Donaill

There are alot of economically Concervative people that drive Porches and BMWs just to show off the wealth. It has become an issue, even among the wealthy. Much of the Old Wealth think that it is dispicable the way that some of the Newly Wealthy flaunt wealth and make money hand over fist with no other reason other than to make money. I know that on the East Coast we have some VERY wealthy families that don't flaunt it and give generous amounts of money to social programs, as well as other worthy causes. There is a divide now between the Haves and Have nots this is getting larger. The Middle Class is disappearing through out North America. The Ultimate Wealthy no longer wish to sustain jobs or promote growth within our continent. They seem to wish to go to areas that they can exploit poor working conditions and low wages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canada2008seats.PNG http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilatio...sultsParty.aspx Last Majority government was under Chretien, 2000. Also check out other election maps. For those of you that want to make it seem like an east versus west thing. It isn't. Get over it. Tories do get voted in in the east. Ontario has a Concervative goverment, as does NB and Nf. It is just that the easts brand of concervatism is different than Albertas. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a...2006ridings.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Can2004.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Can2000.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Can1997.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadia...ar_vote_map.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Can1988-2.PNG Looking at the elections results I would say that Mulrooney did much to divide the country. After he was tossed out I see the coniuous growth of the Reform party.

Thats funny... I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were suddenly destitute. Would you be happy to live without the internet, TV, a shower once a day, or food every day? perhaps you could, or perhaps yopu would be looking for those more socially minded of the community. Sometimes I really wonder if people are fully aware of the political and labour history of this nation. Much of the Socialist thought in Canada was born in the West. Strong socialists of the Farmers Co-Op, Tommy Douglas, and the So-Creds. Many talk about Socialism and Communism as if they are the same thing. Many talk as if Socialism is an evil birth child of the East. How many of your Grandfathers of Great Grandfathers were among the General Strike. How many had to fight for the socially minded idea that veterans of war should be granted financial and economic aid? How many here know people that have a good living based on the Wheat Board? Canada should protect it's own. We should be proud to be who we are. We have alot of wealth but don't make alot of use of it. We sell energy at a lower rate than we could, to the US but screw other provinces over. We trade easier with the Yanks than we do among ourselves. We complain about other provinces moving into our place of birth. With the Newfoundland oil boom many Albertan companies are afraid of loosing the work force from the Maritimes. Say waht you want. Bitch about what you want. Bloody well complain and throw accuastions around all you want. Thats ok. I blat my own mouth off as well. But when people choose to pick small points out of history of out of current political drama and make it seem like a bigger deal than it is??!!!! It was a Torie goverment that promised free and open votes in Parliament, never happened. It was a Torie goverment that promised electoral reform, never happened. It was a torie goverment that reneged on two energy agreements with the east coast but had to cave in to pressure. Not because of want to do the correct thing but because of fear of loosing any PC votes in the east. Yes, there are Tories in the east. Just not the same kind as in the West.

Two other things that he wanted to do... Prohibit the right to strike if Federal employees and to take Pay Equity off the platform.

I think that that is the point many people miss. We were talking about this at work today. The Governor General can say no to disolving the current government, she could also say that a new election should be called. It is within the right of the GG. However, if it goes to an election and the Liberals fall below official party status, as the Tories did after Mulrooney, I wonder if the Tories will allow Liberals to sit in the house? Than again perhaps we will see a higher voter turn out and see a Liberal government go in. Personally, I am not for or against any one party. I am a Nationalist and a Socialist. I believe in a strong military and a strong social policy. I don't believe that we should always be bending over to the will of the US with regards to energy, water and trade policies. I do not care for the politics of some of the Reform elements of the PC party. I still like old PCs like Clark and Danny Williams. I don't want to see Canada head towards a more American style of society. I like the core values that we have lived by since WW2.

What angers me about this whole thing is that people are acting like this is a foreign thing to Canadaian politics. While it is not common, it has happened before. At least a vote of non-confidence and the fall of a goverment has. Joe Clark's PC goverment won a minority goverment. Joe is a good man but he tried to run the country as if he had a majority vote. He did a few things that were not popular with the public. Long story short is that he ended up loosing his goverment to a nonconfidence vote. A federal election was called and the Liberals came in with a sound majority, something that this country has not seen in years now.

Kind of makes you wonder why us East Coast "bums and thieves" dont feel alienated by the West. Respect is given in return for respect.

The US has faced many divisive periods in history. Sometimes resulting in violence. Where the US was once divided between the North and South they now seeom to be divided between the heavily populated urban areas and the predominantly Evangelical midwest. I don't think Canada should or will collapse. However I do think that coalition goverments will become more the norm for us in the future. I do believe that we are a lesson for the rest of the world about how many groups of people can live together with relative ease. This conversation is not the first time that we have talked about such an idea. It was most likely discussed when it was discovered that the French would be a permanent part of BNA. It was discussed when the Irish fled here from the "famine" and probably when teh Highlanders came here during the Clearences. It was one of the concerns, and one of the excuses for human rights abuses, with regards to the Asians that helped build the railway in Canada. However we made it through all of that. Canada, and the sense of Canadianism, came through war as much as it did in peace. Some of the major events that helped define Canada were Pashendale, Vimy, Ortana, D Day, the 1972 hockey game, Cyprus, the Golan heights, the discovery of Penicilon, the Canada Arm, and the Killer Dwarfs and Gordon Lightfoot. Many things that we consider and love about Canada came from some where else. You only have to eat one East Coast style Donair to know what I mean.

The argument is not about whose ship it was it is about having a presence there in case someone else tries the same thing. That last thing we need is an influx of traffic through the north, for several reasons.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/...el.html?ref=rss This is why we need more ships for the Navy, as well as more people. Yeah, I know, both are expensive and it is easier to build the ship than it is to convince Canadians that serving our country is a good thing. Now I am not expecting an invasion from the north. We need vessels there for sovereignty reasons, security reasons (such as any illegal sort of shipping) and just to say that it is our territory and we can handle what is ours.

The Tories aren't innocent by any imaginations of the word. According to one of the people that helped write the economic study that he had asked for, Canada is in worse shape than the Prime Minister is admiting. Tne PM was told, in the report, that we would be running a deficit for the next few years. However the PM has told us otherwise. The PM is also against any sort of economic stimulous. Now I can see his point on this. However the economic historians have repeatedly said that not spending money during a downturn such as ours is indeed the wrong thing to do. This is the worst economic downturn since 1929, ask the PM. Now I could care less who is running the country, as long as they aren't facist. As I see it, Canada is becoming a divided nation. I don't think that we have been this divided since the days of confederation. Though we all have shared cultures, our regions have shaped us. The East is more liberal than the Prairies, and hovers between old style PC and Liberal ideals. Ontario, more often than not, has voted a different federal party in than they have as a provincial. Quebec has their game. The Prairies have become increasingly more influenced by US style concervatism. BC, I have a feeling that they are just waiting for another socialist type of leader. At this time we need a coalition goverment, not of three parties but of all four parties. It works well for Switzeralnd. This is not a time for ANY of the parties to be playing games, telling half truths, being arses, or stupid Sasanachs. Get on with the rest of the world. This is not the first time we have been in a situation like this. It is an opportunity to look at the 1930s and ask what we did wrong than and NOT repeat those errors. At best economics is a poor excuse for a science. Repeatedly, we have seen that banks, goverments and economists are not always right. However we can all see what is going on around us. Lets just get on with this show, get us back to where we should be. Enough of this he said, she said crap. Enough of this WEll Joe Clarke said but Trudeau did this. Blah blah blah. That does not get us anywhere. Intelligent mids, sitting down and having intelligent conversations is what works.

So you want modern day instances where military intervention could have helped? The masacre of Serbs in the early 90's, the masacre of Kurds by Turkey, the masacre of Kurds by Sadam, the problems in Rwanda. Military intervention may not have solved the problem out right but it could have prevented many innocent people from being slaughtered by arses. It bewilders me when people moan and groan about the military or the police but also are the same types to moan and groan when neither is around when needed. There is a price to pay for being totally passive. That is a price I am not willing to pay.

That would be tough. That would require asking the overly ambitious, the meglomaniacs, the extremists and other nutbars to play by the rules. I believe someone once tried that with Adolph Hitler and was soundly proven that there would not be peace in our time.

I see your chain mail and raise you by 2 Welsh longbowmen.

I am not arguing that the Native Americans were technologically advanced, at the time. However there is alot of evidence to show that they did have periods of great advancement, much as Europe, the mid-east and Asia had, and even Africa. I still maintain that it was all cyclical at different times in human history.

Why should that irk you? You must be quite young. Long time enemies have ended up allies and strong friends. France and Germany, the US and England, England and France, England and Germany, Canada and the US, the political factions of Northern Ireland.

Not all Celts became Roman. Even within what the Roamns called Briton, the Celtic culture thrived. Such was the tribe that Boudica belonged to. Wales and Cornwall as well as north of Hadrians wall and waht the Romans called Hibernia all retained Celtic culture. Galatia also retained its culture for many years after the decline of the Roman Empire.

Who said I was ignoring my own contradictions? History is one contradiction after another. I merely state historic facts, with the occasional round of numbers thrown in. It was mention that Europeans tended to shiet where they ate and that Natives were superior in hygene. Since I haven't studied much about early North American sanitary practices I can't say very much. However, the Romans did have vast networks of closed in networks for waste water. Unfortunately much of it went into local water routs. It did keep the city more hospitable, compared to 1700's London (for example) with its vast network of sewage encrusted sidewalks. AS I said before, progress can also work in reverse. There are many examples of things that we once knew how to do but forgot along the way. The Egyptians did have the first battery known to man.

Generally speaking, we all make genralizations about general society. It is these generalities that allow us to make general assumptions. Generally speaking that is.

Civilisation has hads its ups and downs. Several cultures could have been said to have been "superior" to others at differing periods of history. Women of the Celtic society could own land, be rulers, and had rights far beyond the Roman and Breek counterparts, who still did not see themselves as one people when the Celts were making their mark on Europe. The Arabs and people of the Indian subcontinant could arguably have been called superior to the Europeans at other points in history. This sense of superiority is a false sense since there have been many points in history that point to a inferior mind set. Such mind sets have resulted in the genocides of WW2 and in Serbia and Turkey. People will use the term European as meaning a single people, with a common language and culture. This in itself is incorrect and ignores the history of the people of Europe. The First Nations are in the position they are in more so by design than by their own cultural attitudes. I have heard employers say point blank that they do not want to hire blacks, indians or French and that if any come in that we do not have work available. First nations were kept to the side for the last 200 years. WE have moved them from one spot to another as we would cattle. We have settled them in communities far from our own, on false promises. We have used residential schools to beat any culture or language out of them. Up until the 1950s the only way Natives could be seen as Canadian Citizens was to have fought in a war. Circa 1960 they gained the right to vote. So if people want to talk hand outs and such as a way to describe them as inferior then they should keep in mind these numbers. Province or Territory March 31, 1994 March 31, 1995 Increase or Decrease Newfoundland 67,400 71,300 5.8% Prince Edward Island 13,100 12,400 -5.3% Nova Scotia 104,000 104,000 0.0% New Brunswick 73,500 67,400 -8.3% Quebec 787,200 802,200 1.9% Ontario 1,379,300 1,344,600 -2.5% Manitoba 89,300 85,200 -4.6% Saskatchewan 81,000 82,200 1.5% Alberta 138,500 113,200 -18.3% British Columbia 353,500 374,300 5.9% Yukon 2,400 2,100 -12.5% Northwest Territories 11,000 12,000 9.1% Canada 3,100,200 3,070,900 -0.9% Now those numbers are a bit old and they are no doubt higher now. Now for the Native numbers. Just over 1.3 million people reported having at least some Aboriginal ancestry in 2001, representing 4.4 % of the total population. In 1996, people with Aboriginal ancestry represented 3.8 % of the total population Hardly a comparison of costs.

Anytime that you place two groups of people together that really do not want to be in the same "house" than you just may end up with conflict. Serbs, Croats, Scots and English, Iriosh and English, Welsh and English, Cornish and English, Bretons and French, Basques and Spanish, Macedonians, it doesn't matter who. Creating a unified, multi-cultural society takes effort on behalf of everyone that is involved. 250 years from now our decendants will look back and ask why we were so barbaric.

Quick. Shut the door on them there radical Evangelical Christians, They scare me. Also get rid radical Neo-Fascist types.

Well actually they did have vast tade networks and very large communities throughtout North America. Not all peoples in the world strived to create large cities but still had very prosperous communities and cultures.

According to this article, Harper says that the current economic crisis is comparible to 1929. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/11...7495361-cp.html

The last time we let the military degrade we ended up in WW2. Now diplomicy would not have worked in that bit of history, nore would it have ended the genocide of so many Jews, Roma, Catholics (Yes there were Catholics masacred) and many others as well. Speak softly and cary a big stick. Diplomacy only works with people of reason and not with people bent on total destruction of another. We have also seen in various points in history opportunities for a diplomatic solution that were disregarded because of other polical reasons.