Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Prime Minister Jean Chretien -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SofaSpud who wrote (273)	12/4/2002 2:14:54 PM
From: Condor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 443

Hi Spudster, If we try to run Canada they way the Liberals have been doing it for the last generation, Canada has no future with or without Quebec. Agreed. A combined Alberta and B.C., with good leadership, would be a dynamite country Alberta would do OK while the oil holds out but BC would add what to the equation???? BC IMO would be an anchor. OTOH, you might get a real federalist messiah to lead the ROC. If you implemented proper reforms before all the sentiment dissipated, you could keep the whole thing together. With no credible opposition this now one party system is doomed to failure. The "dino"s have no reason to update, if we don't like it, whats our alternative? The past two elections have proven the point. No? Quebec is really irrelevant to the question. With or without Quebec, there is no reason that Canada cannot genuinely be the best country in the world, with a standard of living higher than that of the U.S. Hmm..a little thick methinks. A large land mass and small population has inherent and expensive inefficiencies. Mind you, on the other hand, the amount of natural resources per capita are high. It is inept, corrupt leadership, men of microscopically small vision tied to old, discredited methods and objectives, that not only prevents Canada from attaining her potential, but in fact actively undermines her foundations. Agree strongly. The country has no vision being offered, nada, no inspiration and challenge. Reminds me of an unemployed glassy eyed teenager in the house who sleeps until 1:00 p.m. Whats the point in getting up? The parent is failing that child. Do you feel Mr. Spud that apathy is becoming more of an entrenched problem as this dislocation with the viable world continues and can and will it be overcome? I'm not so sure it will. Regards C

To: SofaSpud who wrote (273)	12/4/2002 6:27:23 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 443

Without bold, effective leadership, Canada will be absorbed by the U.S., and the U.S. will decide in how many lumps it's done. How does that happen if Quebec does not secede? Canada appears stable. And I've seen absolutely no signs of imperialist plans by the US. Those would be REAL HARD to push past the US populace. I'd be laying in front of the troop trains myself. If Quebec seceded and Canada came apart and some of its provinces wanted to become states, that would be a whole different thing. But it would have to be voluntary. The short answer is, up to seven new nations in the intermediate term, some of questionable viability. Actually, that's not the answer I'd prefer. I think the US would be better off with Canada-minus-Quebec, pretty much as it is, and Quebec (probably treated as an outcast by both the US and Canada). certainly where I live only a fifth of the population would really give a, er, darn. That's pretty much what I've noticed from Canadians everywhere except Quebec. There some French want to stay, some want out, and most of the Anglos want to stay in Canada. It would take incredible good will and finesse to re-tool our political system to make a viable country. Maybe I haven't paid enough attention to Canadian politics, but it looks viable now. Except for Quebec, there don't seem to be extraordinary strains and you've been in business for 135 years. If we try to run Canada they way the Liberals have been doing it for the last generation, Canada has no future with or without Quebec. Why? In relative terms the U.S. is being managed better. D*n! Condolences! A combined Alberta and B.C., with good leadership, would be a dynamite country* With the People's Republic of British Columbia? marcos' country? How can this be? Some of BCs politicians would fit right into Communist China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. With or without Quebec, there is no reason that Canada cannot genuinely be the best country in the world, with a standard of living higher than that of the U.S. This I find hard to believe. Not because of the people. Because of the weather. It makes everything so much more difficult.