Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

I miss Reagan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by I miss Reagan

  1. How about we take care of our own kids or pay for our own child care instead of insisting the nanny state pay for everything? Anyone remember the French language debate last month where the guy in Vancouver asks (from his obviously upper middle class home) for the government to pay for his kid's child care in French? This is offensive to me. Why should we pay money so already wealthy people can have their double income to have an extra BMW and go to Bermuda for Christmas.

  2. I disagree with the notion that another NEP will take Alberta out of Canada, the trigger will be Quebec separation.

    Consider how Canada will look post 2007, without Quebec: Ontario will have 40%+ of the total population. The Maritimes will still be essentially dependent states. If an essential element of Albertas issues with Central Canada is the tyranny of the majority, a post 2007 Canada will be worse, not better. What happens then? Why would Alberta, BC, Sask or the rest look forward to a new Canada that would feature complete domination by Ontario?

    You're right Quebec separation will be the trigger. The sooner we can get Quebec out the door the sooner the West will be on it's way as well. People will see that Quebec does just fine on its own. For this reason a Conservative win would be bitter sweet for me. In many ways I'd love to see a Liberal Majority to further sow the seeds of discontent in the West so we'll be at the tipping point that much sooner. This union simply does not work. I'm not sure why people even want Alberta to remain a part of Canada. Is it for the bragging rights to Banff. Is it the oil wealth. It's not like if we separated we'd fall off the face of the earth. We could still be friends.... you could still come and visit our Grizzly Bears in Banff...

  3. Calgary is considered the nicest weather in Canada because we have so much sunshine. Vancouver may be warmer but it's rainy. Calgary is almost 10% American which is nice. However, I strongly suggest reading this article before you actually move to Canada. An American's Canadian Experience

    Many Canadians are very self-righteous and extremely intolerant of Americans. Even if you are liberal, love the UN, and hate George Bush Canadians will take every opportunity to take out all their inferiorities out on you. You will endless stories of "stupid Americans" who think we live in Igloos etc. etc. It could be a tough move. PM me if you want to hear more.

  4. I disagree Leafless. Certain US officials are being protectionist at the behest of some powerful lumber companies. This is very harmful to the integrity of NAFTA. It's about time PM grew a spine and stood up for Canadian interests. I'm the first to stand up for the US and Canada's usual self-righteous attitude towards Americans, but in this case it's the Americans that are playing unfair.

  5. I think you are right in that the US is in trouble as well, but not for the same reasons.  The problem in the US is protectionism.
    I disgree - I think the problem in the US is they have given up on the social contract where gov't attempts to provide an equal opportunity to all. Instead. the US is rapidly moving towards a caste system where if you are born poor you stay poor because the gov't no longer provides any education or similar services that would allow people to get out of the poverty trap.

    For now, the elite of the world migrate to the US because it is still the center of economic wealth in the world. As relative wealth of the US drops in the next few decades you will find the world's elite moving to other places.

    You also have a misconception about where Canada is in terms of social services: Canada is more like Britain that respect. Canada never has and never will spend the kind of money that continental European countries do on social programs. Canada is in teh unique position to find the middle road between the excesses of continental europe and brutal social darwinsm that exists in the US and, ironically. China.

    If any country has what you describe it's Britain. There is more opportunity for poor in the US than any other country. I'd like to ask you where you get this whole social darwinism idea of the US, but I have a good idea.Factor

  6. Are we calling Liberals "right wing" now?   :lol:

    You are correct though.  (and so is Mulroney)  The Liberals have been screwing up this country for a long time.  All of this throwing entitlements around like candy is turning Canada into a giant Indian Reservation.  No work ethic, just a strong sense of "you owe me".

    I can't believe your choice of words... "a giand Indan Reservation... no work ethic.

    " You're in the running for "most ignorant poster" ....

    Have you ever seen the effects of the soft discrimination of throwing money at a people with no expectations? It's happening on a broad scale and the people of Eastern Canada are begging for more. "You owe me for child care!" "Alberta owes me because they're rich!"

  7. I think you are right in that the US is in trouble as well, but not for the same reasons. The problem in the US is protectionism. Canada's problem is it's competitive atmosphere, or lack thereof. Canadians are going to have to realize they can't tax like Europe with the US right next door if they want to be competitive. I think the US will shape up. Canada on the other hand is addicted to spending and entitlements.

  8. We'll begin by comparing the halfway point of President Clinton's tenure to the fifty yard line of the Bush administration. In 1996, the poverty level in the USA stood at 13.7%. In 2004, the poverty level was 12.7%, so Bush beats Clinton here by a full percentage point. To be fair, Clinton did bring the poverty rate down during his administration, while it has been rising slightly since 9/11. But at the halfway point, Bush wins.

    As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn't even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. What say you, Jesse and Howard?

    For a country that is often accused by leftwing loons of not caring about the poor, we are certainly putting up a good front. In 2006, almost $368 billion dollars will go for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned income tax credits, welfare payments, child care payments, foster care and adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states. The truth is that the working men and women of this country are providing the tightest safety net in history for the poor. And our private charitable donations rank first in the world as well.

    So the next time the poverty propagandists start with the "America ignores the poor" bull, simply walk away. These people are blatantly dishonest and could not care less that America does, indeed, help the less fortunate. The race and class baiters will always ignore the fact that some people simply cannot support themselves no matter what society does. The New Testament states it clearly: "the poor, they will always be with us." But America provides more opportunity for more people than anywhere else on the planet.


  9. Canada can no longer call itself the world's No. 1 seller of goods to the United States.

    China has edged out Canada for the first time, taking top spot in exports to the United States in July, according to international trade data released this week.

    "This is perhaps the wake-up call that people need," said Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. "We have to take it very seriously and be prepared to compete."

    "We can't be taking [u.S. markets] for granted. There's very stiff competition,"


    How about that, it happened sooner than I thought. Canada is not only now irrelevant in the world political arena but is now set on it's way to economic irrelevance.

    Canada needs to realize that it doesn't have the luxury of taxing away it's wealth if it wants to be competitive. Already Ontario is on the path to have-not status because if it's Liberal economics. On the other hand B.C. seems to be figuring it out by promising tax cuts! Finally a surplus after 10 years of NDP destruction. Even Saskatchewan's NDP's have shown fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the socialist, more populous, East runs this country and will eventually run it into the ground.

  10. #3. The infrastructure program. Again, I do not know all of the details about this program, but if there are no federal strings attached to ensure that it will not just result in more urban sprawl, then I am against it. We need to ensure that the environment is protected. Last year the Liberals gave Calgary some dough for more police officers and City spent the money on buildings. Not cool.

    This is typical behaviour from the Bronconier government. He is a tax and spend leader. The mayor and most of city council are Liberal. Have you heard about the recent $60,000 dollar phamphlet he's sending out to complain about the provincial and federal governments?

  11. Young people are also the most likely to do stupid things without regard to the consequences and leave the mess for the adults to clean up.

    I am the last guy to argue that young people make decisions more based on emotion rather than sound reasoning. What's that old W. Churchill gem? something like "anyone under 30 who isn't a liberal has no heart, anyone over 30 who's a liberal has no brain". What is interesting to me is that young people are tending to side with seccession rather than the liberal policies of Eastern Canada. Whether or not young people can make correct decisions, change often starts with them in the streets and on the campus.

    How would a typical American react if Texas, California or Alaska starting talking about separating? Not very kindly I am sure. I am also pretty sure the US military would be sent in pretty quickly if any state legislature had the termerity to declare a UDI (referendum results notwithstanding). The US is a older nation and got though its growing pains and ended up being must stronger as a result. Unfortunately they had to go through a pretty bloody civil war to learn certain lessons.

    Ya, I've thought about that. I've questions my own motivations and asked myself if my support for separation is reasonable. The difference I see is that the United States were set up for the purpose of having some semblance of autonomy. Different colonies were formed because of different beliefs. In most respects each of the states in the US has far more power to govern themselves than the provinces do in Canada. As far as a bloody civil war, I just don't think it will happen. Canadians are such passive and appeasing people that the last thing we would do is go to war. There isn't enough passion in this country for bloodshed.

    Alberta and Quebec would be much, much poorer places after any seperation than before - oil wealth not withstanding. If you believe that deliberating creating 10-15 years of political and economic uncertainty and plumenting dollar would have no impact on the lives of Albertans then you are sadly in denial

    I disagree. There will be many complications and issues but I think each will do just fine. There are a few possible scenarios for Canada's break up, among them B.C, AB. and Sask uniting when Quebec leaves. Or Alberta even joining the US. Even if Alberta was on it's own we have been strengthening relations with the US independent of the federal government for some time. Our oil makes us relevant to the US despite our small size. Oil will be important for at least the next 20 years and given our oil sands (the second largest supply of oil in the world) we'll be sitting pretty for a long time. And since the last oil bust we have been rapidly diversifying our economy so as not to soley rely on oil. Calgary is already experiencing the inertia and bringing in of diverse business because of our size and educated population. I am not too concerned about leaving the Ontario "rust belt" behind.

  12. Here it is for you again: because FOX is a business it sells people what they want. In Fox News, that is conservative, Christian outrage. On Fox network, its titilating, "edgy", sex and violence programming: in other words, the same content culture war conservatives detest. Does the content of FOX the network demonstrate a liberal bias in FOX news? Nope. It just shows that they know how to work the rubes.

    BD, I love it how you talk about FOX News with such authority and conviction. Interesting coming from someone who does not have access to FOX and who gets his information from cut and paste clips of O'Reilly and literature from the far left.

  13. You hypocritical a hole are country is multi cultural and we let imigrants from the middle east in to Canada witout strip searching them and beating them adn accusing them of terrorist acts does yours um yea htat is sure tolerence i dont think so you guys make everyone that comes into your country assimilate and become american and you have never heard your country use the word "nigger" before well just over 20 years ago you guys took in black african slaves beat them called them niggers and stripped them of their rights.

    now never tell me that my country has no tolerence again

    Why? Why do we have to have these types of people calling themselves conservatives? The Libs love these "liberals in denial" because they tear us apart from within. I'd take an honest NDPer over a red tory any day. What did we do to deserve all of these CINO's?

  14. Quebec is very serious and has come close twice (most notably in 1995). So I'd put thm at about a 8. In Alberta, though separation has never gained much traction. The only success the western separation movement has had was winning a single seat in the provincial legislature in the 1980's at the height of the NEP backlash. So I'll be generous and give Alberta a 2.

    This is a good point. I doubt Alberta separation will come by the election of a "Separation Party". It's more likely to come through evolution of an existing party which will bow to the will of Albertans. For instance Klein has warned of separation from time to time (although he claims not to be in favor of it). He underestimated support for separation at 25%. You get guys like Ted Morton (think fire wall) or even Stephen Harper who remain part of the PC establishment. We could see the Alberta Alliance gain more support thus pressuring the PC's to take a stronger stand against Ottawa and inch us toward being a Taiwan type of state.

  15. I regret missing the boat on the Western separation threads as this tends to be the main reason for posting, to defend the West and the US against Eastern Canada's hubris and utter arrogance. Obviously I'm elated to see the numbers increasing, especially among young people as this is usually where change begins. I'm also happy lately to hear from normal, everyday Albertans who are in favor of looking in to separating from Canada rather than the usual radical reactionaries.

    Unfortunately I can't say that I've read the posts in this thread, but if it's anything like the other threads I'm probably posting just in time for the second circle.

    By the way ill eat my shoe if the west ever seperates

    Hope you like the taste of rubber. Once Quebec leaves it leaves the door wide open for us! I can't wait!!

  16. 1) The US has a much lower voter turnout than Canada. Does that mean their electoral system is busted? Australia has among the highest voter turn outs yet they have exactly the same system as here. Poor voter turn-out is a measure of the venality of the citizens not the health of the political institutions.

    I'd like to see the numbers on that. If I remember correctly the US always has a higher turnout. And is there not illegal in Australia to not vote?

    With respect to California, the individual states have far more power than the individual provinces. Exactly why the US has the system they have, so they wouldn't have an power hoarding government like we have here bullying the different regions around to serve their own purposes.

  17. First off he's not a journalist really. He's a commentator. He gives his opinion. You know right up front where he stands, whether you agree with him or not. I think this is more fair than so called journalists who are supposed to be reporting on a story but in reality are subtley telling a one sided story which expresses their own opinion.

    Secondly, a 30 second clip doesn't give the context of why he's saying "shut up". It also gives the perception that this is what he always does when he doesn't agree with someone, which isn't true.

    I will give you this however, he is arrogant and can be a bully sometimes. But not to the extent the radical left would have you believe.

  18. If anyone saw O'Reilly last night he had Ann Coulter on to discuss the war in Iraq. O'Reilly has been argueing a lot that the war is going badly and that Rumsfeld should resign (interesting coming from a supposedly closed minded conservative). Anyway Annie was pretty tough on Bill and she didn't seem to be afraid of him one bit and she hammered him for saying the US didn't lose in Vietnam.

    I've not seen a side of mr. O'reilly where he wasn't being absolutely closed minded. I'm interested that some of you say he's quite reasonable, and impartial. I'll definately check into it.

    Check into it, and form your opinion by actually watching the show rather than basing your opinion on 30 seconds worth of clips or a 3rd hand analysis from some Franken type, like many people on this forum do.

  19. What the heck is the big deal about extending daylight savings time by a month on either end? It seems the media has made this a huge deal about having to "go along" with the Americans, as if it's the most painful thing in the world. Once again poor little Canada is being "bullied" by the big bad US.

    To me the problem seems to be:

    1) It's a good idea because it will cut down energy usage. Why is that a problem? because Canadians hate to admit that the US could come up with a good idea.

    2) George Bush is approving the move. This doesn't compute with Canadians who are indoctrinated to believe that the evil Dubya is out to consume as much oil as possible while destroying as much of the environment as possible.

    3) Canadians usually like to go in the opposite direction of the US even if it means doing harm to themselves.

    Daylight savings

    "any opportunity to show its independence from its southern neighbour brings on a patriotic boomlet. If America was trying to keep the bubonic plague out of its hemisphere, Canadians would import it just to show their independence of American foreign policy."-Barbara Amiel

  20. I usually don't venture into the "US Politics" section of the forum as it really should be called the "Anti-US" section of the forum. But it appears there is a need to set things straight.

    I haven't seen O'Relly show much but what i see i dont like.

    Which is what most people believe, both left and right because they are often shown video clips taken out of context by media outlets such as CBS and CBC. He reads some of the mail he gets on the air both positive and negative. Much of the mail he reads from Canada tends to read along the lines of: "Bill I now get Fox News, I was surprised to see that you aren't the radical guy that Canadian media makes you out to be".

    But there was one interview I saw with Arnold Swarzeneeger that i liked. I thought for sure it would be a fluff peace because he's a Republican, but he asked him how he can call himself a Govenor for the envioroment when he drives a Hummer? It was classic.

    If you actually watched the O'Reilly Factor a couple times you would see that he holds both sides accountable. He consistently slams Bush for not tightening the borders, he slammed Jeb Bush quite a bit for not getting involved in the Jessica Lunsford murder case but stuck his nose in the Terri Shaivo case. He wouldn't give any air time to the author of the recent book about Hilary Clinton because he felt it was unfair despite the fact he doesn't like Hilary at all.

    With respect to this latest little O'Reilly slam, I'd like to hear the whole radio segment in it's context. It doesn't fall in line with what Bill has recently been saying that he felt the sentence for the radical cleric in Virgina was too heavy, even though the cleric was calling for American muslims to attack the US.

    ...well, whatever. I don't know much about Bill O'Reilly, but when ever I hear about him it's because he's made an ass of himself.

    Exactly. All these opinions from people who "hear about him". Not opinions from people who actually watch the show first hand. :rolleyes:

  • Create New...