I feel guilty as a Christian that I don't have the remorse that I should. Also sad is that the bear killed the guys girlfriend too.

 

willowbilly3, don't be too hard on yourself. It is my opinion that a Christian SHOULD appreciate the natural order of things.

The lady getting killed is a pity. But you also have to remember what Forest had to say about it:

"Stupid is as stupid does."

How much pity can you reasonably have for someone who is surprised when they are eaten by a critter with big claws and sharp pointy teeth while playing in it's yard uninvited?

I'm sure if the bear would have had pepper spray, he would have tried that first.

Don't you think?

 

I have to back this up to earlier when we were still talking about western seperation rather than the ethics of the food chain. I loved the comment about providing for defense. Canada (and to digress, is not really a nation is it, but some kind of a confederation the provinces can opt out of at will, is this correct?) When the Iroquois (the pride, I guess, of the Canuck navy) was to head out to the Persian Gulf to be the flagship , their ONE Sea-king chopper circa 1960's crashed and they had to go back and get another. What kinda defence is that????? Canada, like all the rest of NATO, is counting on US firepower to defend them. I'm not really sure why anyone would invade Canada except a bunch of dead-heads anyway. (Or those needing a convenient base for launching attacks against us imperialist Yanks.) You Canucks can fight and have proved it, Normady comes to mind. I have to tell Canadians your guys are the best long range snipers IN THE WORLD. (2800 odd meter confirmed kill in Afganastan.) But your not allowed to be proud of that, are you?
Anyway, Waxy, what I meant about the PM is that you as a rank and file citizen have no voice in who is your 'leader". The ruling party chooses him. Here we get to vote in a primary for the canidate we like best. (I am still learning Canada politics so bear with me.) Actually, the electoral college, I think, increases the weighting of the rural vote. This is why we got Dubya.
The idea of a West Canada seperate from East has a lot of merit to me on further reflection. (Being Texan, I have an inborn suspicion of all things "Eastern", Yankee carpetbagger blood suckers and all that.) I think you could do a lot better job of managing your own resources (the BC fisheries, salmon and herring come to mind) than Ottowa.
Pardon the long post.... next time I check-in I'll be in BC rabble-rousing, if I can find anyone who is sober!

 

i agree with this guy...

http://home.tiscali.nl/multicom/DaSchop/endofworld.swf

 

hyepwrd,

That link violates just about every FTE guideline there is. You may want to reconsider how appropriate it is.

Ecuri,

1- Provinces CANNOT opt out at will. Quebec tried, but it didn't actually get to crunch time. I believe there are provisions in the Consitution regarding this, but there would be a long legal battle that I don't see an individual province winning.

2- The population of New York is pretty darn close to that of Canada. My point being, we simply don't have the people to drive an economy to provide for military spending on the scale of the US. NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD DOES. That being said, why would we? We don't have any enemies, and have no interest in projecting our power beyond our borders. Our military is designed as a peace keeping force. As for an attack on North America, well, lucky us, we've got the world's mightiest military as a neighbor.

3- Why invade? Try a wealth of land and natural resources unmatched by the US, upon which the US is VERY dependent. In terms of natural wealth, only Russia, China and, if you consider oil, Saudi Arabia are in our league. It's nice here too.

4- Choosing the leader. Only the members of the party get to choose it's leader. Theoretically, every card carrying member has a voice.

->You the individual voice your vote to your MP,
->your MP then cast his vote for the leader chosen by the majority of his constituents.
->The leader chosen by the majority of MPs becomes the new leader of the party.

So in effect, you have as much input, ie very little, as you would in a straight election process.

5- I agree, the electoral college provides a more level playing field in terms of representatioin, that was my point. Our system is in fact MORE democratic, as it is based solely on population rather than geographic distribution. The election is often already decided by the time most voters in AB and BC go to the polls.

6- I'm strongly anti-separation. Canada is a country, coast to coast. Could things be improved? You bet. However, we're best if we reamain as one. The west is riding high right now, mostly on oil/gas revenue, but all good things must come to an end. As a Canadian I have no problems, in fact i SUPPORT, the transfer of natural resource derived wealth throughout the country. The east PO's me at times too, but I think the country as a whole is too valuable to let break apart on that basis.

I would like to see a system, or at least a PM, that returns some equality to West.

Waxy

 

Funny, here I defend California against the rest of the country and when I'm overseas I have to defend Los Angeles against the rest of the world.

California is a proving ground for trends that will likely touch every part of the country in time. It's far from perfect here but not half as bad as is made out those trying to justify their decision to stay where they are even if it sucks.

 

The truth being, neither do we. Our young people and descendents will pay a terrible financial price for political manipulation of the current economy with military spending.

 

sorry, double click.

 

Sinjin,
#1 - Welcome back!

#2 - I don't know if you have seen the thread or not, but I actually defended California once while you were gone. I said to save it because you were there (. . . and had a cool avatar).

Sinjin I mean no offense to you or the population of CA in general when I say this, but if what you say is true I am leaving the US. No buts, ands, or maybes. I will not stand for it.



Let me see if I have this right; Everywhere you go (world wide) you defend California. But the entire world has it all wrong. - - right?

 

Seems to be a few other issues going on where we're right and the entire rest of the world is wrong?

 

Not necessarily wrong just usually exaggerated or extremely narrow.

For instance, Californians are supposed to be shallow and vain yet people come from everywhere hoping to break into showbiz.
They are all about their looks an their petty selfish ambitions.
So which is it? Are Californians as stated before or is it the disporpotionate percentage of shallow, vain, greedy, selfish imports that earn California it's rep?

Here's another. Los Angeles is supposed to be so dangerous, right? Many times I've had to explain that to get a pack of smokes you don't have to duck for the hail of bullets. Most shooting in Los Angeles is gang related and if you're not in one you're relatively safe. Of course with millions of people there will be some regular old murders but those happen almost everywhere and probably not so different per capita.

As usual a little media slant can give just about any impression desired.

Fuzzy,

Appreciate your call to spare California for my sake. Most places have many people who do not approximate the stereotype. I've even heard that some country folk read books, eat unfryed food and don't live in trailers and wear mullets.

 

fisher _of_man just opened a potentially fascinating thread on "thruth". Somehow I think that discussion will be relevant here.

(and I mean that in a constructive and respectful way!)

 

Amen. And this is something we all forget way too easily. Myself included.


Yea, but we have a name for them; "posers". They's tryin ta be like them yuppiez in Coliflowernia !!

(guess they forget that folks around these parts EAT them mullet.)

 

absolutely no offense intended by this reply i'm going to make...

but you cant even see the humor in THIS THREAD, i sure wouldn't expect you to be able to enjoy the humor of that link.

 

I'm not saying I didn't think it was humourous, I'm saying I don't think it's appropriated given the forum guidelines.

Do you tell off color jokes to your grandma or school kids? Swear in church or at a business meeting?

Maybe you do.

If you can't see that difference in your post, then maybe you can't see it in the rest of your life either.

Waxy