Hawk

No its just not suited to the reality that it is part of a greater country, a country that is larger than French Canada. Yeah we noticed, wouldn't even bloody help us Anglophones defend your own homeland in WW2 till we forced you to =p Thank you for agreeing with us, as was said earlier if we 'could' vote you out I assure you that many people would =) Problem is that once you are out dont expect us to take you back, I get fairly giddy just thinking of a Canada without the Francophone bastion lol... imagine the elections, no more Quebec/French-Canadians to suck up to anymore... could get some interesting results

And we have been teaching French, the difference is that now they are making learning French MANDATORY for us Anglophones and yet learning English is not a mandatory requirement in Quebec nor is there a plan for it to become mandatory =p Here, read up on some of your own history since you seem to know so little of it: http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory...ngs/special.htm

Oh really? So... is Quebec going to be forced to teach English in their public schools like we are being forced to teach French? =) Also Quebec has been listened to a whole lot more than any other province in Canada, why do you think they have special status and a government that next to @$$ kisses them? xD Yes well thank you for the history lesson, I knew that however it will clarify some of the black spots for other readers I am sure xD God forbid a war to be a violent brutal event. War time should be spent sitting around camp fires with the enemy singing 'kumbaya' (sp?) As for 'poverty' ... Considering that back then EVERYONE was in poverty except important businessmen I find it hard to blame the poverty of a nation-that-didn't-even-technically-exist-yet on a war =p Britain vs France, Britain won. Simple as that, and then we continued in a VERY nice fashion considering that the English and French were next to mortal enemies. We didn't ethnically cleanse them, like the Nazi's did with the Jews, we accepted them and at present they hold more rights than we, the conquerers, do. How nice of you, yes I was just on my way out the door to perform my 'hate crimes' when I was stopped by this post. Interesting choice of words indeed. I might as well outline why I dont agree with this Anglophone self-righteous self-induced shame and hatred of all that is English. Anglophones have had it drilled into them all through school the atrocities of the English, of all the horrors the English-speaking white man has done to other cultures and to other people. They are so intense with this anti-English teaching that the individuals end up being ashamed of their past and of their heritage, they are ashamed at what they did to that native kid in the corner's ancestors, or to those poor Francophones, etc, etc =p We live in an age where minorities make the rules, where minorities break the rules, and where minorities rule the majority. How is this possible? Because to put it frankly the majority lets them and in some cases helps them. We, the white Anglophone, are the most discriminated against race on earth, we are despised by our enemies, we are despised by our friends, and we are despised by each other. This is morally wrong, but anyone who says such is called a 'Fascist' or 'Bigot'. Why am I a 'fascist' or a 'bigot' because I want equality? Why am I the bad guy when I want to be proud of my heritage? Of my English roots? Of who the damnable hell I AM? Why is it that unless I am grovelling and giving self-righteous speeches against the history of the evil white man that I am a 'discriminator'? I will tell you why, its because in this society we have allowed the new generations to be taught the shames of our past but few of the glories, they have been taught the greatness of others and the inferiority of themselves, they have been taught that only other people count and not themselves, they have been cultivated into faithful little socialists. I, however, am blessed to have been bounced around schools and so it didn't impact me quite as hard... but I have friends who have felt the bite of socialism and political correctness. I have had friends get beaten nearly to death by a minority on school property only to have the school expel my friends and the minority to get off free because they were native american, I have had other friends expelled because they tried to be proud of their English roots, I have had friends publically humilitated by teachers because they refused to admit the inferiority of the evil white man in society. Is this an enlightened civilized society? I seriously hope not, or I am outta here.

Oh really? inflexible? You are comparing Anglophones who are everyday joes to the special status, next-to-completely-sovereign Francophones and declaring US the inflexible ones? Interesting =p As for the uneducated post regarding French being the first in Canada, wrong. Also the explanation as to how the French were taken over economically... Read up on the French and Indian War, Anglophones beat the French and took over Canada. Sorry but that is the true history as the rest of the world sees it =) Here is a link: http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articl...dindianwar3.htm

Please read my posts in the future and use some logic, stop wasting my time. However I will repeat some of my previous explanations yet again for you. Actually I dont, if you read carefully I explained that is why YOUR god can't have created the universe, because it isn't capable of creating itself =p Alright then, lets see you facto proof your own existance with those laws of nature and I will accept them as suitable evidence to disprove God =) Thanks for the science class, I knew that already =p I fail to see the point to that whole section. Your problem is you still are believing science as infallible, think outside the box. Science is far from perfect, and if we can't even dictate our own weather then you can't expect me to believe science can dictate the existance of God a supernatural being. Oh I see, so basically 'create' a god so you dont have to admit one exists. Yeah your coming across loud and clear xD Takes more blind faith to believe in that than it does to believe in God. God created the universe. period. How hard is that? Simpler was just disproven, because no matter how complex you make it science has still been unable to find proof as to how the universe created itself. Your 'stunning amount of emprical evidence' is still lacking, I would like to see some since all that I see is scientific conflicts Wow, you like using this anonymous and mysterious 'empirical evidence'. Sorry but you are going to have to be a little more specific =p Does it matter? Dont try and shift the matter from 'is there a supernatural being' to 'which God is the true God'. That is another argument, and to go there betrays your acceptance at the possiblity of one existing =) Which would seem to indicate that some types of scientific knowledge disagree. Which is true, but a complete simplification and distortion. Just because one one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Indeed, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable. So it wasn't jibberish then? One second before you say it is and then you agree with it... hmmm, what a confusing person you are =o You yourself just admited Science contradicts itself, and yet you still attempt to use it as somethin infallible enough to judge the non-existance of a being that isn't even held by the laws of science. Interesting logic you use there lol And as I have said countless times where did the energy come from? You still can't answer that, so to me and most of the world its the 'enlightened' people who seem to think energy and matter can disobey its own rules that seem a little craaaazy =D Atheisn and Christianity are as different as a car and an orange. Comparing the two as having simliar beliefs is in itself completely primitive and you know it. But it takes a SCIENTIST to pull obvious lies out of nowhere eh? History has shown that people will do almost anything to refuse having to admit God exists, and until Science has proven to me how the world began from nothing I will consider it nothing more than a bedtime story... albeit a hard to swallow bedtime story. Oh so you CAN explain the beginning of the universe? Speak it, I am DYING to hear this =) Remember, scientifically, I wont take it easy on your explanation so make sure you go into details You are using circle logic, same as an evolutionist that determines the age of a fossil by the layer it is in and determines age of the layer by the fossil =p The gaps in scientifc knowledge destroys the authenticity of what you are trying to prove, you yourself have admitted science has no explanation, can't explain it, there are gaps, etc etc etc. Yet you are trying to get me to believe this flawed and contradictory system that isn't even able to determine its own origins somehow can disprove the existance of a supernatural being? Gimme a break dude xD lol Ok I highlighted a few things in this first paragraph I would like to ellaborate on: time axis: What is time? Time is existance, time is not existing in a universe that isn't existing. So tell me how a time axis could somehow affect the starting of a non-existing universe? pre-existing one: A pre-existing universe? Alright, then how did that one start? =) pure vacuum energy: oooooh, I get it... so before energy was created energy created it =D It all makes so much sense now lol As for your final few sentances regarding kinetic energy you made a fatal flaw. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, impossible if there is no matter Its the same as temperature change is impossible without mass, because mass has specific heat capacities and allows the transfer of heat =) Oh yeah and the grand finale, the Big Bang. Energy that was created by non-existant energy, coupled with the energy of motion in a non-existant universe, and boosted with heat that magically came out of nothing and was somehow stored in a matterless void of space, suddenly explodes and creates a finite universe made up of impecable laws and balances that even us with all our technological know-how are unable to grasp. Wow, who coulda known lol No you didn't, stop avoiding please. I am not the gloating type, if you can't address a point just say 'point taken' and move on =) 'mankind's entire history ' is an exaggeration, this 'no God' belief has only been popular in this last century. Before that is was common knowledge that a supernatural being existed, how ironic that those peasants knew more than our great and glorious scientists of today (who, incidently, can't even explain their own beginning and attempt to disprove mine).

How nice of you to give me your opinion, how about giving me some proof? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, then explain to me scientifically how it was created. I proved my point, prove yours. No, I am proving it is flawed and incapable of judging the existance of a supernatural being since it can't even seem to line up with its own teachings. All you have is theories, and theories aren't scientific proof of anything. I could come up with 30 theories off the bat, and until you empirically proved each one false it is a theory. So technically God's existance is a theory since you can't disprove his existance, just as theoretical as your theories and therefore what makes your theory plausible and mine wrong? Its better than expecting me to believe the whole universe came from nothing scientifically Reason dictates logically, and logic tells us process of elimination works. Therefore if all other paths but one prove invalid that last path must be the correct one. Evolution - Can't explain the beginning so how can they expect us to believe the end? Atheist - Where did we come from? Secularist - Where did we come from? Christianity - A supernatural being capable of anything created us, something that is fully possible given the lack of bounds a supernatural being has. So therefore even logically at least we have a plausible beginning, you can't prove scientifically that the universe created itself because the science you use to prove it says itself that it is impossible to do just that 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed'. Good for you, then you should understand how self-creation of the universe is impossible scientifically. Resorting to that already? Haha just stop posting then, I want intelligent and well-thought answers, not someone who will simply pick a word war because he can't be bothered to debate a hot topic. Seeks to explain doesn't mean it explains, not to mention this reminds me of a joke I heard once: " One day in the far future human scientists figured out the secrets of the universe, so they met with God one day and decided to challenge him to a contest. They wanted to see who could create a human being the fastest, and the winner would become 'God'. So God agrees and the scientists hunch down and start scooping together dirt to form a man but God stops them and says, 'Hey hey hey, use your own dirt!' " No matter what experiments they do on an existing universe it can't prove how nothing came into something, that is the fundamental flaw in every one of these kinds of experiments. They dont prove what you want them to prove. Our God is supernatural, yours is restricted by the laws of the universe. Yours can't do what it needed to have been able to do to create the universe, ours can. What is primitive about that? I am a Software Developer, I can assure you I am not primitive in my thought patterns and am extremely good at Boolean Logic. To denounce me as illogical is in itself primitive =p I would prefer you to tell me more on this presumption that cannot be proven, is that because you refuse to face the truth. You can't explain the beginning of the universe, am I right or wrong? If I am right and you can't my point was proven Then why do you think it is evidence that he doesn't? =p LOL really, please ellaborate. Actually it can be logically supported, I was waiting for you to throw out this card First off, take into account your scientific explanation, it is based on scientific principles which must be at least somewhat in line with scientific laws. So you are limited, you can't create something from nothing, no matter how advanced you are something must exist for something else to be created from it. The universe CANT have been created from nothing, it NEEDS to have been created and since it couldn't have been created with science (as science is flawed and contradictory in that area) that leaves one possiblity... that the universe didn't create itself, that a supernatural being created it that was OUTSIDE the laws of the universe. Now your point on God always existing is a pitfall, because you see with a supernatural being with no limits how can you say with confidence that it doesn't have the capability to have always existed. It isn't held constrained by the laws of physics, it isn't held by any constraints or limits. Whereas your god is, and disproves itself.

Your right we WERE talking about treaties then you went and said this: So please stop trying to blame me for a pathetic analogy I never said always, I said '(in most cases)'. Which is true, of course in certain contracts that is not possible. You tried bringing in civilian contracts and use them as proof that we should stick with legal agreements such as treaties. Very very bad idea, I suggest we just forget the whole mess because it is getting nowhere. Regarding the termination of treaties, this may surprise you but I agree that treaties should not be terminated.. however they are and can be, which is what I have been arguing all along. Do I believe that the treaty has outlived itself? Yes, in the original treaty the amount we pay them is single-digit, is that really worth all the trouble? I know natives who work for me get payments of around 5 dollars per YEAR as a result of the treaty. It isn't even worth paying the people to send the cheques out =p Its incredibly wasteful and needs to be ended, also the Indian Act needs to be destroyed so that the natives can truly become equal with the rest of Canada and thereby also get rid of a majority of the 'discrimination' that is directed at them. As have we, you dont think that treaties over a hundred years old have paid themselves out yet? Also if the natives want their land back they can try and take it You see, they were the conquered and we were the conquerers.

I am still not at my home comp or I would post some quotes of my own. 'scientific understanding' conflicts directly with 'scientific understanding', even you should know this. So the problem is how do you trust something that cant even support its' own existance as something that disproves the existance of a being that wouldn't even be held under the laws of science? A supernatural being is the only answer, something with no bounds or limits. Failure to realize this is not 'reason', if you are so 'reasoned' please do tell me how energy was created =) I believe I made my case against scientific 'soundness' on the previous point Ok, so tell me what makes your lack of ability to explain things, right, and our ability to explain things, wrong? Reason is linked with Logic, and religion is a logical thing. A supernatural entity's existance is logically supported, how else could our universe come into being?

No you were talking about a house being burned down and the insurance guy not paying out, yet you tried using it to compare to Natives being paid because of the treaties. But anyways I know what you are trying to say, but as I said agreements are cancelled all the time. You cancel subscriptions, phone plans, etc etc, all those are also legally binding agreements. In the event of a contract the paying party is the only one allowed to back out of it (in most cases), so therefore in that case the government is the paying party and can cancel the agreement legally according to your logic of comparison. You brought them up, not I. All I was doing is show you how they aren't good examples for supporting you, because all those agreements can be legally broken. I am afraid it far from does that, you just can't seem to grasp your own flip-flopping

Point made. I rest my case. I am not angry I merely post what I believe, and sometimes it hurts left-wing because hey we all know the truth hurts =p

Excellent someone stepped up to the plate =) Now we can get started... I will address this when I get on my computer at home, I have a few quotes from certain founding fathers that say otherwise What?? Disavowal of reason? Pray tell do explain. To me reason is understanding that an entire universe with exquisite laws doesn't just 'happen', no matter how many zeros you add for timeline =p It is a disavowal of reason to NOT know that something supernatural DOES exist, I can't believe you just stated that as your first point lol Wrong wrong and more wrong. First off your starting statement about reason is simply borrowing from your previous point, keep them seperate or join the points. As for extremism, certain SECTS may be extreme but go sit in a church service. You obviously dont know much about religions if you think they promote extremism, its the sects that promote extremism. As for leading away from detecting and determining the truth about the world check this link out: http://www.godandscience.org/ Read through some of that stuff, particularly the Authenticity of the Bible. Perhaps you are the one being misled about the truth of the world hmm? Also if you are talking about scientific technological discoveries you are also wrong, because religion was the foundation of many a research that ended up with learning something new about our universe. This point is well.. pointless. What are you trying to prove? You fail to make reference to anything I can refer to, all you do is spill out your own 'dogma' and expect me to stomach it. I stated earlier regarding this, reason and religion walk hand in hand. What do you believe? Evolution? Atheism?

None of the above, what would have been better is if you had posted 'What the heck does that mean?' As terrible as that post is at least it is better than '???'

Actually, no. Centuries ago we realized that society only damages itself when it attampts to act according to any of the various religious interprateations and we adopted constitutional separation of church and state to avoid these problems. Centuries? Are you exaggerating a little bit? Please give supporting evidence, since Canada isn't 'Centuries' old =p Also you twist the facts, our country was actually founded on Biblical principles as was the USA. Church and state union was at the heart of Democracy, and in my opinion it would greatly help if it was there again. What I challenge people to do is tell me what is wrong with religion, specifics. Not generalizations like 'look at ALL the wars that happened because of religion blah blah blah' I want specifics and details or dont waste my time. If you dont know enough about the issue to know the basis of your only defence you shouldn't be debating in this area. I know that religion encourages moral values, principles, and reason. I challenge any of you to disprove me, and if you can't then how can you expect me to believe that having a moral, principled, and reasoned government in power would hurt Canada? =p

'???' is not 'Perfectly clear brief questions about such rhetorical statements' You spammed, whereas I simply stated an opinion that invited a challenge, you pressed a key 3 times and posted.

I asked a question, you failed to answer it and merely posted 3 questions marks. Spam =p Why do left-wingers hate who they are? Angry White Men, Evil White Men, you may be white but your always putting yourself down and being ashamed and grovelling for minority forgiveness... its pathetic and degrading, you should stop doing it

Spam anyone?

That's just silly. When a fire consumes your home, do you expect your insurer to say "Hey, get over it" when they deny your coverage? Your example lacks in many areas to take into account the situation, and thereby is a very poor analogy. 1. We pay the insurance company for the coverage, natives dont pay us, we pay them. 2. We are talking about a treaty not an insurance policy 3. There are clauses in the insurance coverage that sometimes allow them to say 'hey get over it' there are no such clauses in our 'treaties'

Yes, but what should seriously concern most people is how they elected the Fiberals and the Fiberals are the ones who enacted all that the CHP vows to reverse =p That is alot of powerful legislation

I will show respect when they earn it, and here is how they can do that: 1. Vote to destroy the Indian Act 2. Get off the reserves and live on their own two feet 3. Stop spending taxpayer dollars on booze and personal enjoyment (I am not stereotyping this, I know many natives who dont do this but I also know many many more who do) If they did that, I would respect them alot more. Look at the Asians, there is no 'Asian Act' and they are doing just fine. In fact they are doing better than most caucasions around here =p Left-wing protection of Natives merely shows disrespect for them, they are human beings capable of taking care of themselves. You shame them.

What is it with left-wingers and hating who they are

enigma: I am manager of the party tent rental department of LCC, and I have a French-Canadian working for me =p I have no idea what you are talking about, me and him get along just dandy. He also admited to me that in Quebec the anti-Anglophone sentiment is terribly strong, and that he was glad to get out of it *Also I have two employees from Afghanistan, 1 from Lebanon, two Native Americans, one from Yugoslavia, and one English-Canadian (other than myself). So bring on the arguments about right-wing 'discrimination' =p Your lucky only you can vote, I would vote you out in a second. Always whining, always getting your way, always shrieking for equality and then using public sympathy/shame to get special status. Its sad, it really is sad. IMHO the English should have simply assimilated the French way back when we took over Canada, would have saved so much trouble seabee: Your argument is really inspirational to Francophones, however you fail to take into account several areas. First off, what will you do without equality checks from the feds? What will you do when we give you your portion of the national debt? How will you survive economically? How will you afford food from the West now that you will need to pay import prices? How will you afford oil or other such natural resources? How will you be able to compete on an English-dominated market? You can't, and that is exactly why your seperation would turn from fantasy to nightmare. You would end up voting your way back into Confederation yet again, either that or you would give up your hard-earned sovereignty to France =p

takeanumber: No actually its Canadian soil Treaties can be broken, in fact it is common for them TO be broken. Get over it, not to mention they have something called The Indian Act which I think is the most abusive legislation against natives there could possibly be. God forbid that natives should move off the reserves and become like the rest of us Canadians, that would just be wrong =p Hey, I thought we were all trying to be equal right? Get your story straight. TTS: Because: 1. Natives dont own the land, nor do they represent the majority. So if they dont like not owning Canada tough luck 2. The enviroment isn't being hurt by the dump sites you call reserves? Have you ever BEEN on a native reserve sir? I assure you, the native people of America are not the enviromentalists you seem to believe them to be =p

The difference is he is waging a war, we are not and could not. Now if you seriously want to shift the focus of this debate down south and to justification for war then please start another topic. That is exactly why I frown whenever I hear people praise Canadian 'free healthcare'. #1. Its not free, unless you want an occasional 'checkup' #2. Its pathetically wasteful #3. Its not even close to effective at handling the general populous, and waiting years for crucial operations is NOT acceptable. Sounds like your logic is the the insecure one, you instantly label me a mudslinger and labeller because I thought you were a Liberal. Its an honest mistake, you were defending them so its only natural for me to assume you were one. Speaking as a right winger I can assure you they are not my dream team nor are they any other right-winger-I-know's dream team. I dont know how you come to your conclusions, because no right-winger would support the destructive misuse of taxpayer dollars as payouts to Liberal supporters or for things such as the Gun Registry, and they would never support slashing healthcare, military, and school funding. Harper is not Mulroney, that is what most people fail to understand. You are comparing two vastly different governments, and two vastly different people. The only similarities are that both are furthur right than the Fiberals. Also ruthless Liberals are not what we want, especially when it is a corrupt ruthlessness that ends in mass scandals, wasted tax dollars, misused public funding, loophole abuse, budget slashing, tax hiking, and pointless legislation.

He took over from a completely terrible time period, you should know that if you know anything. He thought of the 'big picture' and worked to better Canada. Sure on the short-term he majorly messed up, but the Liberals used it as leverage to oust him and then simply copied his work which saved alot of Canadians =p Flip-flop anyone? Funny you should say that, since here in Alberta I LOVE the society. We got piles of hard-working people in almost every industry and very low un-employment in addition to very generous social programs. If you want complete government support for people go live in China, see how glorified your communist utopia is when you get it off paper. Liberals have been creating a debt, then they tried cleaning up by cutting our military to a SHAMING point and now they are destroying our healthcare and school systems with more budget cuts. How is this a step forward? Your problem is your trying to fix a problem by throwing money at it, however when you dont HAVE that money to throw at it you take it from other places that ALSO need money. Instead of using the money to improve efficiency and develop money-making industries you throw more and more at social programs and pointlessly wasteful legislation and laws (such as the Gun Registry). Throwing money around doesn't fix anything You must be the most confused Liberal I know, how can you support tax cuts and expansion of social programs at the same time? You are encouraging a deficit, which you will then blame on the right wing (which coincidentally hasn't been in power in Ottawa for 5 terms, which makes me laugh when people blame them for Canada's current problems) Ralph has paid off Alberta's debt, has kept PST from being brought in, and has done far more for this province than any Liberal Premier in any other province. While a Liberal would use Alberta's wealth like a cash cow and spend it all and more on social development and create a welfare state out of this province Ralph has gone and built it to an economic titan in the Canadian economy =p

First off, here is a tissue for your poor overworked, underpaid, discriminated self. Secondly, get a life. Women are NOT discriminated against, what you need to do is go live 50-60 years ago and then come back and judge the differences. Women today in many cases are PREFERED to men and paid far more, dont judge things on CEO's. Men are more for conquest, so heading up businesses are more their style. Some women get CEO because they too have a desire of conquest, but most of the time women get MARRIED and have KIDS and therefore they dont get the major careers they want. Should we then make mothers kill all their children for the sake of political correctness? Do ALL women feel as do you and WANT a career over a family? I dont agree, because I have talked to MANY women about this and 90% would prefer a good family with children to a career. This statistic would explain why so few women hold major careers in business, because they ARE in a major 'career' called motherhood. The most important thing there could be, the most important job