Buffalo declaration.

[SkyHigh]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I feel we really need a word to describe the kind of person who proposes these kinds of ideas and thinks they're easy.

 

"Simpletoned" "oxygenius" 

 

Something like that... This Buffalo hot sauce will make the next PC leader ask the waitress for water over and over I am sure...

Oh Dude, if you think "easy as redefining Confederation" was intended as a literal expression of the simplicity involved in a complete overhaul of our government, including splitting up Quebec and joining half of it with their mortal enemy Toronto, and not a tongue and cheak comment made to express the obvious utopic sentiment behind the possibility.

Well there's words for that as well, granted they're almost exclusively former clinical terms used to describe the mentally challenged, but if the shoe fits

I do appreciate how you've identified yourself as someone not worth engaging with in the future though

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by SkyHigh

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Oh Dude, if you think "easy as redefining Confederation" was intended as a literal expression of the simplicity involved in a complete overhaul of our government, including splitting up Quebec and joining half of it with their mortal enemy Toronto, and not a tongue and cheak comment made to express the obvious utopic sentiment behind the possibility.

There's an 'if' there, but not a 'then'.

 

It does seem like I missed your sarcasm though, and for that I'm internet embarrassed.

[SkyHigh]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's an 'if' there, but not a 'then'.

 

It does seem like I missed your sarcasm though, and for that I'm internet embarrassed.

There was a "Well" 

I will (and have on this very forum), openly admitted to not having the best command of the written language.

That being said as you seem to be more concerned with style than substance, I'll leave you to argue semantics with anyone but me

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

1. There was a "Well" 

2. I will (and have on this very forum), openly admitted to not having the best command of the written language.

3. That being said as you seem to be more concerned with style than substance, I'll leave you to argue semantics with anyone but me

1. After the period...

2. But you have a sense of humour and a command of communication so that's good enough.

3. That's only because there is little substance.  The substance that there is doesn't make for good discussion.

I went back to look at your post - I agree with it (I think)

 

[Moonlight Graham]

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Something like that... This Buffalo hot sauce will make the next PC leader ask the waitress for water over and over I am sure...

Spicy goes away much better with milk than water.  We are headed for a chocolate milk economy and I for one wish to suck on the brown cow's nipple.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Moonlight Graham

[August1991]

17 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Oh Dude, if you think "easy as redefining Confederation" was intended as a literal expression....

 

Huh?

In 1900, both Canada and Argentina were both similar: same population, same real GDP, same real median income, same population mix etc.

Heck, Argentina - like Canada - has everything: crude oil, sun, wine/grapes, uranium, hydro....

By 2000, Canada has a GDP/capita about 3X better than Argentina. Why?

=====

SkyHigh, dude, I reckon that it's easy to screw things up, turn a society into a Mean Girls script - and make every one poor.

The natural state of any society is poverty.

Make no mistake: America (the USA) is a remarkable place. And because of America, people in Europe and the rest of the world are better off. 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by August1991

[SkyHigh]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. After the period...

2. But you have a sense of humour and a command of communication so that's good enough.

3. That's only because there is little substance.  The substance that there is doesn't make for good discussion.

I went back to look at your post - I agree with it (I think)

 

1. Grammar is hard, mon français est même pire

3.Then some 2.  Now that's a substantive criticism, and is most likely true. Probably the biggest reason i came on this forum was to improve my ability to communicate on paper. Both personally and professionally ive avoided writting like the plague, and because of that i have a clear deficiency to properly portray my personality and intellect if I can't communicate in person.

Any constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated

[SkyHigh]

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

Huh?

In 1900, both Canada and Argentina were both similar: same population, same real GDP, same real median income, same population mix etc.

Heck, Argentina - like Canada - has everything: crude oil, sun, wine/grapes, uranium, hydro....

By 2000, Canada has a GDP/capita about 3X better than Argentina. Why?

=====

SkyHigh, dude, I reckon that it's easy to screw things up, turn a society into a Mean Girls script - and make every one poor.

The natural state of any society is poverty.

Make no mistake: America (the USA) is a remarkable place. And because of America, people in Europe and the rest of the world are better off. 

 

With all due respect, i honestly have no idea what you're trying to get across or how it pertains to what ive said.

I look forward to some clarification, as I am genuinely intrigued a would like to understand your point

[SkyHigh]

This "declaration" seems like a rehash of the Quebec separatists handbook, just without the linguistic, cultural, or historical factors that justified their perception of being second class citizens. (saying Alberta has its own culture is kinda funny to me) 

I don't see this doing anything other than rile up the extremists

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

 Any constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated

I'm better with snide half-asleep comments, but ok.

 

Also - your writing seems fine to me... 

 

Sorry this is off topic...

[August1991]

On 2/26/2020 at 10:38 AM, SkyHigh said:

With all due respect, i honestly have no idea what you're trying to get across or how it pertains to what ive said.

I look forward to some clarification, as I am genuinely intrigued a would like to understand your point

SkyHigh,

In 1900, Argentina and Canada were very similar: same natural resources, people, potential.

By 2000, 100 years later, Argentina is very poor compared to Canada: less safe, lower GDP per capita, higher Gini co-efficient, fewer competent heart surgeons etc.

IOW, if we get this right, the future is a very rich/civilized place.

But if we screw it up... 

Edited February 28, 2020 by August1991

[August1991]

On 2/24/2020 at 7:58 PM, SkyHigh said:

I think it's as easy a redefining Confederation which is essentially a loose  assembly of states which excepts some form of centralization to achieve common goals 

The lines we've drawn(provinces) don't properly represented the geographical differences and issues faced in Canada, here's how i would split it up.

Maritimes plus northern Quebec

Quebec city to Toronto

Western Ontario and Manitoba

Alberta and Saskatchewan

B.C 

These of course are general guidelines, but i feel these separations correspond to the regional reality in Canada

Separated in this manner with a fortification of regional autonomy, and a diminution of centralized power would better respond to each "states" specific needs while still maintaining a Canadian standard.

Hell even if the 95 referendum passed as written, Bouchard expressed the need for some kind of pan-canadian parliament

Thoughts?

 

Pierre Trudeau managed to re-write our constitution, pass it through the British parliament, add protection for the individual against the State and then clarify/make it difficult to amend.

SkyHigh, when you can do this - get back to me.

 

[SkyHigh]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

SkyHigh,

In 1900, Argentina and Canada were very similar: same natural resources, people, potential.

By 2000, 100 years later, Argentina is very poor compared to Canada: less safe, lower GDP per capita, higher Gini co-efficient, fewer competent heart surgeons etc.

IOW, if we get this right, the future is a very rich/civilized place.

But if we screw it up... 

Repeating the exact same thing brings no clarity or elucidation  to this non sequitur 

[SkyHigh]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

Pierre Trudeau managed to re-write our constitution, pass it through the British parliament, add protection for the individual against the State and then clarify/make it difficult to amend.

SkyHigh, when you can do this - get back to me.

 

Are you offering to run my campaign for federal party leader