Jump to content

Newfie Canadian

Members
  • Posts

    618
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Newfie Canadian

  1. According the Gov of Canada website: Can a seasonal worker help it if their work is seasonal? The problem a seasonal worker faces is if they are seasonal worker, then they are unlikely to get hired for another job once their seasonal job is done for the season. Who is going to hire a fish plant worker, for example, who works in a fish plant from April or May to September or October? Is it fair? I don't know, but seasonal workers pay into EI as does everyone who works, so why shouldn't they be able to avail of the program?
  2. Some interesting points you make, August, as always. What exactly is the problem? All provinces, including Quebec, have received subsidies for projects of one kind or another. Businesses, even crown corporations such as Nalcor, have received funding through programs designed by the Feds for just this kind of purpose. We can get into facts about the Régie de l'énergie and Hydro-Quebec, the former siding with the latter about not having the 'space' to transfer the power long it's transmissions lines and so on, but that isn't the point. (As an aside, if HQ wanted it's transmission lines upgraded to what it says it needed to be to the tune of 3 billion dollars, would they expect the Feds to help with that? Of course they would.) How does this benefit Canada, you ask? If it benefits any Canadians, such as Newfoundlander and Labradorians and Nova Scotians, then it's a benefit to Canada. As a Canadian, and yes I am one, I find that a little bit insulting. But all of that is neither here nor there. Perhaps we should look at this: CBC Article One could argue that this not only benefits Canada and ALL Canadians, but the world by possibly eliminating a potent greenhouse gas emitter. Wouldn't you agree?
  3. And what is a Newfoundlander, my friend August? Or do I want to know? We must stand for basic principles? Such as peace, prosperity, the right to be free and capitalism?
  4. Perhaps it's enough to say that an English Canadian is a Canadian that primarily speaks English, while a French Canadian is a Canadian that primarily speaks French. Canada hasn't changed geographically since 1949, and one could argue that there are those both Newfoundland and the ROC that would say that it didn't change then (but that's another thread). Canadians can be defined in many ways: by region, by religious preference, by place of birth, by political preference and of course, by language. Perhaps we have to take on faith that we are Canadian, and that being Canadian is something worthy of being and something to be proud of, no matter what language we speak. I don't know....I think I'm babbling.
  5. Alas, b_c2004, if it makes you feel better, I can assure you I would say the same thing whether it was this yoyo, a yoyo from CNN or a yoyo from any other network. And I assume that Americans are quite free not to care about Heather Mallick or any other Canadian or world journalist, which is exactly what I was trying to say: I don't care what Mr. Gutfeld thinks, which is my choice, just as it's my choice not to watch Fox (or The Daily Show, which I don't.) May I ask a question: how would you have responded to my post if I'd left that little section out? Just curious.
  6. Who the hell is Greg Gutfeld? Why the hell is he on at 3 AM Eastern time? Who the hell stays up that late to watch? And the most important question, why the hell do we care what he says? He is entitled to his opinion, comedic or ignorant, and if he wants to look and act like he knows not of what he speaks then we can take solace in the fact that part of the reason the US is held in relative low esteem here is because of him and people like him.
  7. I suppose it depends on where you're traveling to as well. In my part of the country, the Maple Leaf is fairly prevalent in front of private homes, even with Danny's crusade against Harper. I've found that Canadians are passionate about their patriotism, yet are subdued about it as well. A contradiction it seems, but true in my opinion. As for whether or not I'm proud of my country, DAMN RIGHT I am.
  8. See, that's a big assumption. One would presume that if one wanted to carry a weapon, he/she would want to use it in such a scenario. I've been doing some research on this. From what I can see, not every state that has some form of right to carry laws requires training for the use of the weapon although in all fairness a vast majority do. I'm not absolutely, 100% certain about these facts, so I'm willing to be corrected. Ah, but it could. True enough.
  9. I couldn't agree more, that's why I always get a charge out of hearing Watson talking about the 'inhumane' killing of seals when he's anything but humane in his treatment of sealers.
  10. Yes...and that's part of my point. Part of the justification for this group of approx. 25,000 students wanting to carry guns on campus are the instances of on campus massacres that have taken place. I have no idea of the actual odds, but I would guess the chances of the average college student being killed by a raving loon shooting people on their campus are still very remote. If college students in the US are anything like they are where I come from, they're more likely to die from alcohol poisoning after going on a bender after exams. I didn't know that. I bet. I'm curious though...if the weapons are still banned on public and private property, what's left? And I'm not asking that cheekily or anything, I'm serious. Public property I assume to be government buildings, schools and that sort of thing, while private would be businesses and homes, so what's left? I'm honestly curious.
  11. I'm not so sure about the onions...he's explosive enough as it is. I'm interested to know how this is playing out in Europe. I check the BBC daily and there hasn't been anything on there about it. I've even gone so far as to Google for news from Holland and have only found what I would call very minor, one-piece bits about it. I don't think this has garnered the attention Watson hoped it would. And if that's the case, serves him right.
  12. That's an interesting standing joke. I will confess it got a giggle out of me. There was a typo in my problem, as I meant to say Student B blows away Student A and Student C, not Student B. Sorry about that. So my question is this: you(or anyone else reading this) have no problem with allowing young adults stressed out over grades and God knows what else to carry weapons in a school? I guess what I'm saying is that I would be more concerned about a 'deputized' student snapping and pulling out his/her weapon than I would about a loon breeching security and going bonkers. I know it has happened (VT for example) and it's tragic to say the least, but how many schools operate in the US that has never had a problem of any kind whatsoever, let alone someone walking in with automatic weapons and killing people en masse? I have two daughters, and I'd have to think long and hard about letting them attend a school where God knows how many weapons are being carried...if I lived in the US I mean.
  13. Hmmnnn. You think so? While I don't concede your point as there are too many variables so let's try another problem. Student A tells Student B that she had an affair with Student C, and now she's carrying an unborn fetus, Fetus A (do they count in the US? And for the record they count in my books) belonging to Student C. Student B is carrying a gun he's allowed to carry because of this farcical idea and blows away Student A, Student B and Fetus A in a fit of rage on campus where untold innocents may be caught in the line of fire or otherwise mentally traumatized. A bit melodramatic and soap operish, but then again we are talking about guns in schools.
  14. That's an interesting premise. Let's say a loon walks into a school cafeteria (into what we'll call for want of a better term a 'target rich environment') filled with, I don't know, 150 students. Let's say for argument sake, that 25 of them are carrying concealed weapons and have no qualms about using them. They all haul out there weapons and fire at the loon. How many innocent souls are these all but deputized students going to extinguish?
  15. It seems there's a movement to allow students at US colleges and universities to carry concealed weapons. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/campus.guns/index.html It seems to me that this is overkill, pardon the terrible pun. Seriously, would you want to go to a school where any idiot is allowed to carry a gun? I wouldn't. But, where does the US constitutional right to bear arms vs student safety fit in?
  16. Anyone who belittles the loss of men trying to support their families like Watson did deserves no respect from anyone. His comments regarding the deaths of four sealers just go to prove how callous and unworried he is about those who participate in the hunt. If those who follow his propagandist garbage are as dangerous as he is, that is to say his disciples on the boat, Hearn did the right thing. http://www.thestar.com/article/413940
  17. Alas, my poor (overpaid) Leafs East 1)Agree with you both 2)Gotta go with guyser on that one. The Sens have been in a downward spiral or far too long to go anywhere. 3)I notice, guyser, that you didn't mention Huet! I think that he gives the Caps the edge. 4) Sean Avery. At any rate, I'll give it to the Rangers because of the head to head record (Rangers are 7-0-1) and the Rangers' better goals for stat. West 1)Agree with you both again, though Tootoo should be interesting to watch. 2)I'm going to buck the trend and go with the Flames in 7; I'm thinking Regher, Phaneuf et al will shut down Thornton. 3)I'll go with the Wild as well. Too many health and age question with thet Avs 4)Gotta go with the Ducks as well. if Pronger doesn't jump on anyone and get suspended.
  18. I always love hearing what the General has to say, as I've very seldom heard him pull any punches. A very well done interview.
  19. I have been here, sir, occasionally wondering why a person who "has no legal power" is our head of state.
  20. Don't know. But some would if he decided to go ahead with it.
  21. Touché. The Queen of Canada simply makes little sense to me, as a Canadian. She visits once in a blue moon and there is no practical or tangible presence, save for the Governor General and various Lieutenants General. She isn't really here in any real sense, so why have her instead of something we can call our own? We have a loon, a polar bear, a beaver and a schooner on some money, I would assume we could come up with something. I agree that in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter a single iota. The only time I ever think about it is when it comes up on a forum like this or there's some absurdly elaborate, and might I add expensive, government ceremony that comes on TV. i suppose we could wait until Charlie takes the throne...
  22. That is the direction to which I point. I'm a Canadian, born and raised. My family has been in this glorious land for as far back as I can trace on the old family tree. It sort of irks me to see the Queen, bless her, on my money and so on. I'm a Canadian, not a British subject.
  23. He may still do it just for spite...I think he has that sort of attitude. One thing is for certain, he won't campaign aggressively for the Cons, and the damage for the Cons may have already been done in NL.
  24. Here, here! What possible outcome could come from a First Minister's meeting besides division and all party's sniping at each other? It would be the wrong message to send to the federal electorate and Harper knows it.
  25. It doesn't come in English.... I'm not a big fan of the monarchy, and think it has very little place in Canadian life or politics, so I have no problem with her not being invited. I only wish that the lack of an invitation was a case of trying to phase the monarchy out and not trying to avoid a riot in the streets.
×
×
  • Create New...