Bryan

Is that possible?

Of course it is, that's why the was there.

Exactly like that. I haven't had the pleasure of having to use it, so it's still a bizarre anomaly to me too.

Chretien is senile, let him rant.

Maybe I'm just used to our entrenched socialism, but I can't help but find it bizarre that a private entity can own a public structure, especially a major bridge.

Why do you say that? Have you been there recently, or are you just parroting something you read somewhere? I was in Mexico in October (Piedras Negras, near San Antonio). Nobody was looking for trouble. Very friendly. Their Aztec/Inca exhibit is pretty cool. It's not a tourist town though.

Catholic schools are fully private in Manitoba, and it has not been an issue. Non-catholic christian schools have been increasing in attendance, many of them doing quite well too, also with out funding. The only kind of funding I could understand as making sense for what are otherwise private schools is if there was some sort of voucher system where a certain amount of funding follows the student, and they can go where ever they want.

Of course. That's all Gaddafi was doing too, right? Mugabe? Even now, Kim Jong-il, is he just unifying the state symbolically? Aziz Al Saud in Saudi Arabia? What about Kagame in Rwanda?

If this argument had anything to do with indigenous culture, we would not be barraged by guilt-trip laden demands for cash.

You have been asked repeatedly to provide proof of this $2 trillion account. You keep referencing it, but refuse to provide evidence that it even exists. Besides, over $9 billion a year is paid to First Nations out of the Canadian general revenues. That absolutely is money that we are paying out of our taxes. IF first nations communities do get any money from this account, it's in ADDITION to the $9 billion of our money that they are already getting.

The people who could even by the greatest stretch of the imagination have actually had a legitimate claim to any of that land or this mythical trust fund have died several generations ago. Previous ownership of all kinds of property gets legally converted to its current possessor in a lot less time all the time. It's continuously held up in court. It only takes a very short time well within a person's lifetime for the person who is continually using a property to acquire the permanent rights to it from the previous owner who is not living there.

In all seriousness, it's difficult to when I can't even understand what you're even trying to say.

Man, I had blocked out the memories of the outhouse. It's all rushing back now!! Lying in bed in the middle of a northern Manitoba winter, the fire having burned out hours ago, and the house already cooled down to well below zero. Those layered blankets pulled right up over your head, and the sudden realization that you have to go to the bathroom. It's too cold to even pull the covers back, never mind get your boots and coat on. When you finally realize that you're not going to be able to hold it any longer, you suit up and trudge through the snow to the outhouse in that vicious -45 windchill, quickly drop drawers and sit on the coldest toilet seat in the word. For those still thinking that this must have been back in frontier days or something... we are talking about the mid-1980's.

William, I'll admit that I am a terrible typist, but damn... do you wear mittens when you post?

The 1982 Constitution Act, especially The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and asymmetrical bilingualism and language rights.

When I was a kid I lived in a cabin in the woods (north of 53º) that has no electricity, no running waster, no insulation. Lived in it all winter Hauled water from a hand operated pump well, cut our own wood, and had to build a fire every morning in the cast-iron stove that served as the only heat source, because it was below zero inside! As ancient as that story sounds, it's not nearly as long ago as some of you are probably thinking. No, it wasn't in Attawapiskat!

Political sites too. I don't mean this one (not that I know of). I visit a website about Cuba regularly, and there are a handful of people on that site that are flat out lying in every post they write. All it is is American anti-Castro propaganda. The problem is, they don't even bother to get the places and dates close enough to be believable. When ever I point out that I was actually at the place they claim a fictitious incident occurred (we go every year for vacation), or that I have personally witnessed the things they claim never happen, they accuse me of being paid by Fidel! I think some of the people here would get a hoot out of hearing me being accused of being a socialist!

Yes, that is what I meant, good catch.

That isn't true either. A majority of the western farmers who grow wheat who happened to respond to a push poll that did not even give the actual answer as one of the choices. There are no "wheat only" farmers, no wheat farmer east of Ontario is bound by the CWB, and the vote only included the choice of keep it or kill it, the REAL proposal of making it optional was not even asked. It was a bull-crap rigged vote in every possible way. The government is absolutely correct to ignore it. They had a chance to take it seriously, and they CWB decided to play cute instead, now they have to pay for their own stupidity.

When it comes to peoples' livelihoods, I sure am. Majorities are for political offices, not making decisions about who can do what job. It's not a true majority in the country anyway, since no one who farms other grains, and no farmer in the east has to use the CWB.

You're been watching CBC, who (as usual) have been blatantly lying about what the government has said or done. Shutting down the CWB has never been part of the plan. Read it for yourself, it even outlines the specifics of how the board would go forward after the interim period when farmers may or may not be opting out. The act is entirely about offering more choices for farmers, it has nothing to do with taking anything away. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5285088&File=57

So you are calling the pilot a liar then?

And that majority can keep it if they want it.

The new law says they can.

No, removing which products are covered by the scheme requires a vote. It says nothing about requiring a vote to let people opt out.