RNG

I already answered them on that. But they have their revisionist history firmly tattooed into their mindset.

My grandparents lived there in the 1800's, straight from the Ukraine. But then you probably figure it's OK to screw those Ukes.

Built by western farmers and greedy railroaders. The farmers got screwed.

An independent Alberta would be a way more viable entity than an independent Quebec. I honestly can't think of a thing that confederation has done for Alberta, but can think of a whole bunch that has hurt us. And Trudeau led that. The concept of "sea to sea to sea" sort of has an emotional tug kind of but not quite. I want Quebec gone, or Alberta gone. Maybe both.

Debt causes interest payment. That is money that could be not taken from me as taxes (best case) or used to help the ones who made poor lifestyle choices (worse case). Either way, not having debt would make Canada a better place.

Thks.

Firstly, I object to you using a small c in conservative. That makes it seem that you are assuming that the CPC is conservative, and they are not. And I wasn't in this case saying Jack was the cause, but I am saying that if he had power, it would get way worse. Debt is bad. To get rid of debt, we need surpluses that are put against the debt, and not to fund research into banana plantations. Challenge me and I'll waste tomorrow morning finding the reference to that really stupid government research grant.

You got that half right. Yes, you built it so it could be settled. So you could screw us on transporting our beef and grain to the east at rates you set. And transport your shitty manufactured goods to us inspite of the fact that 50 miles away in the US was way better and way cheaper stuff. Good on you. You won. Way to go.

Then we agree to disagree. IMHO, killing is wrong, but, unfortunately, sometimes necessary.

I hope that wasn't a typo. If you tell me it wasn't, I'll nominate you for poster of the year. In the eye of the beerholder.:)

Nice revisionism. Read a little history.

And why did they want the colonies on the west coast to join, if not to plunder them?

That is totally wrong. These are real debts. At some point in time, they either need to be paid off, or we default. And think about that. You didn't initially come across to me as the typical dingbat socialist. Debt is good, what me worry? Get a grip. Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland are in deep shit. Their citizens will be paying taxes up the stump with little return for a long time. Your and Happy Jack's policies will just push Canada into the same situation. Or was I just trolled?

I guess we agree to disagree, or even worse, it is a stupid semantic argument again. I'm not saying it isn't sometimes the lesser of two evils, but it is still wrong.

I have worked with a lot of "professionals". Well educated persons. Engineers, scientist, and so on. With an emphasis on technical. But it amazed me and still does, the number of people who don't understand the difference between deficit and debt. They say "So we have a 40 billion dollar deficit, no big deal, there are 35 mil of us, so it's only $1,142/person. But that's just for this year. Dummies.

It was in the '80's, I think, before computers anyway when we all either sat with paper and pencil, or went to H&R Block to get our tax return done. Remember when they used to send a "guide" with your return documents. Depending on what the 1991 means, you may be too young. Anyway, one time they had on the front page a pie graph. And it showed that 25% of your tax dollars were being used to service Canada's debt. Does that not cause you some pause? So if we got rid of that, either and the best case in my opinion, they could reduce our taxes by 25%. Or even by the lefties desires, they could provide 25% more gimmies to the unwashed. And either one is better.

"Killing is wrong" is also a simplistic statement. Is it not credible?

Am I the only one here who thinks there are things happening that it would be dangerous or counter-productive to have plastered across the popular press. What would have happened if Obama had been forced to list each and every new bit of information in the search for OBL? Yes, an extreme example, but still valid.

The reason you "gave" us the railroad is so that you could plunder our resources. Ever heard of the wheat board? Forcing western farmers to sell at the prices you set. Punitive import duties on farm implements for which we had to pay horrendous transportation costs for tractors et al which were inferior eastern Canada products. And on it goes. In fact you owe us.

Actually, you shoved a railroad down our necks so that you could plunder our wealth. You owe us, big time.

Oh, no worry, A.M. The holier than all of us CRTC will police that with great vigor.

Are you talking WASP's?

Perhaps a source not called "Pushed to the Left" would go down easier, but interesting none the less. This is something I knew nothing about, and am totally philosophically against, BTW. The industry was still in it's infancy at that time. The other point is that Trans-Canada did pay back the loan with interest. But forcing refineries in Ontario and west pay above world prices is just wrong.

Well, except for cheese slices.

Did you know that some BC royalties are lower than those in effect in Alberta? And I must confess I know nothing about Diefenbaker's National Oil Program, but I still don't think the feds poured a bunch of money into the oilpatch. Again, a tax break is often used to stimulate the economy in some section. Bombardier and Flyer buses come to mind. About the only real "break" oil companies get, that I am aware of is accelarated depreciation allowances. But this is justified because unlike a factory that is usesful for tens of years or more, the average gas well in western Canada only last 3 to 4 years, then becomes a liability which the company has to spend typically $100,000 to "abandon" in an environmentally responsible manner. And oil wells also have a way shorter life than your average factory.