Manufacturing history, or did it really happen? The CBC Strikes Again ..
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
Well...and gee with the Mill closure looming everyone will need to register...I here they're selling nice shiny ones at their new WalMart!! :-X Good thing they've got Renous just up the road for housing.... ;D
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
Tom
It was an Air Wpns Range. (Like the 'back woods' of Cold Lake.)
It was an Air Wpns Range. (Like the 'back woods' of Cold Lake.)
As I recall it from my days at Camp Gagetown in the early-sixties, Renous was an ammunition depot. In May 1963 1 RCHA had six gun numbers injured by the premature explosion of a 105mm HE round and I worked on the investigation with a RCOC ammunition officer from Renous.
- Reaction score
- 272
- Points
- 880
Well this is interesting stuff!! I don't remember it from when I was a kid...All that's there now is good old Federal Pen Renous....home to Alan Legere another Miramichi legend. Renous and just up the road ... "Retirement Village Miramichi" in the CFB Chatham location.
- Reaction score
- 11,846
- Points
- 1,260
Just finished reading something that brought me back to this conversation:
To me, this passage speaks directly to those who would see Alberta or Quebec (the two most noteworthy) strike out on their own. We could change a few words in the first part to get something like this:
those Canadians in any given province who disliked Federal policies were free to leave, but they had no right to take the land with them, or to impose their secessionist preferences on their pro-Canada neighbors both within their provinces and beyond. All Canadians had invested in Northern Alberta and had a stake in the St Lawrence River, and no single province or region could unilaterally take its land or waters and go home.
Makes sense to me. The quoted passage was referring to the enduring legal and moral implications made by different areas within the US Constitution (in particular, the Preamble) and how "a more perfect Union" was something that was greater than the sum of its parts.
It seems to me that Canada is no different - the Supreme Courts reading, the Clarity Bill, and Stephane Dion's "Plan B" all seem to underscore this.
To me, this passage speaks directly to those who would see Alberta or Quebec (the two most noteworthy) strike out on their own. We could change a few words in the first part to get something like this:
those Canadians in any given province who disliked Federal policies were free to leave, but they had no right to take the land with them, or to impose their secessionist preferences on their pro-Canada neighbors both within their provinces and beyond. All Canadians had invested in Northern Alberta and had a stake in the St Lawrence River, and no single province or region could unilaterally take its land or waters and go home.
Makes sense to me. The quoted passage was referring to the enduring legal and moral implications made by different areas within the US Constitution (in particular, the Preamble) and how "a more perfect Union" was something that was greater than the sum of its parts.
It seems to me that Canada is no different - the Supreme Courts reading, the Clarity Bill, and Stephane Dion's "Plan B" all seem to underscore this.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
yes, but, again. Just as the Confederates disagreed, so could those people of a Province. And, if they choose to seperate, then the laws of Canada no longer apply to them, since they are no longer part of Canada. So, Parliament, the Supreme Court, et al can proclaim and announce anything they wish. It's all just sound and fury without action to back it up.Infanteer said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
geo said:
No...Becuase you overlooked the obvious
Micheal Morre says he for free speech and all that...Challenge him publically on anything he's said and you'll find your self in court being sued by the fat fuck.
The CBC is practically communist and never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.
Neither entity is something that I really need to continue to exist.
Rant off
Slim
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Slim...
The original post was made during the time of the CBC lockout.
Mr Moore indicated that he would prefer it if the CBC did not air his film while the lockout was in effect...... a somewhat reasonnable request - based on his personal beliefs
The CBC management chose to ignore his request, on the basis of that they had bought and paid for the right to air the film. If the distributor had a problem, they could have refused to sell the rights .... but once they're sold..... too bad.
That was the context of my comment and turning it into a rant against either or both should not be an issue.........
Have a nice day
The original post was made during the time of the CBC lockout.
Mr Moore indicated that he would prefer it if the CBC did not air his film while the lockout was in effect...... a somewhat reasonnable request - based on his personal beliefs
The CBC management chose to ignore his request, on the basis of that they had bought and paid for the right to air the film. If the distributor had a problem, they could have refused to sell the rights .... but once they're sold..... too bad.
That was the context of my comment and turning it into a rant against either or both should not be an issue.........
Have a nice day
- Reaction score
- 11,846
- Points
- 1,260
paracowboy said:
Sure, but like the Supreme Court said, a UDI is illegal and would thus recieve no international recognition. We could ignore them and, if required march in and arrest them.
The important factor is international recognition - look at the difference between the Revolution, where Spain and France recognized the United States, and the Civil War, where Britain and France refused to recognize the Confederacy.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
and that was the only point I was trying to make. That the law would only apply if force was used to back it up. And this could quickly lead to a Balkanization. If we want to keep our nation together, then we have to do more than pass laws that can be ignored.Infanteer said:
But, that's a different thread.
- Reaction score
- 3,632
- Points
- 1,160
PQ won't follow 'clarity' rules: Boisclair
Newly-elected Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair
Canadian Press
Updated: Sat. Nov. 19 2005 6:33 PM ET
MONTREAL - The new leader of the Parti Quebecois says he will not follow Ottawa's ground rules for any future referendum on separation.
In an interview with the all-news channel RDI to be air Sunday, Andre Boisclair says independence is up to Quebecers only and he sees no reason to submit to the federal Clarity Act.
Boisclair argues that sovereignty is a not a legal decision, but a political one and that voters will have the last word.
He maintains the province's legislature has the authority to oversee the process.
Boisclair, who met with senior party officials on Saturday, has said he wants to see a referendum as soon as possible in the first mandate of a PQ government even though most opinion polls have suggested Quebecers don't want another referendum.
Before a referendum can be held, the Part Quebecois must defeat the Liberals, who have a majority in the National Assembly.
Premier Jean Charest does not have to call an election until 2008.
The Clarity Act was drafted in the wake of the 1995 referendum, won by a razor-thin margin by federalists.
It requires Ottawa to negotiate with Quebec should the Yes side receive a "clear majority" of votes in a referendum but does not specify what that constitutes.
© Copyright 2002-2006 Bell Globemedia Inc.
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
Comment: Well, at least he's making it real easy for the rest of us.
*edit: what do you call that concept that takes politics into a whole other dimension? I hope he picks a date with some history behind it.
Newly-elected Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair
Canadian Press
Updated: Sat. Nov. 19 2005 6:33 PM ET
MONTREAL - The new leader of the Parti Quebecois says he will not follow Ottawa's ground rules for any future referendum on separation.
In an interview with the all-news channel RDI to be air Sunday, Andre Boisclair says independence is up to Quebecers only and he sees no reason to submit to the federal Clarity Act.
Boisclair argues that sovereignty is a not a legal decision, but a political one and that voters will have the last word.
He maintains the province's legislature has the authority to oversee the process.
Boisclair, who met with senior party officials on Saturday, has said he wants to see a referendum as soon as possible in the first mandate of a PQ government even though most opinion polls have suggested Quebecers don't want another referendum.
Before a referendum can be held, the Part Quebecois must defeat the Liberals, who have a majority in the National Assembly.
Premier Jean Charest does not have to call an election until 2008.
The Clarity Act was drafted in the wake of the 1995 referendum, won by a razor-thin margin by federalists.
It requires Ottawa to negotiate with Quebec should the Yes side receive a "clear majority" of votes in a referendum but does not specify what that constitutes.
© Copyright 2002-2006 Bell Globemedia Inc.
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
Comment: Well, at least he's making it real easy for the rest of us.
*edit: what do you call that concept that takes politics into a whole other dimension? I hope he picks a date with some history behind it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I would suggest a good date is the day Wolf emerged victorious on the plains.
Applications are still being taken at the CDR don't wait for the line ups! ;D
Applications are still being taken at the CDR don't wait for the line ups! ;D
- Reaction score
- 11,846
- Points
- 1,260
whiskey601 said:
No kidding - as a Canadian, I can be happy that some coke-snorter is puffing up his chest and saying that he doesn't have to follow the rules. If anyone is going to marginalize any legitimacy that the seperatiste crowd has, it's this guy.
- Reaction score
- 3,632
- Points
- 1,160
I think a hard line in return would be in order- which certainly would not come from a minority government. It seems like the political matrix is changing by the hour. With the way PMPM is going around compensating everybody for any reason at all he would be likely tooffer compensation for them to separate in return for votes over the next election.
Similar threads
