...

Originally Posted by glenn

P.S., up here it's also not our right to bear arms. (waves hairy bear arms..Raaawr!).

[Maine-iac]

Am I correct in my impression that the Canadian Federal gov't has considerably more authority over the provinces than the U.S. Federal gov't has over the states?

Originally Posted by Maine-iac

Am I correct in my impression that the Canadian Federal gov't has considerably more authority over the provinces than the U.S. Federal gov't has over the states?

[putting on part 7C hat]It depends on what we're talking about. The provinces have considerable control on various issues. Overall? I'm not sure that the Feds have more authority.[taking off hat]

Originally Posted by Maine-iac

Am I correct in my impression that the Canadian Federal gov't has considerably more authority over the provinces than the U.S. Federal gov't has over the states?

You are correct. The seperation between state and federal gov't isn't nearly as distinct nor important as it is in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Sammie

[putting on part 7C hat]It depends on what we're talking about. The provinces have considerable control on various issues. Overall? I'm not sure that the Feds have more authority.[taking off hat]

The implementation or defining this would be difficult - but what Maine's referring to is a pervasive attitude that states are their own little countries. I don't think it occurs to Canadians to think that 'the fed's need to keep their nose out of Ontario'. But saying the fed's need to keep their noses out of Mississippi would be a well understood comment in the U.S. I think.

Ohhh....

While we're at it, we should probably start discussing the CRTC and Sheila Copps' latest job. But then i'd get angry. And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

[MountainHawk]

Glenn,

It would. As the US system is designed, the federal government is really only supposed to be involved in something that involves more than one state. It's evolved into something larger than that, obviously, which some Americans find unforunate.

The US really is based on the idea that people know what's best for them. If a decision can be implemented at a local level, it should be handled there, and not at the state level, since the locals understand the problem the best. No need for Pittsburghers to have a say on a local Philadelphia issue. Likewise, if PA has a statewide issue, why handle it at a federal level, where some orange farmer from CA has a say?

Thing,

Then you don't really preach tolerance do you? You just preach a different form of intolerance, making you no better than the bigots you claim to to be better than. Real tolerance is understanding that people are free to think and believe what they choose, and shouldn't be shouted down, discriminated against, or jailed because of that.

There is a big difference between someone who feels [group A] is wrong/inferior/immoral and the person that acts on those feelings and violating rights of the members of [group A]. The first is a person you may disagree with, but it's just not right to discriminate against/jail him. The second is a person that is probably committing a crime, and that's fine too.

[Maine-iac]

Probably the fact that we call them "states" and you call them "provinces" gives a clue to how they are viewed.

Originally Posted by glenn

While we're at it, we should probably start discussing the CRTC and Sheila Copps' latest job. But then i'd get angry. And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

The mere mention of her name makes me angry.