• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Maybe Canada should think about a new flag?

RoperAB

Well-known member
Which Liberal was it? Pearson that forced the new flag on us?
Think about it. Red is the official liberal party colour. Blue is Conservative. So the eastern liberals gave us a red flag.
The maple leaf. There are no maple trees in Alberta or in western Canada. Just a few in BC. Well how does the red maple leaf represent western Canada?
It doesnt, it just shows the arrogence of the eastern liberals and about how the west doesnt count in their minds.
Im all for a new flag.
What are your thoughts?
 

Brad S

Well-known member
As far as color, why are the commie states blue, and the freedom states red. Commie = reds just more proof of media bias. Liberals never want to run as who they are.


As far as the Canadian flag, I dunno, them boys from Calgary at the finals seem to be ok with the leaf.


Both the US and Canada need a heap of federalism to head off civil war. The urban majorities tyranize the rural states without even mild criticism.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Red and white have been Canada's official colors since around 1921 and they were designated by the King of England and I would rather have a Maple Leaf than a fleur de-lis on it which was one of the options considered at that time. There are lots of Maple trrees which have been planted on the prairies.

If we should get rid of anything it should be being tied to the English monarchy.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Growing up in Calgary we had Maple Leaf trees,I'm awfully proad of our flag...no sir I do not want a new one...and I will proadly wear red on Fridays,Love Canada,mapleleaf and our flag and the freedom we have :)
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Bill said:
Red and white have been Canada's official colors since around 1921 and they were designated by the King of England and I would rather have a Maple Leaf than a fleur de-lis on it which was one of the options considered at that time. There are lots of Maple trrees which have been planted on the prairies.

If we should get rid of anything it should be being tied to the English monarchy.

Well I dont want any frog on the flag thats for sure. But maple trees are not native to Alberta or the prairies. If there are some in Cow Town I have never seen them. For sure they were planted.
Well if you want to get a way from the monorchy then why not have new non king designated colours on the flag?
Lets take it even farther from the UK style of unequal government and get some real reforms started like for example equal representation in the House of Commons. Why should Ontario and Quebec have more seats than the rest of the country combined?
How about an equal regional elected Senate!
How about equal provincial rights. Example why should Ontario and Quebec own their own resources but yet some of the other provinces are not allowed to own their own natural resources!
As far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned we are nothing but a colony out here to be exploited for the best interest of Central Canada!
I dont see how a few planted maple trees in Calgary make the maple leaf a symble for Alberta?
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Roper,it was said tongue in cheek,yes I imagine the trees were planted and aren't native..kind of like the Oak tree in my yard. This is my thought,yes you bring up lots of valid points for sure but the fact remains our flag as it is is greatly respected and known throughout the world...why change a good thing??I love and am VERY proad of my flag....{salute}
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
All this time I thought your Maple Leaf was a symbol of peace.

But what the heck, I don't even know where Canada is. :wink:

See Roper this is what I'm talking about...."Your Maple Leaf was a symbol of peace"..... :)
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
All this time I thought your Maple Leaf was a symbol of peace.

But what the heck, I don't even know where Canada is. :wink:

by Patrick Henry
March 23, 1775
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take but as for me: give me liberty or give me death.


Mrs Greg said
Roper,it was said tongue in cheek,yes I imagine the trees were planted and aren't native..kind of like the Oak tree in my yard. This is my thought,yes you bring up lots of valid points for sure but the fact remains our flag as it is is greatly respected and known throughout the world...why change a good thing??I love and am VERY proad of my flag....{salute}

To me the flag represents whats wrong with this country.
No equal representation in the Federal government.
You should not have to live in Ontario or Quebec to be a "Real Canadian"
Yes I realize that Ontario and Quebec have higher populations but this is largely due to the rest of the country being exploited because of little Federal representation. As a result most of the civil service jobs and government contracts, military spending all goes to Ontario and Quebec.
Their industries are taken care of and our industries dont matter. Look at softwood lumber! If it was about maple trees in Ontario and Quebec the matter would be taken care of right away!
Why was milk replacer left out of the feed ban<bse>? Because the biggest users of milk replacer<blood meal> is dairy. Where are most of the dairy farms? In Ontario and Quebec! Plus there also subsidized by about 130%! When was the last time a western industry was subsidized by 130%?
So basically they risked western Canadas beef industry for french milkers in Quebec.
I will tell you something else. I read the new revised feedban from the Alberta Beef Producers web site last month. I didnt see anything mentioned about milk replacer.<maybe I missed it?
Look at the televised federal election debates? Did they even mention weastern agriculture? No! Because we dont count.
Look I have lived in Ontario and I have relatives living there yet. I know the mindset.

Economic Cost of Federation for Alberta, 1961 – Present
Alberta has, on a per capita basis, been Ottawa's largest single contributor. For example, between 1961 and 1992, Alberta paid $139 billion more to Ottawa than it received back from Ottawa. That is what it cost Albertans to be Canadian. *
And where did the money go? During that time frame, the province of Quebec, despite its large population and vibrant economy, was a net recipient of over $ 168 billion from Ottawa. Alberta was paying Quebec to be Canadian. *
* Source: Dr. Robert Mansell and Ronald Schlenker, "The Provincial Distribution of Federal Fiscal Balances," Canadian Business Economics 3:2 (Winter, 1995), 3-21
There are two net contributors to Ottawa: Alberta and Ontario. The difference is that Ontario gets a return on investment. They have a diversified economy with end use manufacturing. They also have a strong voice in federal policy. The Kyoto Accord would have adversely affected Alberta and Ontario, however, Ottawa exempted the Ontario Auto Industry from the Accord.

Alberta's cost 1997 - 2003 **
In Billions Canadian Dollars: $54.933
1997: $5.668
1998: $6.279
1999: $6.130
2000: $7.190
2001: $8.568
2002: $9.998
2003: $11.100
**Source: Alberta Finance, March 2004

Do you know how much money Ottawa has taken out of Alberta so far just this year? Over $7,000,000,000 Thats what it cost us so far this year to be part of Canada.
The official tree of Alberta is Lodgepole Pine and the official Alberta colours are gold and "Tory" blue and I fly the Alberta flag proudly. But as far as unequal Federalism goes im not very patriotic.
That last unelected Senator they gave us should have been taken to the Ontario border and dumped off.
Its about time that the west started standing up for itself.
Confederation at any cost? I dont think so :wink:
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Both the US and Canada need a heap of federalism to head off civil war. The urban majorities tyranize the rural states without even mild criticism.

Federalism can work for you because all your States have equal representation in it. Example every State has two Senators that can Vote.
Up here we dont even have a "real" Senate not alone one with equal representation.
How would you like America if California and Oregon voted one way but the other 48 States voted the other way. But yet California and Oregon made up your Federal Government?
How would you like it if the election was over before the polls even opened in your riding?
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
Roper.. There is that feeling in a lot of states that it just doesn't matter what they vote because of how unequal the voting power of each state is. Yes, the senate has a blancing act but for folks in Illinois for example it doesn't matter what 90% of the geogrphic area wants, it only matter what Chicago wants as Chicago and the surronding area is just a huge voting block. For example Kerry won Cook county (Chicago) by 1.7 million votes but only one the state by 500k votes. That means outside of Cook county Bush carried the state by 1.2 million votes (I might be wrong here, It might have been 1.2 million in cook and bush carrying the rest of the state by 700k, it has been a couple of years)

In a presidential election the only states that seem to matter right no are Ohio and Florida. Whoever wins those wins the presidency. Maybe Wisconsin will flip next election, maybe some other of the close states will but it boils down to Ohio and Florida right now...

California has more reps than all the mountian time zone states combined.
So Does Texas. So does New York. The senate is at least some balance for the plains states, keeps it from getting too ugly.. To bad most of the senators are in bed with their parties and special interest instead of doing what is best for the country.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Okay in Canadas Federal parliment we have 308 seats. Which ever party gets more than half of these seats wins a majority government which is really an elected dictatorship because we have no congress or Senate. Well our senate is unelected and they really just do whatever the government tells them to do. Our senate is really just a cushy job for people who do good deads for the government. Its a "reward". Half of them dont even show up. There was one of them that actually spent most of his time in Mexico where he lived but received steady paychecks as a liberal senator.
Now out of these 308 seats, Ontario and Quebec combined have over half of them. Population or land mass doesnt seem to have anything to do with how many seats a province gets. Look at the maritime provinces. They have way more seats per person than Alberta.
Look at SK. with only 18 seats but yet its a huge province thats actually bigger than the 3 maritime provinces combined. So size<land mass> doesnt count either.

Okay how does it work in the States? I understand your Chicago/rural Ill. situation because we have similiar stuff like that up here as well but why does Florida and Ohio have the power?
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
Basically it boils down to the fact a lot of states are FIRMLy entrenched as either republican or Democratic when it comes to national elections. The last two elections basically hinged on who won those two states as they were two large electoral college states that were going to be close... Hasn't always been this way but the last two elections have been so CLOSE that it basically hinged on those states which are two of the more evenly divided states. It would be interesting if they ever switched to an overall popular election in the US or switched to how maine does its electoral votes (Which I think is the most fair personally).

When you look at the Clinton elections it didn't matter because he won by quite a cushy margin in the electoral votes and it didn't matter for Bush Sr or Regean as they were also cushy margins. It will probably change with some states seeming to be swinging in a different direction so this won't be a long term situation such as you have in Canada...

We do have more protection because how the framers set up the senate
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Your Senate is the key to your success.
Well can you explain how your Primaries work? Example I think there in New Hampshire? I have never really understood this. Is it how you determine your party leaders?
Up here card carrying conservatives vote for there <federal>leader or this was how it was always done with the Reform/ Canadian Alliance Parties. Now that we are the Conservative Party im not sure how this will work.
Now with the Liberal Party only Liberal memers of parliament can vote for there new leader. Or thats the way I understand it.
How do you guys do it?
I like our Reform<conservative> way of every card carrying member being able to vote for the leader with a mail in ballot.
 

OldDog/NewTricks

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
All this time I thought your Maple Leaf was a symbol of peace.

But what the heck, I don't even know where Canada is. :wink:

For the Little Kids sake - If an animal dies we say
---- It Went To Canada! --- or --- I Sent It To Canada - - -

Now I Know Why -
I don't even know where Canada is Either. - - > Is it Like A Frozen Hell? :wink:
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
There are primaries and there are caucuses in this state. In a primary since I am not registerd with any particular party I can go and say Democrat, Republican whatever and I vote that ballot for the primary. In Caucuses people get together and have a convention type thing and the peple at the caucus vote for who they will give their votes for their state too. Iowa is a caucus state... I have never lived in one so I don't know exactly how it works...

Now, at primaries you vote for your party in all races that are contested. For exmple with Illinois Govenor coming up you went and got to choose from Topinka, Oberweis and some other fellows (No one campaings out here so it is hard to remember who actually ran, I can remember more from 02's election..) Also in my district you Hastert was running again so you got to vote for him (I think he was uncontested in the primary). Any state senator seats and stuff that were up also had primaries at the same time so they were on your sheet too.. The primarties basically pick which Republican is going to run against what Democrat for the office.

Party leadership is generally deteremind by who wins/ is in office. In the House of Reps or senate they vote on speaker of the house, minority whips and all of that stuff. So Denny hastert was elected by his peers in the Republican controled house, I can't recall the Minority whip right now nor the Minority leader.. Want to Say Pelosi (And I am right) and the whip is Hoyer (Rep from Southern Maryland).... ..

As far as who hired Marc Rocicot to be head of the RNC and Howard to be head of DNC.. I don't know who does that..
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
So in a Primary State you can just show up, say your a democrate and at no cost to you, vote for whoever you think will be the worst person to give your republican candidate a better chance of a win?
Let me get this straight. Is a primary a separate election<just to choose a candidate> and then after that you have the real election with who ever wins the democrate primary going against who ever wins the republican primary?
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
Yes, the primary is to choose a candidate and yes, in theory you could go to primary to vote "against" a democrat even if you tend to vote republican. I believe my mom did it vote against our current attorney general in this state since her main qualification seemed to be she was daughter of the state house leader.... Didn't matter, she won the primary and the general. Most people don't bother doing it that wa as they feel it is more iportant to support a canidate..

Some feel that McCain's strong showing in some of the primary states had a lot to do with Dems voting in the republican primary.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
The election laws are different in every state. Here in South Dakota, you have to register as a member of a party weeks before the primary and then you can only vote for candidates running for seats of the party you registered in.

If you registered Independent you won't be able to vote in the primary since there are no Independent races in the primary and you can't vote until fall.

You are not allowed to influence the election of any other party except the one you registered in. The general election in the fall is another story and it doesn't matter how you are registered. Then you can vote for whoever you want, provided they made it through the primary for their party.
 
Top