43% of Albertan's and 36% of the West

[rbacon]

**Post Removed Due to Copyright Infringment**

Edited August 5, 2005 by Greg

[Bakunin]

Interesting stats...

If the liberal stay in power a few more year, im sure it will destroy the country.

Its already 90% sure quebeckers are heading for another referendum in less than 2 years, if alberta can't stand the liberal too, its gonna get mad... Specially if the country split up and quebec goes, it would pretty much mean an endless ontarian liberal reign over canada if its not already the case... Im not sure alberta would apreciate it.

[Riverwind]

If the liberal stay in power a few more year, im sure it will destroy the country.Its already 90% sure quebeckers are heading for another referendum in less than 2 years, if alberta can't stand the liberal too, its gonna get mad...

Separatism never has an never will be a solution political disagreements - it can only aggravate them and create more conflict in the end. It only will start a vicious spiral as smaller and smaller groups of people demand there right to 'self-determination'.

Furthermore, the process of breaking up an integrated economy like Canada complex and is guaranteed to bring out the worst in people - largely because the people advocating separation rely on ridiculous fantasies regarding what 'fair' terms would be for there region in order to whip up support among their more cautious neighbors

At one level seperatists are like non-violent terrorists because they refuse to recognize that compromise and mutual understanding is the answer but prefer to deal in absolutes like hatred and fear. In fact, I believe that it is extremists coming out of Quebec and Alberta that are mostly to blame for the fact that we cannot work out a compromise on the constitution that would address the legimate issues that moderates in both provinces have. These extremists can sit in their armchairs critizing and making grand statements and promises about how wonderful things would be if xxx was a separate country - while knowing all along that it is impossible to prove them wrong.

Nothing can be fixed in this country until the political leaders and the media face down these armchair terrorists and work out a compromise that is acceptable to moderate middle. I think it starts by rejecting separation as an option since leaving as an option simply allows extremists to poison the debate.

[Argus]

At one level seperatists are like non-violent terrorists because they refuse to recognize that compromise and mutual understanding is the answer but prefer to deal in absolutes like hatred and fear.

By your definition then, there are an awful lot of terrorrists on this web site, and in particular, in the government and central Canada. I said some time ago that the means to a succesful democracy was compromise. I believe I said it with regard to the SSM issue. I said, to paraphrase, that since most Canadians would be satisfied with a civil union rather than marriage, and it really didn't make a ton of difference, we should go for that. The answer from the supporters of SSM was outrage at the mere thought. There would be no compromise, and contempt at the mere idea of taking the feelings and beliefs of opponents into consideration.

And that has basically been the story of the Liberal government over the last ten years or so. No compromise of any sort, not on budgets and taxes, not on issues like Official Bilingualism, SSM, immigration, gun control and registration, the young offenders act, underfunding of the RCMP and military, nothing. No compromise. Ignore the opposition (mainly the west and Quebec), ram it through using closure, and call yourself a great leader. This, btw, is a theme echoed and supported by the NDP, which loathes compromise

And both Liberals and NDP, btw, have spent the last three or four elections painting the beliefs and desires of a huge segment of the West as backward, barbaric, ignorant and meriting nothing but contempt, using them as fearmongering attacks on the Alliance/Tories/Reform party.

And people wonder why seperatism sentiment rises in Quebec and the West.

[Guest eureka]

"If I can't be Captain, I will take mt ball home." What a childish bunch of ignoramuses these "Separatists" are.

[newbie]

And that has basically been the story of the Liberal government over the last ten years or so. No compromise of any sort, not on budgets and taxes, not on issues like Official Bilingualism, SSM, immigration, gun control

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I beg to differ, but the Liberals did compromise big time on bill C-38 and the budget. They were able to use ideas from the ND party and got the Bloc vote. This was democracy in action, the way it should be in Ottawa. I'm glad we have a minority government, where parties have the opportunity to present their ideas. Harper did support the gov't budget but pulled back when unsupported allegations surfaced from Gomery. That was his choice to become involved, but he let bipartisan rhetoric and utterings from an unfinished commission blur his participation.

[Bakunin]

The last one that tryed to find a compromize is called Brian murloney and he his seen by many english canadian as a traitoir to his country...

[kimmy]

At one level seperatists are like non-violent terrorists because they refuse to recognize that compromise and mutual understanding is the answer but prefer to deal in absolutes like hatred and fear.

What "compromise" has been offered, other than to shut up and accept the status quo?

-k

[Shakeyhands]

At one level seperatists are like non-violent terrorists because they refuse to recognize that compromise and mutual understanding is the answer but prefer to deal in absolutes like hatred and fear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What "compromise" has been offered, other than to shut up and accept the status quo?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what is the status quo? Being part of a well respected country where your rights are protected and you are given whatever opportunities you choose to accept?

I really don't understand the whole seperatist idea, I mean at least I can see that Quebec has some major differences.... but Alberta??????

[Bakunin]

At one level seperatists are like non-violent terrorists because they refuse to recognize that compromise and mutual understanding is the answer but prefer to deal in absolutes like hatred and fear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What "compromise" has been offered, other than to shut up and accept the status quo?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

exaclty..

[Riverwind]

What "compromise" has been offered, other than to shut up and accept the status quo?

There is no compromise on the table because of the separatists in Quebec will shoot down any reasonable proposal by making absurd demands and branding any Quebequer who attempts to make such a compromise as a 'sell-out'. Alberta finds that its desires for reform are ignored because it is impossible to deal with Alberta's concerns as long as the Quebec separatists are poisoning the debate. It is a vicious circle that can only be broken by rejecting seperation as option.

An anology to consider: is it possible to negotiate compromise with terrorists who are willing to blow people up if they don't get what they want? Absolutely not. Seperatists are constitutional terrorists whose positions that easily lead to violence by undermining the integrity of the state.

[Argus]

And that has basically been the story of the Liberal government over the last ten years or so. No compromise of any sort, not on budgets and taxes, not on issues like Official Bilingualism, SSM, immigration, gun control

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I beg to differ, but the Liberals did compromise big time on bill C-38

In what way?

and the budget. They were able to use ideas from the ND party and got the Bloc vote.

Paid them off, you mean. I think that is one of the things Alberta is annoyed at, especially since they get to pay a big chunk of the bribe.

This was democracy in action, the way it should be in Ottawa. I'm glad we have a minority government, where parties have the opportunity to present their ideas. Harper did support the gov't budget but pulled back when unsupported allegations surfaced from Gomery.

Unsupported allegations, eh? I suspect you, and others of your ilk, with your slavish devotion to the Liberals no matter what, are a major reason why so many westerners feel they don't want to be a part of Canada any longer. Corruption is one thing, but corruption which is openly supported by central Canada is quite another. I can understand westerners questioning just what they have in common with people like you.

[Bakunin]

What "compromise" has been offered, other than to shut up and accept the status quo?

There is no compromise on the table because of the separatists in Quebec will shoot down any reasonable proposal by making absurd demands and branding any Quebequer who attempts to make such a compromise as a 'sell-out'. Alberta finds that its desires for reform are ignored because it is impossible to deal with Alberta's concerns as long as the Quebec separatists are poisoning the debate. It is a vicious circle that can only be broken by rejecting seperation as option.

An anology to consider: is it possible to negotiate compromise with terrorists who are willing to blow people up if they don't get what they want? Absolutely not. Seperatists are constitutional terrorists whose positions that easily lead to violence by undermining the integrity of the state.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats not true,

The constitution was forced down the troat to quebecers by trudeau and chretien to change canada, why do you think quebeckers where against ? cause they know the trudeau vision would end up in a federal paradise, a federal government that can control pretty much anything with no limit. It was a major loss for the province. Since that constitution, evrything changed, canada became more and more centralized.

even after a vicious thing like that, levesque did continue to try to come to a compromise and bring us to the meech lake accord.

Then, meech was shut down by ppl like trudeau and chertiens.

The best proof is that even right now with 2 liberal government and someone like jean charest who is way more federalist than any previous liberal chief, nothing is getting done. Its the statut quo, Worst, they are still fighting against each others on numerous subject....

[newbie]

And that has basically been the story of the Liberal government over the last ten years or so. No compromise of any sort, not on budgets and taxes, not on issues like Official Bilingualism, SSM, immigration, gun control

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I beg to differ, but the Liberals did compromise big time on bill C-38

In what way?

and the budget. They were able to use ideas from the ND party and got the Bloc vote.

Paid them off, you mean. I think that is one of the things Alberta is annoyed at, especially since they get to pay a big chunk of the bribe.

This was democracy in action, the way it should be in Ottawa. I'm glad we have a minority government, where parties have the opportunity to present their ideas. Harper did support the gov't budget but pulled back when unsupported allegations surfaced from Gomery.

Unsupported allegations, eh? I suspect you, and others of your ilk, with your slavish devotion to the Liberals no matter what, are a major reason why so many westerners feel they don't want to be a part of Canada any longer. Corruption is one thing, but corruption which is openly supported by central Canada is quite another. I can understand westerners questioning just what they have in common with people like you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am proud to live in Alberta and have many friends who have opposing views. We get along just fine: a little thing called tolerance and respect for the other's point of view. Life is more than politics, but maybe not to you. We can argue endlessly over semantics (compromise for instance) and I'll never convince you and probably vice versa. A minority government is all about compromise, and to my eyes there has been plenty of it (unlike Harper who pulled his support back in the middle of an investigation of alleged crimes.) When corruption and criminal activity committed by an member of parliament is proven in a court of law, then I'll accept it. Anyway, this is way off topic.

[crazymf]

You'll know when we separate when our cheque bounces and we don't return your phone calls. Enough talk.

[Riverwind]

The constitution was forced down  the troat to quebecers by trudeau and chretien to change canada, why do you think quebeckers where against ?

Levesque was separatist and was not interested in signing any new constitution since he knew the symbol of Quebec 'not signing' would be a effective propaganda tool. Unfortunately he was right. If a federalist leader was in power at the time I am pretty sure Quebec would have signed. So the blame for a constitution 'imposed' on Quebec rests entirely on the shoulders of the separatists.

The best proof is that even right now with 2 liberal government and someone like jean charest who is way more federalist than any previous liberal chief, nothing is getting done. Its the statut quo, Worst, they are still fighting against each others on numerous subject....

Charest is politically weak due to his own lack of leaderhsip abilities and is in no position to sell any constitutional deal to Quebequers. That said, considerable progress has been made when it comes to negotiating seperate deals with Quebec as required. It is disingenuous for any separatist to suggest that there is no willingness to compromise on the part of the federal gov't. Lack of flexibility is coming entirely from separatists who seek sabotage the federation so they can create their 'winning conditions'.

Compromise can only happen if both are willing to compromise. As long as seperation is considered a credible option then there is no incentive for seperatists to compromise. Blaming the federation for the fact that no constitutional compromise is possible in the current polictical environment is a lot like a boy who kills his parents and then asks for mercy because he is an orphan.

[rbacon]

Here is the complete link for the Poll, with acknowledgement to Kevin Steele and The Western Standard. http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/inde...&article_id=928 How can any one call some 3,000,000 people terrorist for doing what the Liberal Party of Canabis has put into the Consitutution of Canada. It is called the Clarity Act. Even if we did not use the Clarity Act and went UDI after a democratic referendum, there is nothing that TROC can do except find a new sugar daddy to pay the socialist bills. TROC is in big trouble. This poll shows that 36% of the voters in Man. Sask. Ab. and BC as a group want to separate. Then it breaks it down by Province and Albertans some 43% of them want out. That is as high as it has every been in Quebec at its peak. And what is even more significant is that the www.separationpartyofalberta.com only just became a legal party in Alberta last June 9th 2004. So without a strong official presence unlike Quebec we have this strong move towards Independence. Before TROC trots out their lame threats and I'm going to tell my Mommy on you childishness. Maybe you should sit down and ask yourself what has happened. You now have 5 Provinces in Canada that have a strong interest in Independence and 2 Provinces that will likely carry out that threat if you don't start listening to the calls for fairness and Democratic Rights. It is all up to TROC too listen it will be our Right and Sacred Duty to our families here in Alberta to do what is Right for us. The TROC does not own Alberta or Albertans like chattels we are a Proud and very Liberty loving people and TROC is crossing the line. The country was never designed to be run from the centre like Trudeau the Commie Ass Kisser wanted. It is over I guess if you don't listen Alberta will be gone for sure and very soon.

[Riverwind]

Even if we did not use the Clarity Act and went UDI after a democratic referendum, there is nothing that TROC can do except find a new sugar daddy to pay the socialist bills.

Whether you want to admit or not, a UDI is constitutional terrorism and a recipe for disaster in Alberta and elsewhere. It is a risky action that could lead to bloodshed and will definately disrupt the lives of millions of people (inside and outside Alberta).

If people do die as a result of a UDI then all seperatists that promoted such actions would be morally equivalent to the Imams to call for Jihad against the west. It does not make a difference that you believe you are justified (those Imans believe they are justified). What matters is you are promting policies that could lead violance. That is wrong and should not be considered a legimate option.

I am not saying the status quo must be accepted: I am simply saying that separation is never an option and working within the current structures to change the status quo is the only way to resolve problems with economic disruption and bloodshed. It may take a lot of time to change - but so what? The world is not going to come to an end if it takes another decade to reform the senate.

[newbie]

I found the website (www.separationalberta.com) pretty kooky and yet scary.

[Guest eureka]

Have you heard of the expression about "two short planks," Bakunin? It seems that no matter how many tomes you are exposed to truth you come back with the same inexcusable ignorance.

As for Rabidcon, bring it on! I told many people long ago that Canada would have to suffer the civil war that it almost alone in the world has avoided before the evils of separatism are banished. Unfortunately, the probability comes closer with every idiot proclamation by the "separatists."

Sparhawk is quite correct. Bloodshed is inevitable in any province that attempts to separate. The idea that escapes the feeble minds of the Quebec "separatists" is that the bloodshed will start with the uprising of French Canadians who will not participate in the sick, racist dream.

[Argus]

Sparhawk is quite correct. Bloodshed is inevitable in any province that attempts to separate. The idea that escapes the feeble minds of the Quebec "separatists" is that the bloodshed will start with the uprising of French Canadians who will not participate in the sick, racist dream.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm, I know quite a few Quebecers, and I can't think of one who would even consider engaging in violence to prevent Quebec from seperating. The French who didn't support it would reluctantly go along and hope their jobs weren't lost (the only reason most Francophones are opposed to seperation at all). The English would leave for Ontario. The immigrants wouldn't much care. There is no great patriotism among Francophones in Quebec for Canada. The place is nice enough and all, and they figure it's economically better to be part of Canada, but so long as their bread gets buttered they really wouldn't care if the rest of the country sank into the artic ocean.

As for the West, I'd bet most of those in favour of seperation are armed, while those most opposed are avid supporters of gun control, despise guns, think police and military people are brutes and savages, and would squeal like little girls and run away at the first shot.

[Guest eureka]

I happen to know Quebec in that way, Argus. I am not going to go into detail about it here, though. I can assure you that there is a significant element in Quebc society that will fight.

A survey done by one of the organizations I belonged to (some of the questions I contributed), or rather by CROP on our behalf, of the nearly one million Francophones and slightly larger number of Anglophones living on the West Island, found that 57% of the Francophones favoured military action in the event of an attempt at separation.

That survey was taken just two months before the 1980 Referendum and it scared the H.. out of Rene Levesque.

[cybercoma]

"If I can't be Captain, I will take mt ball home." What a childish bunch of ignoramuses these "Separatists" are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I suppose it's childish of Quebec whose citizens don't fit in anywhere else in Canada, nor did they agree to the Constitution. That's cool though, they're a bunch of childish ignoramuses.

[Bakunin]

Levesque was separatist and was not interested in signing any new constitution since he knew the symbol of Quebec 'not signing' would be a effective propaganda tool. Unfortunately he was right. If a federalist leader was in power at the time I am pretty sure Quebec would have signed. So the blame for a constitution 'imposed' on Quebec rests entirely on the shoulders of the separatists.

Again its false, take a few books about him before saying stupid stuff... At that time even the federalist opposition was against it.And since that, quebec federalist never accepted the constitution and our provincial assembly unanimously refused it many times. Even a die hard federalist like Jean charest never signed it.

Even after this whole consititution history, he continued in what he called the "Beau risque" wich was cleary a way to find a compromise. At that time all the die hard separatist like parizeau resigned and quitted the PQ. On the other hand when we could finally reach a compromise with murloney, trudeau and his friend put presure to destroy any possibility of compromise.

A survey done by one of the organizations I belonged to

Where you in the mafia or Rcmp or what ? why are you scared to say what organization ? because you will be identified as an extremist ?

[Riverwind]

Uhm, I know quite a few Quebecers, and I can't think of one who would even consider engaging in violence to prevent Quebec from seperating. The French who didn't support it would reluctantly go along and hope their jobs weren't lost (the only reason most Francophones are opposed to seperation at all).

Separatists like to believe that partition can never happen but they cannot escape the reality that if Canada is divisible then so is Quebec. There are a million scenarios that could play out after a yes vote, however, it is quite likely that some communities will vote to stay in Canada. This would put the the Quebec gov't in the akward situtation of accepting partition or using violance to assert their power. The situation can/will likely deteroriate to a northern ireland like scenario quite quickly. All it takes is a small minority of hotheads to make everyone miserable.

You may think that the northern ireland scenario is unlikely, however, even if it is unlikely it is still possible. And that is why I think seperation is an unacceptable option because it could lead to violence.