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 : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SofaSpud who wrote (2491)	4/18/2003 1:51:23 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Respond to of 37182

As much as I despise the libs and in particular...JC, I have to agree with you sofa. Albeit I am about as far west as you can get. I am a separatist...A Cascadian of the worst variety. We don't want a deal with eastern belly-gazers. We want to say adios amigos...its been fun

To: SofaSpud who wrote (2491)	4/18/2003 11:50:34 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37182

Prince Edward Island senior exercise. Pass this along to your senior friends. For those getting along in years, here is a little secret for building arm and shoulder muscles. Three days a week works well. Begin by standing outside behind the house, and with a 5-lb. potato sack in each hand... extend your arms straight out from your sides and hold them there as long as you can. After a few weeks, Move up to 10-lb. potato sacks and then 50-lb. potato sacks, and finally get to where you can lift a 100 lb. potato sack in each hand and hold your arms straight for more than a full minute. Next...start putting a few potatoes in the sacks, but be careful not to overdo.

To: SofaSpud who wrote (2491)	4/18/2003 12:26:32 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37182

Yes, the good ole Law of Unintended Consequences - be careful what you want, because you just might get it, and only then will you find out what it means ... which applies quite equally to the separatistes, of course It appears odd at first glance, but isn't really, that support for separatism rises during Liberal rule of Québec, and falls under PQ rule .... easy to think up reasons for this - the job of the opposition is always easier than that of the government, also when the federalistes are in power separatism looks further out of reach, so it is safer to espouse as an idea ... and that works vice versa, when the PQ is right there with the question openly throbbing, folks look at them and say what, these people running an independent nation without accountability to anyone else, no way ...... probably the majority of actual on-the-ground politics is directed against, not for, particular people and policy Will the quebecois ever separate, i don't think so .... look at how canadian to the core they are, squabbling over jurisdiction between province and confederation - a quintessentially canuckistani pursuit, we all do it, we just plug in distinct issues and terms according to our province of habitat .... like Darren i've fantasised about an independent British Columbia [really liked the sound of 'Western Canada Concept' until i found out Christie was a racist flake - who knew, lol], but then i look around at the choice between the Bill Van der Zalms and Joy MacPhails, and i think wait a minute, maybe Chrétien is not so bad, at least he has the saving grace that he mostly stays four thousands kilometres away It would depend on the question asked ... this Clarity Bill was vitally necessary, imho Which brings up the crucial flaw in the Reform idea of direct democracy - who gets to phrase the question? ... there is also the issue of timing, which can be diddled to advantage of one side or the other, but the crafting of the question on the ballot is probably the make or break for the response .... for instance, you're holding a referendum on capital punishment, do you ask - Should we hang Clifford Olsen? or Should we permit the state the power to take the life of citizens? ... my own pre-thought gut response to the first is hey i've got a tree and a rope right here, and to the second no way, the state should not have that power, outside legitimate defense of the nation .... which happens to be where i end up on the issue following thought, for what that's worth .... but the wording of the question will swing many, enough to make the difference