Benz

You have to admit that the "Free Enterprise Enthusiast" does not look so enthusiast.

True, but the picture is bigger than that. Turkey, Lebanon, etc... are receiving refugies by millions. We just take few thousands. What we do is a fraction of what they do. We definitely do not send enough money to help them deal with that and they are overwhelmed. We are in better conditions to welcome few more. Imagine for a moment that we welcome the same number of what Turkey got. It's moreless the population of the whole maritimes. The cost and the capacity to help those people in distress is irrelevant. We do it because we can. It's not the issue. The issue is the non-integration of few of them.

One thing for sure, you are very binary and no one can blame you to be ambivalent. If I am brainwashed, why don't you show me the truth? Are all those massive arrests are a lie? You know, it would not be the first time that we receive wrong information. Remember the was in the ex-Yougoslavia? At some point, the journalists were saying that there are massive genocides, up to 100 000 civilian people killed and piled up into a pit. Few years later, we discovered the numbers were very exagerated. It was rather 8k and the authorities condemned the actions instead of promoting it. I know that stories are never simple. I have no trust in medias supporting USA. It is no coincidence that this Coup d'état is happening at the same time that Turkey and Russia are getting on the same page. The CIA is funding false charity organisations and that is just a facade. They are rather supporting Fethullah Gülen. The americans are not pleased at all that Ankara puts its focus on a Eurasia interests rather than the NATO. Considering the VERY, very, very, very bad reputations the americans have in middle east, I would not be surprised at all that the CIA has something to do with it. That does not excuse all those arrestations... unless they are widely exagerated? As always, I know that someday we will find out the truth. One thing for sure, for the very very very little I know, it seems that I do know more than you.

23% is the recent number. It was 25% in 1980. It was 35% in 1867. You are again mixing up federal laws and constitution. I see it is a concept you have a severe difficulty to understand. I have explained you many times but you still fail to understand. I will take another approach. What is your understanding of the House of Common's role vs the constitution's role? I exposed the decisions and actions that have been done. What they wanted and what is the result. You quoted a man that tried to justify the 180 degrees change of the english provinces. The premiers were adults. They must assume the consequences of their decisions. If you think I am not saying the truth, prove it. What the Gang of 8 wanted? What Trudeau wanted? What Lévesque wanted? What the Gang of 8 obtained? What Trudeau obtained? What Lévesque obtained? The outcome is that the constitution is 100% aligned on what the english Canada wanted and Québec is excluded. It was, it is still and will never be acceptable for a nation to be that much dominated on the supreme rules such as a constitution. But you seems to be unable to understand what is a constitution and its role. I have alot in common with your ancestors. You do not. That's the irony. French language was banned from public schools in most of the western provinces at the time of your grand-parents and the youth of your parents. English Canada has taken away from you and your parents a cultural heritage that was in your blood line for several centuries. If Canada would have NOT banned it, what would have happened? You would be bilingual by now. You would be able to speak french and english just like me. Your ancestors would not be foreigners to you. What have been done, is done. If you do not care about that, it regards only you and it is not of my business. However, my culture is well alive and I intend to preserve it. I am from a different nation and my nation must have a say over the constitution. If you have a problem with that, then Canada must be divided. oh yes, I am very aware it looks ridiculous from your point of view. When you will understand why you are wrong, you will then be ashamed. For some reasons, you still fail to understand the difference between regions of a same nation and different nations. Compared to the Europeans, you are 500 years behind. They are above 20 different nations, speaking above 20 different languages and yet, they manage to maintain a union. Not without difficulties. It's a huge challenge but, they are working on it. We are only two (besides the natives) and we are not able to agree on a constitution. Our experience of living together should give us a huge advantage but we waste it all the time because of residual piece of this former british empire where you think that domination is the natural course. If you are asking an anglo in Quebec "are you Québécois?", he will reply to you "I am Canadian". They belong to the english canadian nation, not Québec nation. It's their choice, not mine. Whether Trudeau considers himself a Québécois or an english canadian is totally irrelevant. I judge him by his choices, not by his cultural belonging. On the morning of november 5th, he created the best reason ever Québec would need to separate from Canada. I insist on the fact that he betrayed Québec. What he has done is totally unacceptable. Despite all that, I understand why he did it. In his mindset, the culture is irrelevant to politic. For him, the rule of law is the only thing that matter. He was not capable to see how the culture has a direct link to the rules. Laws are directly influenced by people's values and those values are part of the culture. Trudeau had a french dad and an english mom. His own experience made him think that a State a law is the answer to everything. He thought that his solution would avoid cultural disputes. Shut up mom, shut up dad, the law is the law, comply and that's it. He was very imbued of himself and he was not the kind of guy to admit his wrong decisions. I could discussed for a long time about him but, it is complex and I would do it much better in french. That's an explanation, not an excuse. The constitution is snapchat of english canadian values of that time and he made it very difficult to modify. Worst than giving a veto to Québec. So as time advances and values are changing, the constitution will become an irritating issue in the future, even for english Canada. oh I do understand that it is your mindset. But it is not the truth. You have a very childish disney point of view where I am a bad guy and you are therefore the good guy. It means that whatever I say is bad, and whatever you say is good. Very binary. You are not even giving yourself the chance to understand the point of view of the sovereignists. That's is why you prefer to call them separatists. It suits better your understanding to the whole thing. In 1990, I was 17 years old, in secondary 5 and I did a speech to my classmates about the importance of Meech. I was telling them that we most move on and accept to build Canada as active partners. I told them that the time of independence is irrelevant part of history. That we can get in Canada with Meech everything we would have as independent. When english Canada let Meech died, I was in shock. Bourrassa is a federalist, not a separatist. What are their excuse now? Then I understood the big picture. Respect is not something you ask. It is something you impose. We must not ask Canada to give us a veto. We must get our sovereignty and then tell Canada, here is the deal. We are equal partners on the constitution or we quit. We are not asking alot. I do not want an advantage for Québec in the House of Common. I do not want that the rules are applied differently on a Québécois. The rules must be the same for every one. The only thing we asked is that we set the rules of the constitution together. That's it! But we are not asking anymore. We understand that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand by yourself. So we most become sovereign and impose it. If there is no deal, then full independence will be the outcome and I am fine with it. It is very childish from you to say that we are the ones not in good faith while the history shows the exact opposite. Whether it is the sovereignist Lévesque in 1981, or the federalist Bourrassa in 1990, or anyone else in our history, it always been the same thing. English Canada wants to keep its domination above the french. To accomplish that, they forced the french outside Québec to lose their culture and be assimilated to them. Your are the proof yourself. Pull the plug off of your traditional separatist hatred and use your brain to imagine what Canada would have been now if Meech would have pass. How the "separatists" would do to motivate people to separate Québec from Canada? How many separatists would there be by now? I would definitely not be one of them. Whenever the federal would do something that Québec does not agree, Québec would have just use an opt out. Plain and simple. No more fights. Blocking constitutional changes? How many changes happened since 1982? It would not be a perfect world, but there would be solutions to work on. Unlike now where separations seems to be the only solution.

They did far worst than that. If you want to known how bad the foreign policies of USA were in the last 60 years, I strongly suggest you to watch the documentary The Untold History of USA by Oliver Stone. Canada use to have a better reputation but, we are not 100% clean either. We were accomplice by association of the guerilla activities causing death and damages among civilians by closing our eyes on a canadian company our leaders knew they were sponsoring it. Be cautious Altai. You belong to the turkish people, not your political leaders. A healthy democratic country allows you to be critical to your leaders. But in regards of what happened recently, your democracy is experiencing a dark time. If you close your eyes on those actions, you become an accomplice and you do not serve the interests of your nation which are in contradiction of your leader's interests. 99% of the time, when a war occurs, it's because of leaders' political interests, not because of the people. Same principle for all possible political conflicts.

Your country already have a car industry. Alot of companies are employing your people. It is not necessarly a bad idea to have a turkish car but, it's a very competitive world. Make sure you know what you are trying to do that. I am not sure buying a duck with a broken wing is the solution. I do not know very well the industries and your economy but, I am sure the nationalisation of few enterprises in your country could benefit you more than any capitalists would admit. Mostly regarding resources and all kind of energy sources. I doubt the reports you are talking about are fakes. The Erdogan's "coup d'état" is certainly having a bad effect but, nothing to bring down your economy. The major financial companies are rats that get allergic to anything that is not stable. You snooze, they freak out. They are responsaible of the 2008's crash and they made the biggest stealing in human history with the complicity of many governments, mostly USA. With the consequences that honest citizens are getting robbed by the ones who are responsible for their losses. So whenever they tell something about the economy, my usual answer is, "yeah, whatever".

Having an influence and ruling are not the same thing. It's normal that more than 25% of the population has an influence. It does not mean they rule. Father Trudeau is not a francophone to me. If you insist that he is, then I have to say he is the biggest traitor in our history. Trudeau's constitution is the main reason why I prefer to separate rather than the status quo. Chrétien worked against Québec like if we were his enemies. But you have the feeling that he worked for us because he was giving so much money to his own friends in Québec. The people did not benefit from it, only his friends. Mulroney is anglo. It does not mean much that he is coming from Québec. I had more respect for him than for Chrétien and Trudeau. But I consider that he betrayed us and himself with the Charlottetown referendum. They all come from Québec and Québec did not benefit from it. Even if Harper was the exact opposite of what I expect a prime minister to be and that I had no affinity with his politics, unlike the ones I mentioned, he did not work against Québec. Often, his politics were the contrary of what we want but, he did those to serve the country the way he thoughts it should be. With one exception, it was not an attack against us. Unlike the others, like when Chrétien did his Sponsorship scandal. Trudeau, Chrétien and many others coming from Québec, did attack directly Québec to give us trouble and it was their intention. I have told you the exactly what the Gang of 8 wanted, what they were agreeing on and what they did not. I told you what was the position of Trudeau and what he wanted. I have put information that you can confirm or invalidate if you want. But you don't. Instead, you provide the opinion of a man that brings NO information. That man totally avoids to justify his opinion that the group of 8 had nothing in common despite they all signed the same document saying they all agree. When you have an opinion going in the opposite way of the facts, you have to bring a minimum of justification. Total fail. In the second paragraph you quoted, he is explaining exactly how the 9 english provinces betrayed us. It's pathetic. They were not aware of the content? So what, they signed it!!!!! No excuses! But the worst of its biased analysis is... WTF? His 7 partners changed their mind and were now on the side of Trudeau despite Trudeau never gave them what they want. They accepted the Trudeau's deal. It was too late. There was nothing more to negotiate at that time. Trudeau got every thing he wanted from the English provinces. He had no intention to honor the deal he promised to Lévesque. The fate was already sealed. Trudeau was NEVER open the door to a veto to Québec, nor even let a province to opt out with compensation. There is a difference only when the english are not a majority. Whether you kill someone with a gun or a knife, it does not change anything to the fact that you killed someone. No matter how, the principle remains. The english are in a situation where they have a monopoly over the constitution and it is unfair. Donc, tu parles français n'est-ce pas? If not, how do you explain that? Really? Can you demonstrate what you are saying for once? Tu parles toujours à travers ton chapeau. Explain me how I do not try to understand english. I understand it too well.

You are outdated. They want a Tesla I think blaming one generation for everything is a clear abuse. It's the divide and conquered approach to make a diversion on the real source of the problem.

The Canada you describe has no link to the actual reality. You are living in a fiction or parallel world. You are ignorant and ... can't say it without being banned. Stop your futile judgement about things you do not know and keep up with the facts. Facts: -Lévesque convinced all provinces but Ontario and NB, to force the federal to give the provinces an Opt Out. They were called the group of eight. -Lévesque has proposed to let go the traditional claim of getting a veto for Québec if the previous point was to be adopted. -Trudeau finally said, ok, I will accept your terms but I have one condition, there must be a referendum. -Lévesque said, ok, tomorrow I will try to convince the others. -During the night, Trudeau contacted the others and they discussed without Lévesque. He convinced them to betray Lévesque, to accept only his terms and in exchange, there would be no referendum. -The *auto-censored* prime ministers have all accepted. They gave up on everything that was important to them, just to make sure Québec does not get anything, even if they would get the same thing. Lévesque was defeated in the referendum at 40% the previous year. He had no intention to break up the country. On the contrary. By giving up the veto, he demonstrated that he was ready to move on to something else. What you do not understand is, Trudeau gave Québec a much better reason to separate than any independentist ever did. When they did a referendum in 1980, it was because we feared the day that Canada would betray us and set the rules without us. We voted no and the next year, our fear became true. You are not trust worthy and we (both sovereignists and federalists) gave you alot of opportunities to solve that issue. No, there was another option. It was the main option. The option supported by the group of 8 until they betrayed Québec. That option was to give the provinces an Opt Out with full compensation. Québec was asking to particular rights or veto. You screwed it up big time. It's because you failed us that now we need a veto. You are not trust worthy. The best example is the way you avoid the history and rewrite it. Trust me, I will not stop to bring back your face into your own shit. The more you will ignore it, the more I will bring it back to your face. What are you talking about? The majority of french speaking people in Québec has only incidences on Québec politics. You are mixed up. English has a veto through the number of its people. Veto is not horrible when necessary. Absence of veto IS horrible when it is needed. It explains why the natives and alot of french outside Québec faced cultural genocides. We are not your sub group. We do not belong to you. You cannot talk in our name. The fact that you outnumber us does not give you the legitimated right to ignore us. Especially when your ancestors are responsible of the cultural genocides. I do not fit in your version of Canada. There are no room for us.

The differences between generations is not a new phenomenon. Confucious said, your son is not your son, he is the son of his time. The technologies are increasing the gap though. I do not need to say more because I would only repeat what Big Guy already said.

Why not? Do you prefer to see right wing extremist new comers inflating the ranks of the conservatives? What is the need for Canada to import people who think gays should be slaughtered? Maybe we are missing the chance to have someone meeting our ideals because that extremist took the place. For those who are already here, they have a grandfather clause. This is very common in with the justice. When a new rule arrives, some people can have a Droit Acquis (sorry I do not know the expression in english). For example, if a city passes a law that the citizens can no longer have a caravan on their land, all the people having a caravan prior the law benefit from the exception. It happens often in many circumstances. When the rules of an admission are changed, the people already admitted are not affected. It only screens the new comers. That is very common. I do not believe in the efficiency proposed in this thread but, I do not agree with your point either. I am way more concerned about who would be the judge of that screening test and how it would be managed.

I went in Cuba (Varadero) in 1991. So I am not a good reference. The hotel was new and I had a good time. But I know someone who went to the same hotel 20 years later and it was not comparable.

Did you use preliminaries with yourself before you created yourself?

Very surprising final. I did not expect it. On paper, it should be a demolition. Canada is so strong, it's like comparing two different levels of EAsport NHL video game. But that European team has been so surprising so far, they should be able to give a good opposition. Maybe surprise them if Canada relaxes too much. But I wouldn't bet on that.

Who is the driver? When the english command the destination and the french has no say, the french is in the wrong vehicle. English Canada HAS a veto. No one can change the federalism without the approval of the english Canada. Indeed. In a normal federation, a senate is suppose to compensate those difference. Unfortunatly, in Canada, the senators or the higher chamber are chosen by the prime minister of the lower chamber, instead of by the regions they are suppose to represent. That makes the senate totally irrelevant. I do not deny that possibility. However, the history is saying that YOU are the one not in good faith and WE are the ones paying the price. After the betrayal of 1981, we do not trust you anymore. That is why we need that veto. So the next time, there would be a REAL negotiation. Lévesque has proposed you a system where Québec has no veto and look what you have done. You back stabbed him. To late now. That is why even the Quebec federalists want a veto. English and French are two different nations. A veto is necessary. No, because the 7/50 assumes that Québec is just a province among the others and that we are all english canadians. It's not the case. Québec is a different nation. I repeat, I have no problem that the House of Common is dominated by the english people. I have no problem that the english people has a bigger say regarding the federal politics. As long as Québec has the power on what regards our politics, the rest is just normal. Regarding the constitution, it's a total different story. Constitution has the supreme rules of the country. The government is not suppose to change the constitution all the time according to its own desire. Otherwise the constitution is irrelevant. It's too important to be the exclusive choice of the majority, especially when there are more than one nation that must follow those rules. If the rules are to be applied on all of us, then we must have a say and agree on those rules. English and French are more alike than they want to admit. It's not that difficult to get along and it should be easy to agree on the terms. The only reason we can't, is because you do not have to. It's because you can set the rules and we have to shut up and obey. That's why the little differences between us are irritating to a point where we rather separate than the status quo. 50,6% of the Québécois gave you another chance in 1995. Among that 50,6%, there are the english that see themselves as canadians, not Québécois. That's alot of unsatisfied people ready to quit. If you want to stay stubborn and keep an exclusive ownership on the constitution at the expense of the Québécois, be my guest. Eventually Québec will quit and it will solve your problem for goods. The veto will no longer be an issue. You will be able to keep you 7/50 rule just as you wish. But if Québec quits, how will you keep that country together? Who will be your scapegoat after we leave? You will not be able to blame Québec for all your misfortune.

Note to myself, never ask TimG recommendations on which car to buy. lolll It's definitely NOT like comparing two cars. Monarchy is not something you choose. You do not get a Toyota because the owner has blue blood. Very bad comparison/analogy.

Involved yes. For sure. Still, it's easy. Unless you think Gambia is far more superior than Canada.

No, actually, it is easy. All Canada has to do is saying "you are not my queen anymore". It's that easy.

What advantage Canada has with a Queen over France and USA?

She is not Canada. Canada gives her a role. Canada has the possibility to get rid of her but, it's not doing it.

Is she god as well?

We created god at the image of our conception of a moral superiority.

In all video games, when we set a god mode, we can't die or feel pain. So John Lennon is not a gamer.

Cybercoma is deyning my sentense "under the british queen". I did not say under a british crown. She is british, she is our queen. What I said is true. I was also asking if it is normal that she is the sovereign of Canada. How did she got that function? The people elected her? I am totally against the principle that a person can get a role based on its blood and genetic. Especially when it is such an important role. It's very monachist to think it's normal. The Queen of Canada is British, not Canadian.

Of course it did not. How could it be? Where did I could possibly said something that would suggest that?