Are Nfld and Quebec Sustainable?

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Smart elite? Long term, sustainable. Zillions of years

I trust Newfoundlanders.. They're practical.

====

Aside from the fact that that doesn't actually make sense as a statement, regardless of your feelings of losing Landers now there's no telling that the newfoundlanders 20 years from now will be the same type of people.

What makes something sustainable is its ability to generate commerce. If there's work and there's activity then one way or another it will survive. Given the collapse of the fish stock, they are on fairly shaky ground. I doubt they would be doing very well if it wasn't the fact that Canada is here to kind of keep them afloat. Having said that they do have oil. And they might make it go of it there for a while

[August1991]

On 5/26/2024 at 11:35 PM, CdnFox said:

Aside from the fact that that doesn't actually make sense as a statement, regardless of your feelings of losing Landers now there's no telling that the newfoundlanders 20 years from now will be the same type of people.

What makes something sustainable is its ability to generate commerce. If there's work and there's activity then one way or another it will survive. Given the collapse of the fish stock, they are on fairly shaky ground. I doubt they would be doing very well if it wasn't the fact that Canada is here to kind of keep them afloat. Having said that they do have oil. And they might make it go of it there for a while

CdnFox,

At present, Iceland has a population of some 300,000. This has not changed for 1000 years.

Newfoundland has about 500,000 people - and it has maintained this for several centuries.

===

Around the world, people know of Newfoundland and Iceland.

Who today knows of Lemberg?

Edited June 1 by August1991

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, August1991 said:

CdnFox,

At present, Iceland has a population of some 300,000. This has not changed for 1000 years.

Newfoundland has about 500,000 people - and it has maintained this for several centuries.

And? Venezuela has a population of 28 million and has had a large population for longer than iceland has had people on it and they're falling apart.  So whats'  your point?

Iceland has massive fluctuations financially and it's people often have periods of extreme financial distress and hardship. 

I mean there's still people alive in Ethiopia. But i'd hardly call it a thriving and viable country.  If what you mean is that some people would probably survive although with a much reduced quality of life, then sure, probably. 

[herbie]

On 5/21/2024 at 7:22 PM, August1991 said:

you and I have a different understanding of the word "sustainable".

No kidding, you talk of provinces like they were commodities like oil or coal. As if one can simply close them down or sell them off like they're a failing business.

Sorry, Saskatchewan is not performing to market standards so the shareholders have decided to sell it to the highest bidder..... like Trump's idea to buy Greenland as if it was Alaska in 1867

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 5/5/2024 at 5:15 AM, August1991 said:

Disagree. Island people are practical.

In smaller islands, the women in particular.

A different set of skills was required in NL. I’ve never met so many people who are handy. Many build their own cabins from scratch and some of these places look like luxury houses. Planes too. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 6/1/2024 at 2:45 PM, CdnFox said:

I mean there's still people alive in Ethiopia. 

There are 124 million of them. But it is a very poor country. 

In Britain there are stark regional differences of wealth across the country but nobody speaks of doing away with some of the provinces, aka non-sovereign countries, there. I suppose Canada’s size and newness make things feel more provisional. The way things are going the rest of us could end up in shanty towns around Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

There are 124 million of them. But it is a very poor country. 

 

That's kind of my point - the fact that a country exist and has a population does not mean they're doing well or that they're 'sustainable' at the same quality of life the maritimes enjoy right now.  Which is what he was suggesting.

[August1991]

On 6/1/2024 at 4:02 PM, herbie said:

No kidding, you talk of provinces like they were commodities like oil or coal. As if one can simply close them down or sell them off like they're a failing business.

Sorry, Saskatchewan is not performing to market standards so the shareholders have decided to sell it to the highest bidder..... like Trump's idea to buy Greenland as if it was Alaska in 1867

Herbie,

In fact, this happens often in Canada. We are a large country with few people. Foreigners come here with hopes.

Google Search: Elliott Lake.

[August1991]

On 6/1/2024 at 1:15 PM, CdnFox said:

And? Venezuela has a population of 28 million and has had a large population for longer than iceland has had people on it and they're falling apart.  So whats'  your point?

 

Iceland has a distinction language. Newfoundlanders have a distinct accent. Both have their own way pf doing things.

Both islands have survived for centuries. Civilized people. Sustainable - not growing. Centuries.

Why?

=====

Iceland has about 300,000 people. Nfld about 600.000.

Why this obsession for growth?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

Iceland has a distinction language. Newfoundlanders have a distinct accent.

But not a distinct language. So comparing them is stupid. Newfoundland speaks english. 

Quote

Both have their own way pf doing things.

No, they don't. 

Newfoundland uses the same constitution and charter that we do. Newfoundland uses the same court system and model that we do. They have almost identical laws. They use the same currency. They use the same languages. They receive money from the rest of Canada just so that they can be the same as the rest of Canada. They don't have their own way of doing things. They do things the same way that every province in Canada accepts Quebec does.

Quote

 

Both islands have survived for centuries. Civilized people. Sustainable - not growing. Centuries.

Why?

 

Because survival is relatively easy. Humans have been doing it for well over 10,000 years now. But that doesn't mean that they have the same quality of life as everyone else. Newfoundland does and the reason for that is the rest of Canada props it up because it can't make it on its own.

If you're willing to wear animal skins and hunt with flint spears I guess you can survive anywhere. But that doesn't mean it's viable.

[August1991]

On 6/5/2024 at 2:51 AM, CdnFox said:

Newfoundland uses the same constitution and charter that we do. Newfoundland uses the same court system and model that we do. They have almost identical laws. They use the same currency. They use the same languages. They receive money from the rest of Canada just so that they can be the same as the rest of Canada.

Whatever.

====

Make no mistake. Women have given birth, people have managed to live in Iceland and Newfoundland for centuries.

Edited June 7 by August1991

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Whatever.

LOL -  it's always hilarious to watch you pout when the facts prove you wrong. Don't blame me that reality doesn't support your delusions.

[August1991]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL -  it's always hilarious to watch you pout when the facts prove you wrong. Don't blame me that reality doesn't support your delusions.

People on Iceland have a sustainable society. Newfoundland is sustainable.

Bulgarians - they too are sustainable.

 

Edited June 7 by August1991

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, August1991 said:

People on Iceland have a sustainable society. Newfoundland is sustainable.

 

Not independently.  It's sustainable as part of Canada.  Barely.      But independently they could not 'sustain' the standard of life they have now. 

[August1991]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not independently.  It's sustainable as part of Canada.  Barely.      But independently they could not 'sustain' the standard of life they have now. 

Independent? What a word. Sustainable is not the same as survival.

====

I'm with Mulroney/Diefenbaker/Trudeau: we get along.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, August1991 said:

Independent? What a word. Sustainable is not the same as survival.

====

 

That was my point.  So you admit you were wrong.  Fair enough. 

Quote

I'm with Mulroney/Diefenbaker/Trudeau: we get along.

Mulroney sparked the reform party because he couldn't get along. He refused to get along with the west and that created the reform party. Trudeau is the most hated and divisive leader in Canadian history. He called Canadians that disagreed with him bigots and misogynists who shouldn't be tolerated

But like every liberal out there you think if you lie hard enough somehow it'll be true. You're walking example of why liberal voter shouldn't be trusted and a disgrace to your province.

[August1991]

On 6/7/2024 at 2:49 AM, CdnFox said:

That was my point.  So you admit you were wrong.  Fair enough. 

Mulroney sparked the reform party because he couldn't get along. He refused to get along with the west and that created the reform party. Trudeau is the most hated and divisive leader in Canadian history. He called Canadians that disagreed with him bigots and misogynists who shouldn't be tolerated

But like every liberal out there you think if you lie hard enough somehow it'll be true. You're walking example of why liberal voter shouldn't be trusted and a disgrace to your province.

Wow!

Which Trudeau? Senior or Junior?

Agreed. Mulroney sparked the Reform Party.

Me? A Liberal?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

Wow!

Which Trudeau? Senior or Junior?

 

Junior for sure. there were a few polls and he always comes out on top for being the worst by a fair margin 

His father was hated in western canada but loved in eastern canada and so overall he still does relatively well .

There's an old joke from years ago, 

Pierre Trudeau decides one morning to walk to work and as he does he sees the sun rising. 'Sun", he said,  "  Am I a good ruler, am i loved by my people?"

"An excellent leader, you are kind and devoted and knowledgeable and fair. Your people adore you." 

Please with his answer, trudeau continues on and puts in a full day of hard work. In the evening he walks home, and notices the sun setting. He decides to ask again, 'Sun", he said,  "  Am I a good ruler, am i loved by my people?"

"You are a tyrant" The sun replied. "You are unfair, your solutions are unjust and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. Your people hate you"

WOAH! said Pierre, "I don't understand, just this morning you told me how wonderful I am. Now you tell me how Despicable I am! What has changed?"

"Ah", said the sun, "This morning I was in the east. This evening I'm in the west."

[August1991]

On 6/11/2024 at 10:19 PM, CdnFox said:

....

There's an old joke from years ago, 

Pierre Trudeau decides one morning...

...

"Ah", said the sun, "This morning I was in the east. This evening I'm in the west."

There are many such jokes.

I always like the Soviet joke about the cow:

It eats in Warsaw/Novsibrisk but is milked in Moscow.

[DUI_Offender]

On 4/13/2024 at 6:54 PM, herbie said:

Some Albertans might not like this, but the nation is a commonwealth. We try to spread things around, we don't want "hardship" areas. The same laws, the same benefits for everyone.

Don't like it? The border's walking distance for most of you.

The United States would salivate at the though of absorbing Alberta as the 51st state, with it's wealth of natural resources (oil).  Be careful what you wish for...

[herbie]

How the hell would you take that as a desire for Alberta to leave?
Or are you one of those whiney Alberta separatists issuing a dare?

[DUI_Offender]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

How the hell would you take that as a desire for Alberta to leave?
Or are you one of those whiney Alberta separatists issuing a dare?

I'm not an Albertan.

Having lived through the Quebec Separatist movement, I think Alberta has more of a case for breaking off from Canada. The money in transfer payments Alberta has paid to the rest of the country, especially Quebec, is astronomical.  Alberta will not separate from Canada.  However, Alberta has a better chance of succeeding than Quebec, due to their resources, and cultural similarities to the rest of North America. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The United States would salivate at the though of absorbing Alberta as the 51st state, with it's wealth of natural resources (oil).  Be careful what you wish for...

This has come up before with them. They've made it very clear they have zero interest at all. 

And i'll remind you that they just shot down a pipeline that would have given access to the natural resources. 

When they want the resources they can buy them, and they don't need the hassle of having to deal with the issues involved with running the place. 

Alberta would only be viable as a seperate nation if bc and sask at a minimum went with them and really you'd want manitoba too. 

[DUI_Offender]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This has come up before with them. They've made it very clear they have zero interest at all. 

And i'll remind you that they just shot down a pipeline that would have given access to the natural resources. 

When they want the resources they can buy them, and they don't need the hassle of having to deal with the issues involved with running the place. 

Alberta would only be viable as a seperate nation if bc and sask at a minimum went with them and really you'd want manitoba too. 

The US is not going to go on record and say that they would absorb Alberta if they separated, but if they ever had the chance, they would definitely be interested. Americans have gone halfway across the World, and occupied countires in the middle east, primarily because of their oil reserves, and you don't think the US is interested in the vast oil reserves in Alberta? 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

The US is not going to go on record and say that they would absorb Alberta if they separated, but if they ever had the chance, they would definitely be interested.

They have absolutely zero interest and they've said so very bluntly and publicly. 

Why would they? What would they gain? They already buy as much of the oil as they want at below market, it's already US firms that own much of the production, they gain nothing by having alberta become part of the us but they inherit a buttload of problems. 

There is ZERO interest in it and there never will be, they get nothing for it that they don't already have and they get problems that they don't need to deal with right now.