babbling about?

    No I agree with harpers comment.

    Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task.

    Albertans would be fatally ill-advised to view this situation as amusing or benign. Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous. It can revel in calling its American neighbours names because they are too big and powerful to care. But the attitudes toward Alberta so successfully exploited in this election will have inevitable consequences the next time Canada enters a recession or needs an internal enemy.

    Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home — a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous.”

    In one policy area after another, the province of Quebec, with much less financial independence than Alberta, has taken initiatives to ensure it is controlled by its own culture and its own majority. Such a strategy across a range of policy areas will quickly put Alberta on the cutting edge of a world where the region, the continent and the globe are becoming more important than the nation-state.

    It is true that any achievement by Alberta will only generate more hostility from other quarters of Canada in the short term, but it will just as certainly put them under considerable pressure to evolve and progress.

    On the other hand, we should not mimic Quebec by lunging from rejection into the arms of an argument about separation. As that province has shown, separation will simply divide our population in a symbolic debate while, still part of the country, it isolates us from any allies.

    Separation will become a real issue the day the federal government decides to make it one.

    Neither should Albertans shun federal politics, but we must carefully guard our interests. Much about the Canadian Alliance is worthy of support, and a large number of Canadians do support it. But the CA will be under considerable pressure to rid itself of any tinge of a Western agenda or Alberta control. This we must fight. If the Alliance is ever to become a party that could be lead by a Paul Martin or a Joe Clark, it must do so without us. We don’t need a second Liberal party.

    Are you ready to explain how this details breaking the imaginary law of yours...?

  11. But it is very specific that it does not address funding. It addresses both funding and delivery. It says the funding must be to provide comparable levels of delivery. Would you like me to post some legal papers which argue this section of the Constitution to prove you are wrong?

    Here....let me help you...

    Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation

    They provide the funding, the provinces provide the delivery. There is no wiggle room here.

    The delivery differs greatly from province to province....you can't argue it isn't.

  12. Going so far as having the Anti-Federalist leader Harper write an article detailing how Alberta should break this law in the article "Separatism Alberta style"?

    Are you wearing canadian made or internationally made tinfoil?

    It's a rather short article...please cite the so-called details about how alberta would break this imaginary law of yours...

  13. Again would you agree or disagree that the Canadian Constitution the Canada Act has a section that says the Federal government must make sure that social services (Health, Education, Housing, etc.) must be comparable across the country and that non-Federalist parties (Cons and Bloc) have taken issue with this section time and time again. Going so far as having the Anti-Federalist leader Harper write an article detailing how Alberta should break this law in the article "Separatism Alberta style"? Simple question. I am just pointing out that while the NDP and Liberals are federalist parties the Bloc and Cons are not. I am not saying the Conservatives are a Separatist party they just have never fought for Federalism. You want your cake and to eat it to.

    Yes I disagree that the Canada act is part of the constitution and that its function is to make things comparable.

    Because they aren't. Try having a major heart attack in iqaluit...and another in Toronto. Try getting a midwife in Red Deer...and in Montreal...

    bah...socialists and their utopian bullpoop...

  14. So you agree or disagree that there is a section of the Constitution that says it is the Federal governments job to make sure there is a comparable level of social services across the country and that the Bloc and Conservatives have always been against this arguably "Most Federalist" portion of the constitution. I see you dismissed my argument with out addressing it at all. So agree or disagree and why? You are also allowed to say you are ignorant of the Federalist laws which govern this country of course.

    The canada health act deals only with funding, not delivery of services or the types of services offered. There is for instance little comparison between maintoba and quebec in the area of child birthing.

    I know you would wish that ottawa had greater federal powers, but we live in a confederation, not a socialist federation.

  15. Again and I hate to break this to you, someday I know you will read the Constitution of Canada some day, the Federal government is BY LAW obligated to make sure all social services (Health care, Education, Housing etc.) are at the same or comparable levels across Canada.

    Wow....that's amazing...so when the liberals slashed funding...they were really ....making things even?

    Thabnks Punk, your views are so.....unique.

    Get back to me when they are also, correct.

  16. We are a Confederation. However no one is fighting for Confederatism, the fight has always to have the Federal government retain the central powers over things like Medicare, Education and so on.

    The federal government since the days of the BNA, do not have powers over Medicare, education and so on...being the sole jurisdiction of the provinces.

    They do however have exclusive controls over canals and the telegraph.

    Sounds like you would be more comfortable in a federation

  17. Yeah. Ok. :rolleyes:

    Right. When Quebec defeated the 1980 referendum they sent 74 liberals to Ottawa

    When Quebec narrowly defeated the 1995 referendum, they sent 31 Federalists to Ottawa..

    There has never been a provincial sovereigntist party elected in the west..no referendums...nada

  18. Only to someone that doesn't understand why Preston Manning did that. The West most certainly did not want in. The West wanted out because they felt they were ignored by Ottawa among many other reasons. Manning single-handedly changed that sentiment, focusing the separatists on a plan to take over Ottawa, to force Ottawa into recognizing the West. "The West wants in" was Manning's way of stemming the tide of Western sovereigntists. Their man is at the helm of the government now, but it remains to be seen what will happen should that all come to an end. Nonetheless, when the separatists in Quebec declare that they want in, the CPC accuses them of some secret plot to tear the country apart. Well, the same could apply for the Western separatists that suddenly decided that they wanted in.

    What a load of tripe...

    To even suggest that there was a western sovereigntist movement that had any traction at all is political revisionism.

    ....so far the separatists have not declared "they want in" not now when Quebec voted for the soft on separatism party, and not when Quebec voted for PCs or even the Liberals.

×
×
  • Create New...