Newfie Canadian

http://www.vch.ca/sis/

New wrinkle in the debates. The networks won't agree to some of the terms hammered out by the candidates. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09...sion/index.html

Seems like a logical step to me.(Them moving I mean, not western domination. ) If I had an oil company, I'd rather be in Alberta than Ontario, just like I'd rather be in Ontario than Alberta if I were a car manufacturer.

According to the BNA Act, 1867, you're right. However, in 1985, the Atlantic Accord was signed, in which the governments agree to develop the offshore resources for the good of Canada and of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. Here's a link if you're interested. The beef is that as of now the feds get most of the revenues from the offshore.

I didn't come here to change anyone's minds. However, upon further reflection and taking your advice to read up on Prohibition, I concede that you may indeed have a point. However, I doubt we'll see the day anytime soon where you can go into a corner store and pick up heroin. Without using stats and figures, I just think that if the hardcore drugs were decriminalized, access to those drugs would obviously be easier, getting more and more people hooked. This in turn would impact the healthcare system for example. I just think that drugs are more deadly and more addictive than alcohol, making it more dangerous.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Hugo.

All provinces should be able to control their natural resources.

I don't drink or do drugs so I can't speak intelligently about them. However, isn't the addictive properties of drugs more potent than booze? And if so, would the destructiveness of drugs be more pronounced and severe than booze? I can see what you're saying though. Before kids turn the legal age to go to bars (19 here), they are crazy to go to them. After they turn 19, they aren't so keen on going there. But I still have a hard time believing that if you legalize drugs the problems will go away, even on a small scale.

None taken, and none meant. It's been my experience that the opposite is true: many Canadians having nothing against the US, but don't care for Bush. For example, I may not like the fact that the US, under the leadership of Pres. Bush went into Iraq. I don't dislike the US or Americans or hold the US in general responsible for that. I hold Pres. Bush responsible and dislike him. (Not just because of Iraq, but that's a different story.) I expect this like I would expect Americans not to dislike Canada or Canadians because the Canadian government didn't support the Iraq war. On other words, this Canadian do not resent America or Americans, I resent Pres. Bush.

To be philosophical, why not? Or, why is anyone anywhere? Or, are we really here at all? Personally, I like "why not?"

Are you saying Hugo, that drug use, drug abuse and the nastiness that goes with it, would ease off if drug use were legal? By nastiness I mean other illegal activites perpetrated to help feed the habit and the illegal activites undertaken because people may have taken leave of their senses because of the drugs.

Hit a nerve? The quote merely implies that as the neighbour of a superpower, we are affected by that superpower's decisions, whether they mean it or not and whether we like it or not. Look, I have never in my life claimed that Canadian politicians and governements were perfect and blameless in the problems facing Canada. And contrary to what you apparently believe, I don't blame the US for everything wrong with Canada. No more than there was a reasonable explanation given about Cheney and Halliburton. Don't know, you'll have to ask him. "We'll explain the appeal of curling to you if you explain the appeal of the National Rifle Association to us."-Andy Barrie

He did lose but that's not the point. All I'm saying is that Bush has had ample time, opportunity and cause to lighten up and warm up to his northern neighbour. Yet he and his administration continue to bully Canada around, whether we're talking about keeping the border closed to Canadian Beef for little or no reason or continuing to levy punitive duties on Canadian lumber in the face of the NAFTA panel and WTO or taking the Wheat Board to the WTO and losing, again. Of course, he told Rick Mercer he was looking forward to working with our PM, PM Poutine.

I haven't read all the numbers and can't speak intelligently about the success or failure about the program, but I honestly can't see how providing people the tools and environment to do something illegal would be a really good thing.

Then again, maybe not. Is it a result of conscience, common sense or public outcry. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...9_21?hub=Canada

No.

I would like to see that for Trudeau. Think he was one of our best PMs.

I don't have a problem with the PM being the head of state. I don't see the need to separate hte head of state and the head of government.

That's the theory, ticker. Apparently there is a commitment to change the Atlantic Accord to allow this on the part of Paul Martin. The meeting is supposed to be in October, if I remember correctly.

Give me a couple of months and I'll have a couples of good blizzards for you.

I'm not going to get into the "Who don't like who" game. All I know is that Pres. Bush, for whatever reason, has constantly snubbed this country. On 9/11, Canada and Canadians helped hundreds and hundreds of stranded passengers, as well as helped patrol NA airspace and offered assistance in various forms, and in his speech to Congress thanked everyone but Canada and his dog for their help and support. When a US pilot bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan, Bush waited 2+ days, before commenting publicly on it. And there are other things. I don't mind him visiting Mexico first. But you know what, he's been in power for almost 4 years, and he hasn't had an official state visit to Canada yet. He's been here for a couple of summits, but not on an official Canadian visit. In regards to Chretien, we've had a new PM since December of last year. He still hasn't come here or lightened his attitude.

Thanks playfullfellow. Hopefully it will turn around soon.

Well, where to start. That's a wonderful area of the province, that's for sure. And I agree that it's peanuts, but as you say August1991, it would be a start. Well, IF we could get the oil revenues that we should instead of the feds, and if Smallwood hadn't sold the farm in the Upper Churchill deal, we'd do OK. Hopefully the oil revenue situation will be taken care of soon. It would also be nice if we could develop the Lower Churchill, which is being talked about. Perhaps, but I would prefer that after 137 years we could have built our own traditions instead of relying on an officer that represents the Queen. And I agree that the First Nations should be more prominent in our country.

With all due respect April, I'm not so sure many Canadians love George Bush. I may be wrong.

A higher Canadian dollar hurts a lot of things, incuding tourism, movie and television productions and countless goods. I've always liked it at the 75 cent US mark.