Jump to content

jay74

Members
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

jay74's Achievements

Explorer

Explorer (4/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Ralph went and met with the VP, not as somebody representing the Canadian gov't but as the Premier of Alberta. It was no bloody International conference on trade. If it was, then I would not agree. The Premier's of our provinces are always meeting with rep's from other foreign govts, for there own provincial interests and that is fine. Why should a premier of one province be the rep of our country at an INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE? If it was Ralph, Gordon, or that Norman Bates look-a-like going instead of Jean, I'd still be bitchin about the same thing. It is just an insult to all the other great provinces of this country and the great people that live there. My point is why should our FEDERAL gov't send a premier to an INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TRADE? Are they too lazy, don't have the time or what.....o, ya, forgot, that $#&*! GG Clarkson has blowin the Feds travel budget for the next 3 years.
  2. What the [email protected]*$!!!! An International Trade conference and Canada is represented by the F'n Premier of Quebec Jean Charest. Since when does he have the authority to represent ALL Canadians. I have nothing against the guy but, why should he be going and not our PM or Federal Minister. How would Quebec feel if we sent Ralph Klein to represent them. I think I know the answer. First, it is the side deal on health and now PM PM lets Quebec represent Canada at an International conference. Can you say, trying to woo the voters in Quebec. Don't stand for this Canada, let your displeasure be heard and loudly. Tomorrow's headline will be, "PM Martin hands the federal treasury over to Quebec." O, wait........... we already do that. Sorry, my bad. THIS IS BS.
  3. MS, you've been blinded by idealism. I am not saying that your ideas are wrong. They're just not realistic.
  4. Is this guy for real? Hey, Robin Hood, where the f*#%, does this money come from?
  5. Playfullfellow, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The funny thing is, is that the majority of people that, bitch and complain about Klein, don't even live in Alberta. I guess since their gov'ts are doing such a great job, they must turn their attention on the gov'ts that need to be brought into line. ie. Alberta
  6. Ah, kimmy, you always make great points. Take that ROC.
  7. Must agree with Stoker on this one. I realize that the rest of Canada can't stand Alberta. That's OK. We are doing just fine here. We've have learned our lesson from the past, though. If ROC wants a piece of us, come and get it. Just don't plead innocence when we LEAVE.
  8. NDP in Alberta. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry about that. Had to be done. If Alberta wants a different gov't they will change it. That is why we vote. If the people of the province don't vote for the party that YOU think should be in gov't. Though. If the NDP want to govern, then they must develop policy that will appeal to the people of Alberta. If you want change, then do something don't wait for the guy next to you to go first.
  9. A nation within a nation. I do not disagree with it but, I do forsee the huge problems, massive problems. I see why they never followed through with the motion. Try to explain that to ROC. They just would not accept something like that. In my opinion, if Canada continues to keep this system of gov't, Quebec as a nation within Canada just cannot work. It could work in a republic system maybe.
  10. So what are you saying. That Quebec be recognized as a nation and not a seperate country? I am a little fuzzy on this.
  11. Don't get me wrong Bakunin I agree with you 100%. I agree with most of your posts. I think Alberta (me being an Albertan) and Quebec have a lot in common once you get past the language issue. I to would like to see Canada work out it's problems and stay together but, if the people of Quebec want to leave and form their own nation, let them.
  12. I am sorry Bakunin but If Quebec were to separate it would not be two systems working together as one. If that is what you mean. Canada would be one country, Quebec another and we would determine our destines on our own. Of course there would be cooperation between the two of us, as is the case with most countries. But don't expect any hand outs.
  13. This is just my opinion but, i believe many of our current political problems are deeply rooted in us having the british monarcy as our head of state. Not only is it out dated but it does not reflect the diversity of our country. Maybe it worked 100 years ago but no longer. Certainly dropping the Queen and all her court jesters would be a step in the right direction in having Quebec feel a little more a part of Canada. I don't know maybe Bakunin can answer that. As for the senate, we must do one of two things. Either drop it all together or use the institiution in a productive manner. As for now, it is a boneyard where polititians and there friends go to die. It's ridiculous. They really are not accountable to anyone.
  14. I thought that I would throw this topic into the pit for discussion. Should our current system of gov't in Canada be reformed? If so, what should be done? Constitutional Monarchy v Republic. First past the post v proportional representation. What about our senate? These are just a few points that have been tossed out there. Myself, being a western Canadian, I hear these converstations all the time. We need reform, we need reform and now. I know how western canada feels about this but, i would like to hear what the rest of canada thinks, without the media slant.
  15. your crazy if you think that. he would be out on his ear within the year. i am not saying that it would be the wrong road to take, it is just that canadians would not put up with that kind of governing
×
×
  • Create New...