jawapunk

Sorry, I didn't read the 44 pages of forum posts I didn't think it said that races don't exist, it is more of a paper discussing the history of using science to justify racism because I thought the thread was taking a turn that way kind of. It defintily is opinion, but then I pretty sure that is entirely what we are engaged in while using this forum aswell. Cheers.

I find it odd aswell White, that your name states you are patrolling for Trolls, when you have basically attacked me on three separate threads now. Seems to me there is a little hypocrisy of your own going on.

Well since you want to know my history I will tell you. I was born in Fredericton New Brunswick, moved to Alberta ( my father is an oil engineer). After living in a tiny town in Alberta, Bonnyville. We moved to Aberdeen Scotland. I stayed there until after completion of kindergarten. We travelled alot through Europe at this time but I don't remember well as I was only small. After this we moved back to Calgary and lived there for 5 years until I was almost 11. After this we moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. I lived there for 8 years, went from grade 6-12 at Jakarta International School. You may be able to look me up as an alumni, my last name is Mawhinney. During this time I travelled to Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, India, the Phillipines, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and within Indonesia. After graduation I moved back to Calgary and spent one year smoking weed and flunking out of University so I moved back to Newfoundland. I had never lived here previously but had spent some summers here and had family on both my mother and fathers side. I went to Memorial University of Newfoundland, and I love this province. The people, geography, music...everything. I had many preconceived ideas about the place before I moved here but I was dead wrong on most fronts. During this time my parents were still moving around and I was given the opportunity to stay with them in Australia, Ecuador and Yemen, which is where they currently reside. During this time I travelled to Italy, England, Holland, Germany, Yemen, Dubai, Ecuador, Peru and some places in the States. After graduating with a Bachelor of Arts Degree, I taught English and was able to backpack on my holidays in Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and China. It is true that St. John's is not very multi-cultural, but dude you don't know S*&^ about me, so shut up.

Hopefully someone has something intelligent to bring to this topic instead of trying to stoke some kind of flame war. I have stated that I am for separation because there have been many drawbacks since confederation, but I also realize that this is not the reality and in all likelihood will not be. I am not a voting/active separatist nor do I profess to be one. What I did say however was actaully on topic because we were discussing the unity of the country etc... I am not sure what that post has to do with Russia placing a flag at the bottom of the Ocean or our country's reaction to it. I also realize that within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I as a Canadian can have freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. So basically you can shove your hypocrisy where it is probably loose. Again, should our government do anything regarding this militarily? And if we can't patrol our northern frontiers to protect from this, should we be involved in a foreign war such as Afghanistan?

I will try to ignore your extremely condescending comments and merely comment on their content. That is what we are trying to accomplish, walking on our own two feet. After the fishery collasped, understandably there has been a gap as people were forced to adjust. It would be similar if a large percentage or the prairies were no longer arable and the government was trying to take oil revenues back for subsidizing the farmers. There would be many people needing to adjust, change vocations etc... For my argument, I am equating Harper with the Federal government, as he is the leader of the ruling party at this time. Harper isn't necesarily taking money from us but if you read the Atlantic Accord, which I assuming you didn't, we were to be entitled to 100% of revenues from the offshore oil and there was to be no claw backs from the federal government. Harper agreed to honour the accord and then reneged on that. Newfoundland has been standing up and performing excellently, it has been near the top for economic growth ( see : http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070425/d070425a.htm ) at 2.8%. There is no need for the veiled condescension. You shoudl just say what you really feel, it will be nothing new to me. Ignorance is prevalent. Another aspect I would like to state is that Newfoundland receives the 2nd least of the 7 receiving provinces: http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

No the $2 billion is the revenue from the oil, not from Alberta etc... They call it a "claw-back". Meaning we pay federal taxes, get equalization payments and then they claw back funds based on the amount of oil revenues. These funds don't go back to any other provinces, simply back to the Federal government to spend on as they see fit. So you still pay into equalizatin payments and Newfoundland still receives them even though now at a far reduced rate. Newfoundland is just looking for what every other province gets, in that their oil/resources are excluded from the equalization formula/calculations just as Albertas are and any other province. I can guarantee that the government has plans because every government has plans. The premier gave numerous speeches regarding what the access to extra funds would be used for, therefore going on public record. I guess if he decided not to follow though with that, he would pay with his political life, but given that the funds are being taken because another politician renegged on the Atlantic Accord, we can't hold Danny Williams repsonsible. Basically we are asking that there no longer be a subsidization of our growth, just that we keep the revenues generated from our resources to help grow the province. I don't think this is unreasonable. I suppose this will suffice as proof that the government had plans for that money: (this is before the Atlantic Accord was broken) http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/energyplan/papers/introduction.pdf http://www.pcparty.nf.net/plan2003.htm (you can view the different aspects) http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/exec/1013n03.htm http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/energyplan/ http://www.gov.nl.ca/atlanticaccord/pdf/feb14premier.pdf Here are links that discuss the Atlantic Accord (which has subsequently been broken by Harper) http://www.gov.nf.ca/atlanticaccord/agreement.htm http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/publicat/reg/aa_mou.pdf There you go. If you don't think we deserve to be self-sufficient I would like to know why? I think this country needs to wake up and realize we are not the stereotype perpetuated. Anyways, I am not talking out of my ass.

Maybe everyone could read a little bit more. Not sure if this will help but I found it interesting: http://socialistregister.com/socialistregi...973_Hambley.pdf

Ha, I don't have access to long term plans, but you almost take that as if there were none. Obviously there are plans for this province and there are also plans that had depended on that money until Harper took it away. It was to go to alot of infrastructural projects, guaranteeing the livelihood of our nurses and teachers and also pay down a large portion of Newfoundlands debt. I simply said I do not have access to the actual long term plans now that the Atlantic accord is being dishonored. This is an accord that has been in place for a long period of time, was guaranteed by the previous governments and now is being dismissed by Harper, it hurts every Atlantic province as well as Saskatchewan. "Wouldn't hurt things" are my words not Danny Williams who I feel is quite a competent leader who deos not want the province to be sold short once again. I cannot guarantee self-suffiency within 10-15 but I can guarantee there were plans in place to use the funds to grow this provinces industry, to keep skilled people here and increase employment. I think that the Canadian people would be much more reassured to let us keep our $2 billion now in order that we don't have to have equalization payments from here to eternity.

I should have said that the flying a flag is also not necessarily a representative factor of the amount of patriotism or feeling of national unity within a given geographical area.

Well, I looked at a map and saw that NFLD is actually part of Canada still! WOW THAT MAKES ME A CANADIAN! In the English language, the collective pronoun is WE! This doesn't have anything to do with the topic though.

Here are some links of articles if you don't know what I am talking about: http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2140202,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm Here is video: http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=62580

Recently Russia planted its flag on the bottom of the Ocean in the arctic. This brings concerns for Canadian rights to the area as well as what may be a resource rich area. What are your opinions on this recent act, do we as Canadians have what it takes to stave off Russia from either taking land/area from us? Another question is why are we in Afghanistan if we can't protect our own regional interests?

www.newsmax.com .... Clearly a unbiased source of information. I am sure I can also provide links to thousands of news articles that point towards scientific studies that prove the existence of the green house effect anad global warming. I feel like perhaps you are merely trying to play devils advocate, but I don't think global warming is a liberal or conservative issue but a global one that doesn't deal on party lines or chooses sides. That is like saying hurrican katrina was a tool of the Republicans to draw attention away from Iraq.

The absence of flags does not reflect a lack of patriotism...I am sure there as many people who are proud of Canada as not that do not fly a flag. Perhaps if there was an alternative flag, one that denotes regionalism, like the Newfoundland Republican flag, we would have a fairer assessment. However even people who fly the Newfoundland flag do not necessarily want to separate but only also enjoy a sense of provincial/regional pride. Maybe it is different in Newfoundland though where we were a seperate entity from Canada for 450 years.

Well, I don't really have a link to the long term plans of Danny Williams or any Newfoundland government, but I am fairly sure that 2 billion dollars as a start wouldn't hurt things. I realize that Alberta doesn't keep 100% of oil revenues ANYMORE, but it has reaped the benefits of about 30+ years of that revenue wheras we don't get a pittance. As far as government installations...in the last 50 years the federal government hasn't put that much money into Newfoundland in that regard so I would say we could probably pay for it. Most of the buildings are falling apart and ill used. Also, sorry for assuming you were only jumping on the maritimers. I just feel that Newfoundland, as well as some other provinces may have done better outside of Confederation.

I didn't put words in your mouth...you were trying to counter the argument that India is a third world nation using figures from the CIA Factbook....I went to the same source and found more figures that say otherwise... I have a feeling we are not on different sides of this argument however as to the original posting. I have no problems with temples, mosques or any other structure that is not so called "white" canadian. I welcome it with open arms. Also stating a country is economically inferior is not racial hatred. Unless you say they are poor because of their race. Anyways, I guess our definitions of thrid world/developing countries differ. For the record I have lived in Ecuador and Indonesia which would fall in those categories and travelled through Yemen, Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, China, India, the Phillipines and others that would also fall within that category. Just trying to say that perhaps I have a little more perspective. And no, this wasn't when I was a small child, but within the last 5-10 years.

Pretty sure there is a difference in calling someone Michael Moore and Rush Rimjob... Maybe I wouldn't say anything if it was Rush Limbaugh...but it wasn't. Now if I had said Michael "Fat $%^&" Moore, that might be an insult to you.

Just so you know, I have neer voted Conservative in my life, I used Michael Moore because he has a tendency to use only the facts that would support his arguments and ignore others completly. Nice attempt at an insult though. Back to your point though...I believe the contrary facts that I found from the same report does in fact run counter to your argument that India is not 3rd world country. Now if 10% of its households earn more than the average of $3800 per capita GDP than that is fine but doesn't exactly paint a picture of economic health nor the growth of a nation, rather it looks like the already wealthy becoming increasingly so. It is the sheer numbers here...you were reacting to what ScottSA had stated and I am giving evidence that counteracts your argument that India is not third world. It is however growing at a great rate, but the majority of its population does not enjoy a fraction of that growth. Really all of this is besides the point of the original posting and I was only making a little jibe not calling you a rim job.

Is this a topic or were you looking for praise for writing a letter? If you think that this letter has the power to change the consitution of Canada, I would think again. I am not entirely sure what you are asking for either. I am assuming you are asking for leaders to step aside from party lines and fight for a number of causes that counteract the ruling conservatives. IT seems like you are also asking leaders not to go into the next election to win a majority but to form a coalition. Have you met any politicians? Even Danny Williams would never want to "share" power. They all think they are correct on every point they make, they will always vote based on popular political lines, ie. ones that for the most part get them reelected and this means switching sides and voting along lines that do not necessarily reflect the party or the representative population.

My total point was that if we were allowed to keep oil/resource revenues now, then like Alberta we would not have to take out equalization payments within 10-15 years. That was the plan, we had hoped after getting resource revenues and then the new lower churchill falls project in Labrador, that the billions in revenue would move us out of a have not province to one that can be self sufficient. One of the main reasons Alberta does not take out as you say, but pays in, is because of its rich oil/resource reserves and the fact that the province keeps all of its revenues from that. I doubt seriously that the agricultural sector that would have been the mainstay of Alberta's economy before Oil would make it the province the economic power that it is today. I find it hilarious that there have been comments of Alberta or the west separating and that is not a problem, but when I bring up Newfoundland, the first comment has some sting to it. I'm not sure what there is to put on the table as it were, but I suppose we would leave Canada with what we brought with us in entering, The grandbanks fishery/oil reserves and all of labrador. The only forseeable problems I would have seen is patroling the waters to make sure overfishing wasn't happening, but since the maritime fishery has been destroyed in the last 50 years, it doesn't matter anyways.

You didn't add some other fact from the same source that might contradict your argument there Michael Moore. From the same source: (CIA WORLD FACTBOOK) GDP PER CAPITA = $3800 Total workforce = 509.3 million Total GDP = $804 billion Three fifths of the work force is in agriculture which only accounts for 19.9% of the total GDP for the country. That means three fifths of over 509 milllion people are farmers in India (300 million people + children) and while agriculture account for 19.9% of the GDP, this does not mean that money goes into the pockets of regular farmers, and even if it did 300 million people and their families are sharing out 120 billion dollars.(19.9% of 804 billion (approximately) that works out to an annual income of about $500 bucks. WOW THE RISING MIDDLE CLASS OF INDIA...WATCH OUT!!!! Other facts not listed: Population below the poverty line: 25% That menas that approxiimately 250,000,000 people live below the poverty line. By the way all the numbers a figures are quoted as from 2006. If this doesn't sound third world to you then I will also say that I have lived an backpacked throughout Asia, and although there is growth economically in many of the countries, including India, the richest percentage of people are getting richer and the poorest are still dirt poor. The middle class have a higher purchasing power wihin their own countries, but they DO NOT equate the middle class of the West, not even close, not even remotely in the same vicinity of close. HOWEVER, if we were to describe them in terms of pure purchasing power within their own countries then perhaps you could call them a middle class, but even if you do, they are still a small percentage of the total population. BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST: Now that that is over, the orginal posting was quite ignorant in its own regard. I will just like to add that we NEED more people in this country to feed our economy, their are labour shortages in many parts of the country. Perhaps people don't like the "browning" of our country, I for one love it. This country was built on immigrants, other than our aboriginal populations, we all descend from people that left their own home countries and came to Canada. Our forefathers helped build this country and the immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America/South America will help continue to build it tomorrow. If anything that is something about this country we should be proud of, we are OPEN minded remember? We accept all comers. Racism is so 2nd millenium....get over it.

I'm all over separating. Here in Newfoundland, we have felt we have had a raw deal for quite a while, contributing to our own economic demise. When finally there is a path to prosperity through oil revenue the Harper government wants to screw us out of it. If Harper wanted to take back billions from Alberta based on their energy/resource revenues, the support for separation would be alot higher out there, so before anyone craps on these dumb Newfs, think about that for a second.

I am wondering what alot of Canadians think about the strength of our confederation, whether they feel that in recent years regionalism is starting to have more of an effect on politics, and whether they believe Canada will still contain all of its parts in the next 50-100 years? The reason I state this is the make up of our country varies greatly from one coast to the other, and it seems that some provinces have a history or have recently had a very shaky relationship with the federal government. Such as Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and even Saskatchewan. Along with this... do you think of yourselves along a National ideal or provincial first? I mean what does it necessarily mean to be Canadian? What ties us together, other than a common flag and national sport?

Our system does have the means by which to compensate vicitims, it is called a civil lawsuit. The rules are a little more stringent than perhaps the United States, which is why you see less frivolous suits, but one can sue for emotional, physical, and mental trauma, loss of the ability to work etc... There are also many lawyers who would work pro bono or only get paid if a successful suit is brought. I don't think anyone should be able to simply sue for personal gain nor would I want to see the level of litigiousness in Canada that we see in the States. A better question to ask yourself is, does money make it better? Is justice not enough or do you need to see dollar bills? You were stating that there aren't many government programs set in place for victims, but this is hardly the case. What kinds of government programs are you looking for? Ones that pay you money for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? That is called INSURANCE. Perhaps it would be better to enact (if it doesn't already exist) personal injury insurance laws that deal with crimes against the person, where one can purchase insurance should they ever be attacked, or have the government pay the premiums of this type of insurance. The problems with this is the costs which would spiral out of control when everyone would feel they have a claim...Not only that, because murder does not have a time frame/expiration, there would be thousands of retro claims, which more than likely would tie the courts up, if I know anything about the likelihood of insurance companies actually paying out. Anyways...bottom line is that civil courts are the manner of resolving this issue, they already exist. PErhaps a victims legal fund should be set up so that a victim could prosecute their case without cost, but I don't think the accused should arbitrarily have to pay, and even after conviction a civil lawsuit is the appropriate venue.

Hi, This is a fairly hilarious flame war going on. The spelling errors themselves are sending me into knots. I love how you have "soul" posession of your child, but which ecclesiastical denomination do you subscribe to? I would hate to think the soul of a child is simply possessed. Hehe. (I believe you meant "sole") Anyways, I will not say more than that and get engulfed in hate mongering. The idea, while interesting just doesn't make legal sense. The penalties we have came up with for crimes do sometimes include very hefty fines and imprisonment depending on the nature of the infraction. I am not sure if anyone here has spent time in incarceration, it is not pleasant, I believe the nature and act of having ones movement and freedom impeded for YEARS is punishment enough, even for the most heinous of crimes. Time in prison certainly isn't some sort of free ride or joy camp and making someone pay a cash penalty afterwards would be tantamount to beating a dead horse. I also have to agree with others that the earning prospects for most ex-convicts are meagre at best so to saddle someone with a lifetime of debt would more than likely increase the chances of reoffending than not, which is the whole point of the original incarceration, to curb violent behaviour, illegal acts etc.. This is just my thoughts on the issue. Cheers.