Yes, that’s what I said in the first place. Half of Saskatchewan is living in Alberta, hence it would make perfect sense for Saskatchewan to annex Alberta, since we’re already occupying the place. Really, is this so difficult to comprehend?
Listen, moron. I was answer wolfstu’s fear/worry of invasion. I don’t have one, nor do I ever see a reason for there ever to be one. So drop it already.
And yet no money that he stole has been returned, oddly enough.
And if I do what is wrong with that? They think most of the people in Alberta are rednecks. Fair trade I figure. It is certain that political philosophy east-west is as different as the one you claim north-south in you next statement.
Yes, one is where the power is vested in the Queen, or her representative, and one is based upon power residing with the people. I know which one is more suitable to my temperment. I’d also much prefer not having so much power in one person’s hands like currently resides within the PM’s. And a little less party discipline would be nice, too.
Also, I wonder how a country like India with it far more diverse populations manages? A few things like voting practices should be easy to sort out.
Of course not. I understand it perfectly. It emphasizes my contention that it would be futile for someone to invade themselves.
So what you’re saying is that you were wrong in saying the U.S. will have no reason to invade us as long as we keep them happy with oil.
Sounds to me like he implemented a policy you didn’t like rather than committed a crime. Well, it’s your grudge and you’re welcome to it.
I can’t imagine why.
And you’re entitled to think so. You asked, essentially, why I’d rather not be a part of the United States, and I told you. You don’t have to agree.
I can’t see that happening. If we were annexed involuntarily the U.S. wouldn’t care, and if we allowed ourselves to be annexed on the condition of changing their electoral process, they probably still wouldn’t care.
Oh, for Jebus’ sake! This is what I was responding to:
I said:
The intent was not to say that if we stopped selling oil they would attack, rather it was to say that the only way there could ever be a reason for attacking would be if we stopped selling oil, but as we would never stop selling oil as long as we have it then there would never even be a plausible reason for it occuring. It was in response to what wolfstu was saying and in that context does it only apply. I see no reason for the US to ever invade us whether we sell, or don’t sell, oil to them.
100Billion dollars going from effectively one province to the benefit of all the rest is a pretty harsh policy, don’t you think? Anything ever been done to recompensate that pillaging? Nope. So, I say again how would it be different if my taxes went further south than they do now? I’d get about the same representation either way.
Ah, so their opinion is correct while mine isn’t? I see. Hey, some don’t trust the US, I don’t trust the politicians back east. I have evidence for the basis of my distrust.
Yes, but Alberta’s and Canada’s goals are also different. Why should Alberta not separate then? If all that matters is having different goals and beliefs why not make it so? I know Alberta would be better off for it. All those transfer payments would stay at home. Nothing you have said is a good enough reason for it not to happen. Why don’t you tell us the real reason? Particular to the colour of our flag, or something equally important?
They might not care, but they’d probably do it in any case given the discussions I’ve seen on this board regarding the electoral college. Assuming we’d ask for it at the time, that is. I’d think there would be more important things that would be under discussion if it ever was to occur.
When one feels that some other group is painting one’s own with a broad and inappropriate brush, the most productive response is to paint them with a broad and inappropriate brush?
Thank you. That’s all you needed to say.
Damn, but being part of a larger whole sucks. Doesn’t it?
Since you’ve already decided upon an answer, I won’t bother to attempt one.
Why the States, then? Why not Togo or Luxembourg? Do you want to be a part of the United States or do you just want to show those eastern creeps and bums in Ottawa what fer?
Quite possibly. All opinions are not created equal. I’m betting their opinion, whoever ‘they’ is, is formed based on Alberta’s current behaviour and not some 25-year-old grudge, though.
I don’t see what trust has to do with it. Some do trust the U.S. to do whatever it is the U.S. does and don’t want any part of it. And your evidence you claim is the basis for your mistrust is apparently centered around being sore over a policy that lasted less than one year, 25 years ago.
I doubt Alberta’s and the United States’ goals are the same. Klein said they were when he wrote a letter rah-rahing the invasion of Iraq and got smacked down for his troubles. And rightly so.
Who said that’s all that matters?
I don’t know this. You’d be happier for it, I can see that, but that’s all I know. I can’t imagine supporting, say, a Bush initiative to start shipping nuclear waste here instead of Yucca Mountain. I also think I’m better off not belonging to a country so bent on making enemies for itself as the U.S. is these days. A petty squabble that took place a quarter century ago doesn’t enter into my thinking.
I suspect no reason would be good enough for you.
Isn’t representation or the lack thereof important enough to be the reason for splitting off in the first place? Oh well. Enjoy your bitterness if it keeps you warm, but I’m not interested.
You are correct. Nor do I normally feel that way. I understand that the politicians are going to listen to the regions of the country where they get the most votes and agree that they should listen to those voters. Where I think our system fails is in having a body that represents the regions of this country and can counteract this somewhat. That is suppossed to be the senate, but in our system the PM appoints whoever he wants to that body. And as he listens those who vote for him, he is not likely to appoint anyone who is going to go against his, and his constituents, wishes
Cool. I’ll leave your earlier strong language aside for this post. I’ve got family in Quebec - I know how feelings like that come about, and how devisive they can be.
Right on. I think it’s proper that the House is strictly vote-to-seat allocated. It’s only because a third of the population lives in Ontario that a third of the seats are from that province. But there’s a case to be made for tempering that with a regional representation, and the Senate, which was supposed to address this, has fallen into virtual irrelevance. (Honestly, it’s like having a whole chamber full of Governors-General.) How to make the Senate worthwhile again is an important question worth discussing on its own, and there are plenty of answers to that.
Well,… yes. When others take and never return you don’t think that sucks? Hey, all the more power to em’ if they can keep taking and not giving anything back for it, but I don’t understand why you’d deny it was happening.
That’s cause there isn’t one.
Which one of those countries do we share a border with currently. If they want to join then fine. Why not an entire world government based upon democratic principles? I don’t know if it would work, but you say Canada should be separate from the US. If so, then why not Alberta from Canada? I prefer people coming together rather than splintering apart.
Assuming that Alberta’s current behavior is wrong while their’s is right, of course.
It lasted more than a year, bub.
A little bit of history
What keeps me warm is the natural gas that flows from the wells where it is produced in Alberta, Sask, and northern BC. And the revenue that comes from that should stay in those provinces to the benefit of those who live there for the time when it runs out. Because nothing could be worse than ending up like those who live in the far east who have to come begging all the time to the federal government. We’d then have to sell our votes as they do now.
It wasn’t simply one policy (see also: Crow Rate, Gun Registry, Kyoto Accord); Trudeau personified the perceived Eastern attitude of the West not being very important in Canada. The Liberal government hasn’t done much in those 25 years to make the West feel particularly well-cared for. In my recollection, this last election was the first to even acknowledge that there even exists such a thing as “Western Alienation.”
On a personal note, I’ve worked with quite a few transplanted Easterners, and they were shocked to come out West and discover the level of animosity towards the East here; they had absolutely no idea.
Ontario loses far, far more money to the rest of Canada than it brings back; if we’re screwing anyone, we don’t seem to be getting any money out of it. I would assume you’ve never been out here and therefore assume all of “The East” is the same; it is no more the case than claiming Alberta and the Yukon are identical. I’m amazed in 2005 I have to tell someone that, but ignorance knows no bounds, I suppose.
But I’m fascinated that you refused to answer the question. I will therefore ask it again, to see if you have the balls to answer it. If borders don’t matter, would you mind if Ontario absorbed Alberta?
And if borders don’t matter, should southern Alberta benefit from the oil pulled out of the sand in northern Alberta? Maybe Fort McMurray should separate from the rest of Alberta, seeing as how us freeloaders are benefitting down here from the resources found up there.
Fuck you are stupid. As Ontario already has the the largest percentage of the population of this country and can pretty much impose its will on whoever it wants, it has already effectively absorbed Alberta. We have no say as to what happens if you choose to make an issue of it. The only way we can stop you is if we gang up with enough of the other provinces. And I don’t mean you specifically, but the PM answers to where he gets his votes from (Ontario) and when he has a majority in the house he can do whatever the hell he pleases.
Frankly, the only ignorant person here is the guy who doesn’t recognize this.
Certainly, if that was the point I was making. I’m not for separation, but consolidation. The only reason I make the argument the other way is to demonstrate that if you can keep one country separate from another just because of a line on a map, then anything should be open to being separate.
The argument you make is that Canada should not be part of the US. I’m saying that the differences between the different areas of this country are no bigger than the differences across the US. And all those differences combined are less than places like India which seem to be demonstrating that you can have a democracy given large amounts of difference in its population. I don’t see how you can make the claim that just because we are slightly different from the US that is a good enough argument to keep us separate.
I look at the economic benefit to Canada and I look to the tempering influence of a bunch of left leaning Canadians on the US and see great benefits to both. I have yet to see someone make a rational argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
So you’re not a separatist, then.
So you’re a separatist, then.
And I don’t make the claim that because we’re slightly different we should be kept separate. I maintain that being culturally similar is no reason to join up.
I see no particular reason to think we’d have a tempering effect on the United States, and I’m not sure I’m interested in the cost others would pay for our economic prosperity as a member of the United States. I’d be less keen on how my tax money would be spent as an American than I am as a Canadian.
And you refuse again to answer a simple, straightforward, yes-or-no question.
You just don’t have the nads to answer, do you? Because, of course, you’d HATE it if Alberta were absorbed by another province, even if it was a self-sufficient one like Ontario.
And that kinds of shoots your whole “who cares about borders?” thing to hell, doesn’t it? Because YOU care about borders. You care about them quite a bit. You just can’t accept the same sauce for the goose that you suggest for the gander. Chicken.
Actually, I already answered it by saying Ontario already owns Alberta, you’re just to stupid to realize it.
Actually, that was rude of me. I apologize. I don’t see a problem with something like two provinces combining together as that could eliminate some duplication in government.
Uzi, I don’t know if you still stand by the argument that Ontario has already abosorbed Alberta by virtue of having more votes in the House of Commons, but it seems kind of silly. It stikes me as rather equivalent to suggesting that since Edmonton has a greater population than Medicine Hat, Medicine Hat has already been absorbed by Edmonton.
Maybe you’re already abandoned that argument, but I think it’s worth noting that, despite this ‘absorption’ of Alberta by Ontario, Alberta has separate policies in education, highway construction, and every other area of provincial competence. The idea that federal politics which might favour Ontario is equivalent to Ontario having annexed Alberta is… quite a stretch, no?
How far does that extend? For example:
- Why have provinces at all? Why have municipalities, or school boards?
- Was the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (that split the Northwest Territories in two) a bad thing?
You haven’t said any two provinces should combine, so my questions may be overreaching, but you also haven’t said “Ontario and Alberta should not combine” (or even “Ontario should not absorb Alberta”).
So, given that the federal government and provinces exert competencies in different areas and thus weighting of federal-level influence is not equivalent to absorption at the province level, I’ll re-pose RickJay’s question:
“What is your position on the absorption of Alberta by Ontario, to become a part of that province?”