• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • my two cents worth
    January 31, 2013 - 09:57

    from what i read about this matter is: the US was willing to adopt us but only if Britian and Canada was in agreement. Canada was willing to take us but only if the price was "right". Britian was broke and wanted us gone and Canada was their first choice. there was no benefit to either Canada or Britian for us to become independent. the little man, joey, was a person who could sell ice cubes to eskimos and he did that for many years.

  • Mack Hall
    January 29, 2013 - 20:22

    "Little man?" "Little man" is patronizing. One does not like to hear that the affairs of great nations were decided by little men.

  • doubt it
    January 29, 2013 - 16:35

    show us your history degree jack!

  • Jay
    January 29, 2013 - 10:36

    Jack, I have to give you credit. This is a great strategy to drum up sales for your book "1949". Somebody should hire you as a marketing consultant

  • NF for NF
    January 29, 2013 - 09:01

    Me thinks thou does protest too much Jack. Your attack on Malone's conclusions seem to be nothing more than someone in denial. Truth can be such a spurious thing when you already have an argument at hand. You conveniently ignore the fact that the National Convention turned down the motion for Confederation to be on the ballad. Surely democracy was not served when Confederation was put on the ballad despite the elected convention's refusal to accept the motion. Democracy served? Or the fact there should never had been a National Convention in the first place. There should have been nothing on the table except the return of Responsible Government period! Any decision to be made in regards to Newfoundland's future should have been initiated and decided by our elected Government and her people in a straight referendum. There was nothing democratic in the National Convention's foundation nor its mandate nor in the manner in which Confederation was place on the ballad. On top of that you ignore all that has been written, documented and argued from the National Convention floor to attack an alternate view point on this turbulent time in our history unjustly. To make blanket statements that Canada was our saviour and has thrown off the shackles of servitude suggests a blindness to the facts, a serious lack of knowledge of our proud independent history and your own experiences since Confederation. It is too bad that you get to stand on the pulpit wringing your hands at the 'True Believer's' and 'conspiracy theorists'. There must be an awful lot of us for you to attack us at every chance you get. I wonder why that is? I prefer the term 'enlightened' as each new document peels away another layer of fog of the true record of what happened.

  • Grassy Knoll
    January 29, 2013 - 07:44

    But the fiction is more interesting especially when it's dressed up as a conspiracy.