BornAlbertan

I'm a bigot? HAHAHA....I guess I will have to tell my Jewish pal that. Known the guy since kindergarten. But then again, we always joke about him being cheap whenever he picks up the tab or buys a round of drinks. He might say I am an asshole...but not a bigot Do you know what a STEREOTYPE is? Guess not...because you don't even really know what bigot means. You just throw the term around loosely when you see something you don't like. You people (oops.....there I go again) are so self-righteous.

If you think I am gonna be like half the losers on this message board and the rest of the world who get their panties in a bunch and actually care that you implied what you did...you got the wrong guy.

You ARE a born Albertan. I won't hide behind anything. I merely implied something that everyone knows. It is like saying "East Indians all cook with curry"...nobody disagrees with that. And yes...I am proud to be a born Albertan. One who has white, brown, red, black, gay and straight friends. I know who I am and my friends know who I am. And anyone who doesn't know who I am and thinks they do...well, their loss.

Just because there was a question on the overwieght aspect and I never saw one regarding smokers...

The roads are the worst they have ever been....because there is no money to fix them. The roads are not cleared in the winter...because there is no money to fix them. The EPS is stretched and crime is rampant...because there is no money to fix it. He PERSONALLY owns Evergreen Trailer Park...and it is falling apart (just a sign of his personal commitment) While there is no money for repairing ageing infrastructure and boost law enforcement and thus safety, they: give themselves double digit raises impose double digit tax hikes perform a $15million rennovation to an art gallery a vast majority of Edmontonians have never and will never be to. Oh...and despite the lack of money, there has recently been talk now of eliminating business taxes!! Don't businesses need roads to bring customers to them?! Or sidewalks or buses? And Mandel is shrewd...but I will leave any form of ethnicity out of the explanation Thank god I am not an Edmonton city tax payer right now though.

just yet more benefit for the have not provinces at the expense of the have provinces. have no problem with sharing...but there is a difference between sharing and leeching.

Point of information. Is Mandel a moron? About as big as they get imo.

Well...let's get back on track then ***TONGUE IN CHEEK HERE*** I think we should have the Asian community apologize for having their youth run rampant in Asian gangs. I think we should have the Muslim community apologize for the soldiers that have died in Afghanistan since 9/11. Hmmm....lets see.... I think we should also have the "First Nations" apologize for...well...I won't go there. Point is...Canada and the evil white man has provided a pretty damned good life for many non-whites and yet the white man....regardless of where he came from or what he thinks, says or does...is the asshole who always has to apologize to everyone else. I am sick of it. I can apologize for wrongs I have done. I can even apologize for wrongs my government has done. I have no problems with that. But I will be damned if I will apologize (or support an apology) for actions of governments that predate my parents or any living relative for that matter and then be told that my tax dollars have to pay reparations to some people who did not suffer one iota!

I was not going to dignify your garbage with another response but after doing a search I find you are simply regurgitating your pap from other threads which thoroughly debunked your nonsense. You just copy and paste your smears into as many threads as you can to divert the topic Nice try . Interesting that you failed to produce a shred of evidence to debunk my point. Instead you referred to the facts I presented as "garbage", "pap", "nonsense" and "smears". What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore: (1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals? (2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill? So is it legal to promote or advocate the killing of heterosexuals? I think if you would think about it, alot of the votes they made were not because they were against something but rather for something a little broader; Promoting or advocating the killing of ANYONE is wrong but to be illegal? Maybe if you are a teacher, minister or some other person of influence. I personally am FOR the death penalty for people like Robert Pickton and Paul Bernardo. Does that mean I should go to jail because I hate these vile pieces of sh*t? And what makes gays so special that they need laws that don't already protect them any more than they already are? The whole concept of hate crime is foolish. You have the right to hate anyone or anything you want...that is a consitutionally prected right. But the law is the law and if you act against that law you are guilty of that law. If you kill someone out of hatred, you should be charged with murder...your hatred is your motive...it should not be an additional crime! I mean, hate crime is just one step closer to policing thought. Gays, straights, white, black etc... should all be protected under the same laws without enforcing policing of thought.

Maybe more akin to Toronto's place in Ontario. It's hard to ignore the %tage of population that Calgary represents in Alberta. Alberta's population: 3,290,350 Edmonton: 730,372 Metro: 1,034,945 Calgary: 988,193 Metro: 1,079,310 Uhm...nowhere close to Toronto's "place" in Ontario. Especially since Edmonton's metro is so much larger than Calgary's and MUCH MUCH closer geographically. You don'twant to ignore the %tage of population that Calgary represents in Alberta, ok that's fine. Consider this though, most people consider metro areas to be the "city" populace. SO...if such is the case, what gives Calgary to have such a bug up the ass over a difference of 1.4% of the provincial population. Or hell, Stelmach comes from Vegreville...not an Edmonton suburb but can be considered rural... Hmmmm....Calgary has 32.8% of the population, Edmonton 31.4 and the rest of the province is 35.7%. So tell me, does Calgary REALLY have that much to complain about? I mean, Ralph was their GOLDEN BOY. Then to suddenly turn coats like that? You can't tell me those people all switched Liberal because that is complete bullsh*t. They are peeved because they don't have a Calgary premier. Just like many of them are peeved that Edmonton is the capitol. It is an arrogance thing. Something I very much picked up on in my years living there. Then there is Edmonton. Hell, they keep elected morons for mayors and council so they have much larger things to worry about (like potholes that swallow cars).

"Meanwhile, a study released Wednesday predicted Ottawa's new equalization formula could cost the Atlantic provinces $4 billion in payments over the next 13 years." BOOHOO. It won't COST them anything. It just means they don't get HANDED as much. Alberta and Ontario are another story. It COSTS them over $12billion a year EACH to just be part of Canada, so excuse me all if I at seem unsympathetic over $4billion not being handed out to 4 provinces over the next 13 years

I dont think I missed anything. The same can be said for the "west" or prairie provinces, minimize overhead, max revenues etc. I guess my point is that down east, they have pride in the respective provinces, the same if not more so than the RoC and the idea most certainly would not fly, just like it wouldnt in the prairies. Let's go the other way then. How prosperous do you think Ontario would be if it were split into chunks which separated its major industries and then placed bureacritic red tape in between them due to variants in legislation? Or imagine Alberta it it were broken up. The geographics of the maritimes does not support any form of sustainability of their current layout. If a company is not suviving without handouts and bailouts, it has to restructure. Down east it might not fly....but what happens when Alberta and Ontario finally say enough of this shit?

Kind of like merging Alta, Man, and Sask since there is only 5.384 M people there. That way Sask and Man can be richer. The savings would be huge and the profits even richer. You obviously missed my point. It is not about spreading the wealth as would obviously be the case in your example. It would be about minimizing overhead to maximize revenues in a part of Canada which really does not have anything diverse enough to warrant or sustain such inefficient means of management of such small populations.

Hmm, let's see...I would have lived near to there just before you did (in the 90's), and I didn't notice any feelings of superiority by Torontonians. Maybe things changed after I left. Superior beings amongst themselves don't need to project their superiority. Besides, it is on the national/international stage in how they do that via their politicians, not civilians.

Anyone ever thought that a lot of the fiscal problems in the Maritimes could be resolved by not having so many provinces? I mean, think of the waste created from having so many levels of government for 2,324,833 people!!! Despite our geographical diversity, why is there even a PEI, NFLD, NS or NB. Merge the resources. Natural, political and human. The only reason to be against this would be the preservation of "culture"...which is an expensive thing to preserve and is unfair to expect the rest of Canada to have to pay for it because you yourself can't.

I remember when Edmonton renamed Calgary Trail North to Gateway Blvd. Calgarians were freaking saying Calgary should rename Edmonton Trail...I laughed at foolishness of as I was unsure if it was just pettiness or an exagerated lack of self-confidence. Besides, Edmonton Trail hasn't gone to Edmonton for decades...most Edmontonians don't even know it exists (and most probably could care less).

Hello?

Wow. You really are a born Albertan. I like Harper making these apologies. It isn't that really big of a deal or a lot of money to the Federal Government. But it means a lot to the specific communities. It also helps dispel *scary* *scary* *scary*. Can you dispute that immigration is about economic sustainability rather than just being nice? Why should Canada have to apologize for what every other country in this world does: pick and choose who they want within their country for the growth and sustainability of their economy. If you read the link I posted, you would read that entry was given to Indians with $200.

Simple. He's not Calgarian. There is definitely more to it than that. Calgarians don't really get it some times. I was involved in the leadership. Didn't vote for Stelmach but I can understand why he won. I explained the reasoning to the 'real Calgarians' I spoke to pretty simply. Most Albertans get pissed off by the fact that the Prime Ministership has been dominated by Quebeckers. 36 out of the last 39 years. Is that fair? Why should the Premier always come from Calgary? Is that fair? See, and I am not from Calgary or from Edmonton but have lived in both cities for several years each. I always loved both cities for each of their own merits. But one thing I could not get is the self-righteous attitude Calgary has in regards to its place in Alberta. Your explanation is correct. But I think it would be even more accurate to describe Calgary as Alberta's Toronto (in relation to Toronto's attitude and place in Canada).

I think BC should be apologizing for this if anybody apologizes! http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/BC/komaga...ru_incident.htm But in reality...I don't think anyone should be apologizing. You choose who you want in your home. Immigration is not supposed to be about "being nice". Immigration is about economics. An economy saturated with developement and depleted on labour CANNOT GROW. Hence, immigration. A country should be able to adobt any practice it deems to ensure it only let's in the people that will best help the country at that particular point in history. It should not have to account for it 100 years later because of some bleeding heart bastards who don't understand that it is not all about them!

Simple. He's not Calgarian.

So now you are valuing the lives of these soldiers more than that of the average person. Should apply for a soldier who dies in a car accident while on furlow? Should it apply to the soldier who died from gross incompetence? Where do you raw the line?

Sooooo... Do our dead soldiers give their lives for their country or sell their lives to their country? Dependants should be taken care of. Most deffinately. But I think the Dinning's are nationally tarnishing the memory of their son and completely going against what his son would have wanted.

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying in the quote. If I correctly understand you, the man will be a person of influence, no different than any other adult. Correct? Yes. And it is a culmination of those influences that makes the child who they become. No, for both the man and women it is essential that they make their legal standing clear PRIOR to waiting to see how long the relationship last. It would indeed be foolhardy for the parties, to try and enter a contract after the child is born depending upon if the relationship last. This couple may be going into this contract with the assumption that their relationship will not last, and thus wish to make clear the parenting intent of each party. Perhaps she should be considering whether this guy is worth it?? It is force and coercion which takes away the free will of both parties to freely enter into a contract. The man is being forced to be designated as a parent. So absolutely there is force involved. If the rest of your argument is that if the guy is around he will have influence on the child, ok, I agree. But influence doesn't make him a father, any more than all the other adults around a child who influence the child make them the father. Hmmmm....I still say they shouldn't even be together. What exactly do you mean? The guy is pretty clear, he doen't want to be a father. The woman too is clear, she wants to be a mother. It is you who is speculating pretty far out that somehow he will change his mind and become attachec to the child and want the fatherly duties. By your own words there are people who had fathers who were abusive or didn't care. At least this guy is definitively stating he is not accepting that role, nor the privilidges nor the responsiblities. If the mother is ok with it, why shoudl the govenment intefere? I was pretty clear to. They want completely different things out of life so therefore they should not be together. I can see how your justice and rights works. I can see how your sense of humour doesn't.

It is an asumption. If the guy is not going to be around for a duration of time and the child is not biologically his it cannot be assumed he shall be responsible for the child thus negating the need for such a legal proceeding. The fact it is going to the courts as it is suggests that he will be. There is nothing being forced. The fact is, unless the guy does not interact with the child at all, he will in fact have an influence on the child. The child very well may grow up knowing the guy is not "dad"....but his presence and inherent influence on the child will bear some semblance to that of a father. It is called NATURE. Think of all the people out there who are f***ed in the head because they had a father who didn't care or a father that was abusive. Those were not fathers....but they had a significant impact nonetheless. If their current ambitions are so damn far out of line they should not be together in the first place so spare me that bullshit. And some people are only alive because it is against the law to kill them.