So do I. But this would just recreate the present federal mess in mini, with all the Christians in the interior complaining about social policies being set by UBC grads and the consolidation of power in the lower mainland.
[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”][quote]I just want a
Chewy:
Where is Canada? Is it in Europe somewhere? Sounds like an interesting place. Maybe one day I would like to visit there.
I’m slightly at a loss for words. I never knew that after saying, “without tooting my own horn” one was supposed to list educational credits. Nor, that “Without tooting my own horn (something I really don’t get off doing) this agnostic interior “hillbilly” and “Kamloops” citizen has an LSE degree, as well as a UBC one” can be rephrased in the following way: “In other words, I think an independent BC wouldn’t have a “Lower mainland” bias.”
I’m just pulling your hillbilly leg. 
Kamloops. I just drove through there last weekend. Haven’t been through that area in a decade. Fabulously scenic. But hey, wearing a pair of low hipped Kenneth Cole linen pants and a striped Givenchy shirt I wasn’t the most popular dude in town let me tell you. Still plenty of barbarians around. 
Hence your easy adaptation to life in Taipei?
I always refer to Canada as “the uncleland.” Friendly and obviously a part of me, but not inescapable and primal like a mother nor formidable like a father. But we shouldn’t say anymore. Evil eyes are upon this thread.
Chewy,
Why should Canada have become more involved in Iraq? So we could have helped the Yanks find all those WMDs?? 
You indicated that Canada should bulk up its military because of the threat of terrorism; had we joined the Americans in Iraq (which has created numerous new terrorists in the form of people who have lost family and friends in the “just war”), I would certainly agree with you.
Under the Liberals, Canada has had a succession of surpluses. Do you long for the days of Mulroney style deficits? Or is it that you prefer the Airbus type scandals of the Tories?
[/quote]
[quote=“thebiggestnose”]Chewy,
Why should Canada have become more involved in Iraq? So we could have helped the Yanks find all those WMDs?? 
You indicated that Canada should bulk up its military because of the threat of terrorism; had we joined the Americans in Iraq (which has created numerous new terrorists in the form of people who have lost family and friends in the “just war”), I would certainly agree with you.
Under the Liberals, Canada has had a succession of surpluses. Do you long for the days of Mulroney style deficits? Or is it that you prefer the Airbus type scandals of the Tories?
[/quote]
What about the so-called sponsorship program with large amounts of our tax dollars going to firms with Liberal connections. Politically speaking, the sponsorship scandal has caused more of a “public outcry,” than the Airbus scandal with Karl-Heinz Schreiber ever did. Moreover, Trudeau’s heavy spending in the 1970s and early 80s did far more to damage Canada’s finances. Kind of quiant in a way, cuz personally Trudeau was very tight with his money – just ask his ex-wife. Liberals like spending other peoples money – never their own. I will, however, give Paul Martin credit for being a “good” Finance Minister in the 1990s. I just think by profitting and avoiding Canadian taxes by flying Liberian flags when he was CEO of Canadian Steam Lines makes him a bit of a moral hypocrite, don’t ya think?
Regarding terrorism – You don’t think with our relaxed internal security laws, there aren’t many Al Qaeda covert operational cells functioning right now in Canada? You think Canadian peacekeepers, with their substandard equipment, weren’t at risk in Afghanistan from terrorism? You don’t think Canadian stature has been diminished on the global stage since 1993 with record low levels of funding being spent for international development and defense spending? The Canadian Government’s Defense White Paper articulated the threats that terrorism brings to Canadian values. Yet, the government is not spending nearly enough money or providing any meaningful help in combatting terrorism on a global scale. However, based on your previous message with its one-sided anti-Americanism and generalities, your seem to me to be just another Ottawa-born, Carleton educated , Liberal drone that believes everything the government tells you. :bravo: :wanker:
Chewy,
You couldn’t be more off the mark. I, like you, was raised in Cowtown. Unlike you, I’m aware that the Flames never played the Oilers in 89 when they won the cup. That was 86, buddy. And it looks like one of us did a little better job being able to filter the bs we were fed from the local media. It seems as though the Calgary Sun is your bible from your posts on this issue.
With respect to government scandals, I just think that they’re virtually inevitable. I’m not saying I like them by any means. I’m just saying show me one government immune to them.
Regarding terrorism, you seem to have swallowed the Bush mantra hook, liine and sinker, if you want to discuss drones :bravo: :wanker: . I guess immigration in Canada has just served to let terrorists in, eh? Do you prefer the Pauline Hanson immigration policy? Or should we just throw money at the problem and then get f*cked when people see all you have to do is strap a bomb to your person and beat it?
Finally, I think Canadians would be more at risk in Iraq than the Canadians were in Afghanistan had we joined the Americans in Iraq as willingly as you’d have. Or haven’t you noticed the difference in the body count? That’s the difference between you and I. I agree with Afghanistan because there was an obvious link to terrorism. I never bought the WMD theory so Bush and his boys could have an oil rich country at their disposal, if you want to continue talking about drones.
[quote=“thebiggestnose”]Chewy,
You couldn’t be more off the mark. I, like you, was raised in Cowtown. Unlike you, I’m aware that the Flames never played the Oilers in 89 when they won the cup. That was 86, buddy. And it looks like one of us did a little better job being able to filter the bs we were fed from the local media. It seems as though the Calgary Sun is your bible from your posts on this issue.
With respect to government scandals, I just think that they’re virtually inevitable. I’m not saying I like them by any means. I’m just saying show me one government immune to them.
Regarding terrorism, you seem to have swallowed the Bush mantra hook, liine and sinker, if you want to discuss drones :bravo: :wanker: . I guess immigration in Canada has just served to let terrorists in, eh? Do you prefer the Pauline Hanson immigration policy? Or should we just throw money at the problem and then get f*cked when people see all you have to do is strap a bomb to your person and beat it?
Finally, I think Canadians would be more at risk in Iraq than the Canadians were in Afghanistan had we joined the Americans in Iraq as willingly as you’d have. Or haven’t you noticed the difference in the body count? That’s the difference between you and I. I agree with Afghanistan because there was an obvious link to terrorism. I never bought the WMD theory so Bush and his boys could have an oil rich country at their disposal, if you want to continue talking about drones.[/quote]
Don’t insult me by calling me a Sun-reader. While the quality of Canadian journalism is below par (most papers are owned by Izzy Asper - another Liberal party aparatchik), I will read the Globe and the Toronto Star once in a while. Those are the only Canadian papers I read. I much prefer the BBC, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post etc. I never once said I supported Pauline Hanson or was anti-immigration. I do think, however, our internal security networks should look into people’s history, background etc. if they are entering the country…for anyone regardless of skin color. Risk? So we should not engage in nation-building and in spreading democracy because it is risky. Damn, you most surely are a “spineless” Canadian.
Chewy
I
Risk? So we should not engage in nation-building and in spreading democracy because it is risky. Damn, you most surely are a “spineless” Canadian.
No Chewy, what I think is that Canadians shouldn’t have their lips around Bush’s schlong. There are many countries that are not democracies, with dubious people as their leaders, that don’t sit on a sh*t load of oil. Should we extend our armed forces to all these areas as well? It’s not the risk I object to, it’s the intentions of the objective. I’m glad the Canadian government has had the good sense to question them, as well.
[/quote]
What do you think of this???
torontofreepress.com/2004/weinreb063004.htm
Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is “evil”
by Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor, Canada Free Press
June 30, 2004
Can West News Services, owners of several Canadian newspapers including the National Post as well as the Global Television Network commissioned a series of polls to determine how young people feel about the issues that were facing the country
Wow, an editorial that uses a poll to support its agenda but refuses to include necessary data like the sample size, sample ditribution, standard deviation or confidence interval… hmmm, bet ya I could phone ten of my friends and cook some numbers to get a poll supporting 90% in favour of Pamela Anderson as the new president of the newly independant Republic of British Columbia!! I might add that the same sample group from the “evil” poll would probably also poll to lower the legal driving and/or drinking age to “their age minus a day”
But really, an independant BC?? 
What exactly would that accomplish, besides lowering economic and political bargaining ability even further (softwood lumber or salmon anyone?). The province can’t even afford to build real ferries, let alone finance a border patrol to keep the peace with its fellow country, the Conservative Federation of Alberta.
A little too much of that "grade ‘a’ dope you were talking about I think…
[quote=“Freakin’ Amazing”]Wow, an editorial that uses a poll to support its agenda but refuses to include necessary data like the sample size, sample ditribution, standard deviation or confidence interval… hmmm, bet ya I could phone ten of my friends and cook some numbers to get a poll supporting 90% in favour of Pamela Anderson as the new president of the newly independant Republic of British Columbia!! I might add that the same sample group from the “evil” poll would probably also poll to lower the legal driving and/or drinking age to “their age minus a day”
But really, an independant BC?? What exactly would that accomplish, besides lowering economic and political bargaining ability even further (softwood lumber or salmon anyone?). The province can’t even afford to build real ferries, let alone finance a border patrol to keep the peace with its fellow country, the Conservative Federation of Alberta.
A little too much of that "grade ‘a’ dope you were talking about I think…[/quote]
Well, I can see the Liberal Party has many supporters among Canadian teachers in Taipei. Regarding the fast ferries
Of course, if BC declares UDI, then Quebec, et al., would all want their slice of independence…
[quote=“Chewycorns”]
Well, I can see the Liberal Party has many supporters among Canadian teachers in Taipei. Regarding the fast ferries
You wrote:
[i]I totally agree with your views on BC’s benefits, and have recently leaned in the direction of two-tier healthcare after spending time in Australia.
But then you wrote: The social net is part of what defines BC and Canada. Note that I’m in no way supporting those ridiculous welfare and EU payouts [/i]
Don
[quote=“Chewycorns”]
Don
Freaking Amazing:
You wrote: While I haven’t seen numbers on this, let’s take it as true. So what? Currently the BC economy is doing better than the Canadian average, so it gives out more in transfer payments. Take a look through history and you’ll find this isn’t always the case. Economies are dynamic and assuming that, since your ontop now, that you’ll always be ontop later is crazy. It starts to sound like the current Albertan complex. Just wait a until Kyoto and other protocols take effect then we’ll see how far ahead they are be. Similar circumstances could easily be imagined for BC. The second error in the “simple math” is it totally neglects fringe benefits and intangables, like since there’s no border to cross Ontario based companies can easily access the BC market and vice versa, or a BC enterprise being successful in getting contracts in China due to goodwill created by other Canadian companies.
You sound like a bonafide Stalinist in this last paragraph. Like you are salivating at the thought of Alberta and Western Canada becoming less competitive in the global arena. Such is Canada, a country where entrepreneurship and personal initative are a cardinal sin. Kyoto will be like the
[quote=“Chewycorns”]
You sound like a bonafide Stalinist in this last paragraph. Like you are salivating at the thought of Alberta and Western Canada becoming less competitive in the global arena. Such is Canada, a country where entrepreneurship and personal imitative are a cardinal sin. …
Freakin Amazing wrote: Oooh, think I touched a chord here. Half-Stalinist and half-patriot?? This coming from the person who hates all his countrymen and wants to make his own country.
– You are putting words in my mouth. I dislike many Canadians, but I love many Canadians as well (family and friends). Just because I have separatist inclinations, don