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: Graystone who wrote (293)	12/7/2002 3:34:57 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 443

Hi Graystone, Here I must heartily disagree: *I think Mr. Chretien has always tried to achieve a Canada that most Canadians would want,* In a country where a majority doesn't necessarily mean anywhere near a popular majority that simply cannot be divined from electoral results. Maybe from tea leaves or better yet a couple of Molsons :o) I daresay it is highly unlikely that Mr Chrétien ever spoke for the majority of Canadians. 40.8% voted Liberal in 2000. elections.ca And what was that the Québec separatists were told ? ...50% + 1 is not enough LOL...... not that I disagree with that but in this context isn't it a bit comical ... Maybe the Albertans will be told they need 80%.. + 1 ;o) for it to be enough if it ever comes to that.... He was probably more popular when he defeated the PC's after his GST and Free Trade promises but let's allow the the old fart some dignity and not go there.... The Liberals are masters @ playing with swing vote or better reversing course once elected. I come from a long line of Liberal supporters (not me) and the thought there unfortunately is my party right or wrong regardless... ....sigh... regards Kastel a cute and cuddly Canadian

To: Graystone who wrote (293)	12/8/2002 1:57:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 443

Canadians are in the truest sense of the word, provincial. Americans would have understood that at one time. It seems to me you are simply maybe 50 years behind us in this regard. Prior to the American Civil War, states WERE government. Washington was a distant, little considered place that might get you into a war, but that was about it. Its powers were strictly circumscribed in the Constitution. The Union victory in the Civil War was a victory for federalism over States Rights. The federal gov't steadily expanded its reach and power following the Civil War. State's Rights wasn't really dead, though, until the Civil Rights struggle. State's Rights was the battle flag of the old Confederacy. When Washington once again defeated the states, it had undisputed command of the field. And the federal gov't could do as it wished. It appears you have not reached that point. I'd advise you not to wish for it.