Dumb Dems
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Tiger is Cabalasian... Obama is a Mulatto
Next: Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
From: Alan Baker on 30 Sep 2008 17:10 In article <vh15e4lngo3ivro344f7oq4u6reea7opcd(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:13:31 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >> Didn't the Canadian legislature recently pass a resolution defining > >> Quebec as an independent nation within Canada, or something to that > >> effect. That doesn't sound like it's quite over to me. > > > >Actually, that's pretty much what ended it. > > So the separatists basically won. No. They're happy being recognized for their uniqueness and we in English Canada are happy to recognize that they are unique. Everybody won. Not a concept you're likely to understand, but... -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: The_Professor on 30 Sep 2008 17:45 On Sep 30, 4:10 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <vh15e4lngo3ivro344f7oq4u6reea7o...(a)4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:13:31 -0700, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> > > wrote: > > > >> Didn't the Canadian legislature recently pass a resolution defining > > >> Quebec as an independent nation within Canada, or something to that > > >> effect. That doesn't sound like it's quite over to me. > > > >Actually, that's pretty much what ended it. > > > So the separatists basically won. > > No. They're happy being recognized for their uniqueness and we in > English Canada are happy to recognize that they are unique. > > Everybody won. Not a concept you're likely to understand, but... > You speak only for yourself, of course. A lot of us are long tired of pandering to the Quebecois's need to feel 'unique"...not to mention special trade deals to prop up the Quebec economy. Fact is, Canada has no real need of Quebec, and if they don't want to be plain ole ordinary Canadians like the rest of us, they should leave. Now I admit I speak for myself, and reflect the views of the dozens (at least) of others I have discussed this with. I personally don't know anyone who doesn't see this thing this way, no wait, I know one person, from Montreal. He thinks he is unique, and thinks it's important that others also see him as unique. Baker watches the Canadian TV news media. If CBC stepped up a notch it would be at the Mr. Rogers level. OIf Global News stepped up a notch, it would be at the Sesame Street level. I suspect Baker is a big fan of Global News.
From: Carbon on 30 Sep 2008 20:28 On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:05:50 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > On 29 Sep 2008 05:27:43 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: >>On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:44:30 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: >> >>> I also like Quebec. It's close by and, unlike the rest of Canada. >>> it's like being in a foreign country. >> >>It is a foreign country. English as well as French. Differences exist, >>even if you can't see them. > > I'm sorry, being in English Canada is not like being in a foreign > country. It is a foreign country. English as well as French. Differences exist, even if you can't see them.
From: Alan Baker on 30 Sep 2008 20:31 In article <77f26c93-e34d-4c2c-b612-2d092b1c2b72(a)l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, The_Professor <dbid(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sep 30, 4:10�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > In article <vh15e4lngo3ivro344f7oq4u6reea7o...(a)4ax.com>, > > �Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:13:31 -0700, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Didn't the Canadian legislature recently pass a resolution defining > > > >> Quebec as an independent nation within Canada, or something to that > > > >> effect. �That doesn't sound like it's quite over to me. > > > > > >Actually, that's pretty much what ended it. > > > > > So the separatists basically won. > > > > No. They're happy being recognized for their uniqueness and we in > > English Canada are happy to recognize that they are unique. > > > > Everybody won. Not a concept you're likely to understand, but... > > > > You speak only for yourself, of course. A lot of us are long tired of > pandering to the Quebecois's need to feel 'unique"...not to mention > special trade deals to prop up the Quebec economy. Fact is, Canada has > no real need of Quebec, and if they don't want to be plain ole > ordinary Canadians like the rest of us, they should leave. Now I admit > I speak for myself, and reflect the views of the dozens (at least) of > others I have discussed this with. I personally don't know anyone who > doesn't see this thing this way, no wait, I know one person, from > Montreal. He thinks he is unique, and thinks it's important that > others also see him as unique. > > Baker watches the Canadian TV news media. If CBC stepped up a notch it > would be at the Mr. Rogers level. OIf Global News stepped up a notch, > it would be at the Sesame Street level. I suspect Baker is a big fan > of Global News. Actually, I almost never watch television news. You're pretty much a dog in the manger type, aren't you? Quebec is unique, that's pretty obvious. Whether you like how it got that way -- whether the English should simply have obliterated their culture after winning the war (I'm sure you wish they had) -- Quebec is a french-speaking entity within a larger entity that is otherwise pretty much english-speaking. That is unique whether you like it or not. The fact that you can't share in that uniqueness makes you want to take theirs away... ...and that's just sad.
From: Alan Baker on 30 Sep 2008 20:42
In article <90e8f556-04e2-48ee-b463-e8e4f7f4960a(a)t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, The_Professor <dbid(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sep 29, 9:40�am, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > news:alangbaker-2E8799.13331026092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > > > > > > > > > In article <HIWdneoG2rwC3EDVnZ2dnUVZ_vjin...(a)centurytel.net>, > > > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > >>news:alangbaker-D4A6D4.12254126092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > > >> > In article <QcGdnepk3uLRq0DVnZ2dnUVZ_tjin...(a)centurytel.net>, > > >> > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > >> >>news:alangbaker-EB5164.11495326092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > > >> >> > In article <BvqdnUvp2IPquEDVnZ2dnUVZ_hmdn...(a)centurytel.net>, > > >> >> > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:alangbaker-44D54D.09515426092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > > >> >> >> > In article <6k4i0eF640a...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > >> >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> >> It was easy to lookup, you should try it some time. > > > > >> >> >> > Having actual understanding without having to look things up: > > >> >> >> > you > > >> >> >> > should > > >> >> >> > try that. > > > > >> >> >> > That you couldn't simply articulate your claim without resorting > > >> >> >> > to > > >> >> >> > a > > >> >> >> > cut and paste job says much about your actual understanding. > > > > >> >> >> Translation: �"I deal in opinion not facts." > > > > >> >> > No. > > > > >> >> > I understand the facts. You couldn't articulate your counter claim > > >> >> > without doing cut and paste. > > > > >> >> It wasn't my cut and paste. �That is a fact. > > > > >> > My mistake. > > > > >> > So all you did was defend the guy whose total understanding of the > > >> > subject led him to have to do a cut and paste job. > > > > >> No, I pointed out that in the face of the facts, you decided to go with > > >> your > > >> opinion. > > > > > No. I didn't. > > > > > I went with the facts: > > > > > There is a new doctrine in U.S. foreign policy that allows for > > > preemptive self-defense. That new doctrine is articulated in the > > > National Security Strategy of 2006. This is fact, not opinion. > > > > > I knew this doctrine existed and what the gist of it was without need to > > > look anything up. Mike came along and tried to obscure the plain facts > > > by claiming that there were three doctrines (when all he really meant is > > > that the one doctrine had three elements, but then obfuscation was all > > > he was really after), but when pressed had to use Wikipedia to > > > articulate his claim. This, too, is fact. > > > > And all three "doctrines" made it into the NSS of 06 as the wiki stated.- > > Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Now don't go calling it by it's actual name. Baker is confused enough. I ask again: Do you agree there was a "Monroe Doctrine"? Do you believe that doctrine was spelled out in a specific document? If so, what is that document? If not, why does a "Bush Doctrine" have to be spelled out in a specific document? Did the Monroe Doctrine consist of more than one element? If so, why can not a "Bush Doctrine" consist of more than one element? |