SkyHigh

Vue que la qualité de votre anglais est si pitoyables, je peux avec tout confiance, dire que je suis sûr que ton français n'est pas a un niveau suffisant d'avoir une opinion valide par rapport au Québec

Again you speak to solvency, which I not only didn't mention, I in fact share your concerns that handled as they are now will not continue to be sustainable, regardless of if you're for or against. What i did do, is ask two very direct and simple questions 1. How do you define social welfare program? Agreement over at least a working definition of a possibly politically contentious or subjective word is always the first step to any discussion when both parties want good faith, ernest dialogue 2. Are you against such things as EI and pensions? This one you at least answered, and with an affirmation of support, in contradiction to your original statement "end all the social programs our economy pays for". The third law of logic, "excluded middle" states something is either true or not true, so which is it you do agree with social welfare or you don't? How the "program" is run is irrelevant to does it have merit

If that's your definition i would tend to agree Unfortunately that's not the widely accepted definition which most certainly includes such things as EI and pensions

I did not inquire about the long term financial feasibility of these programs, but if they had merit. I did though inquire about your statement that we should "end ALL the social welfare programs our economy pays for"". So are you willing to walk that back, or is this just a partisan hyperbolic rant?

Again, please define "social welfare programs" as you understand it Again, are you against things like EI and old age pensions?

My lord you're daft. I asked a question, no "point" was even attempted

Im curious to how you would both define "social welfare program" Are you against, public education, old age security, EI etc.. ?

Only a trump supporter braggs about an obvious idiot getting through to the masses, probably why you rank lower in education than most of the free world. Maybe he is a good representation of the intelligence level of the average American. Silly me i gave y'all more credit than that

Your continuous attempts to divert the conversation from YOU, offering up Chrétiens communication style to offset Trumps inability to speak above a 6 grade level, is in essence a taside agreement/acceptance that the man displays an obvious cognitive decline, objectively demonstrable by simply listening to(or reading) , anything that comes out his mouth not crafted by a speach writer(were we could also infer limited reading abilities based on cadence, enunciation and comprehension) It's widely accepted that the measure of ones understanding of a particular subject, is reflected in their ability to explain it to a layman. Therefore logic follows that a man unable to even speak in complete sentences, can not be given (nor does he deserve) any credit for anything, either positive or negative, attributed to the time his "administration" spends in office, but conversely the simplistic, ignorant, uneducated, unread, untruthful, incoherent way he does speak has exponentially coarsened the political discourse i.e. Libtard, orange Nazi etc.. One could argue the merits of populism, agree the "little guy" is being forgotten, love freedom, even want to "make america great again" etc... etc... Trumps entire existence has been based on untruths, always choosing style over substance(of course that being because other than daddy's money has never displayed any actual substance) His only real skill is shameless self promotion, and he is without doubt an amazing self promoter. The fact is that not only is he ignorant and unaware of the complexity of the issues faced by the working class in the US(or anywhere for that matter) he doesn't care Like they say a proof, is a proof, is a proof

You made the comparison in regards to ability to communicate. Like i said nothing to do with how you feel about his politics, Chrétiens wit is undeniable None of what you just wrote addresses the fact Trump can't form cohesive, coherent sentences, while only being able to use the vocabulary of a primary schooler

Ive personally met Chrétien. The "little guy from Shawinigan" is and was a character he played(to great success I may add) and used it to make him more relatable to the common person. Agree or disagree with his politics there's no denying he's a brilliant man. Chrétien worked for or headed numerous ministries before becoming leader, and demonstrated an understanding of the complexity gov't. Now juxtaposed to trump a man with no political experience, and at best moderate success in business, who displays an almost nonexistent understanding of the complexity of government, the comparison is weak at best. Heck, Jean speaking in his second language purposefully making errors is still able to form more cohesive and comprehensive sentences than Donny can in his only language.

This "declaration" seems like a rehash of the Quebec separatists handbook, just without the linguistic, cultural, or historical factors that justified their perception of being second class citizens. (saying Alberta has its own culture is kinda funny to me) I don't see this doing anything other than rile up the extremists

With all due respect, i honestly have no idea what you're trying to get across or how it pertains to what ive said. I look forward to some clarification, as I am genuinely intrigued a would like to understand your point

1. Grammar is hard, mon français est même pire 3.Then some 2. Now that's a substantive criticism, and is most likely true. Probably the biggest reason i came on this forum was to improve my ability to communicate on paper. Both personally and professionally ive avoided writting like the plague, and because of that i have a clear deficiency to properly portray my personality and intellect if I can't communicate in person. Any constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated

There was a "Well" I will (and have on this very forum), openly admitted to not having the best command of the written language. That being said as you seem to be more concerned with style than substance, I'll leave you to argue semantics with anyone but me

Oh Dude, if you think "easy as redefining Confederation" was intended as a literal expression of the simplicity involved in a complete overhaul of our government, including splitting up Quebec and joining half of it with their mortal enemy Toronto, and not a tongue and cheak comment made to express the obvious utopic sentiment behind the possibility. Well there's words for that as well, granted they're almost exclusively former clinical terms used to describe the mentally challenged, but if the shoe fits I do appreciate how you've identified yourself as someone not worth engaging with in the future though

I think it's as easy a redefining Confederation which is essentially a loose assembly of states which excepts some form of centralization to achieve common goals The lines we've drawn(provinces) don't properly represented the geographical differences and issues faced in Canada, here's how i would split it up. Maritimes plus northern Quebec Quebec city to Toronto Western Ontario and Manitoba Alberta and Saskatchewan B.C These of course are general guidelines, but i feel these separations correspond to the regional reality in Canada Separated in this manner with a fortification of regional autonomy, and a diminution of centralized power would better respond to each "states" specific needs while still maintaining a Canadian standard. Hell even if the 95 referendum passed as written, Bouchard expressed the need for some kind of pan-canadian parliament Thoughts?

If you're not even going to read what I've written don't bother responding I have given multiple examples of professions i think should be in some sort of union (in our direct conversation), as well as a generalized statement that those professions that contribute to society that most people can't or wont do need to be represented by a unionized body i.e. peace officers, firefighters etc... So if all you have are strawman arguments i see no reason to continue this conversation You're playing semantics, that was money received by and exclusively dedicated to those in the Ontario teachers union.the point was there scope and power, so all you did was make a difference without a distinction. When did I say they weren't? What I did say is that they ostensibly fill the same role, in the same building, working in concert, yet are treated like two different classes of worker. If the union cared they would fight just as hard for everyone in the educational industry and not just the select few, so again unions don't care about all workers rights just the ones that pay their salaries

Are you saying that if the liquor store employees can't trade shifts(we had an SAQ strike for this very reason recently) provincial labour boards will cease to exist? Of course your not but this is a great example of the "work" unions do now a days. The Ontario teachers union(I do think there should be a union for teachers) have the money to be majority share holders of the maple leafs, but EAs(educational assistant) people employed in the same buildings with the same goals, take pay cuts, diminishing hours and benifits, while the teachers union says nothing, again helping me myself and I whith no care about the conditions of others. How does that help?

You need to take a little time to read what I've already written, because you're arguing against a point i not only agree with but have conceded to on this very thread. I clearly stated that at their origins not only were unions necessary, but are responsible for many of the advances in workers rights. Today the situation is quite different, we have established workers rights, and in my opinion unions today (again if you read what ive written, I still think some professions require some sort of collective association to represent them, ie; doctors, social workers, engineers, etc...) are just a way to create different classes of worker, those in a union and those without. If these people supposedly care about the well being of workers(of course some do) than why not work towards all workers being treated fairly and not just those paying their salaries? A small anecdotal example, bombardier a unionized shop pays the guy that sweeps the floor 20 somthing dollars an hour, but in a nonunion shop that same job pays minimum wage(not to mention the other numerous advantages the unionized employee gets), is the non union worker not worthy of the same pay? Of course not, yet never once heard of a union stewart at bombardier advocating for the rights of workers not giving them dues. How does give ME more but who cares about the other guy help society? Do you think the workers in the Winnipeg general strike cared only about their profession? Of course not multiple industries workers came out to say that general conditions for all needed improvement.Can you honestly say thats still the underlying motivation of all unions today?

Thats the just the Marxist theory, of socialism not the accepted definition in political science, you also omitted(purposely or not) the operative word in the Marxist definition of socialism which is "overthrow" So the Marxist theory of socialism is; the transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Who's "overthrowing" ? And who do you know advocating for the realization of communism? Again the accepted definition is that socialism is that all means of production are controlled by the state, something no body is advocating for

This is a silly topic Socialism is defined as; a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. As I can presently purchase things produced, distributed, and exchanged through private companies, Canada is demonstrably not a socialist country. Social programs in a capitalist economy don't make it socialist, even the states(closest thing the world has seen to true free market economy) has a strong history of socialized programs. So again the question posed with this thread in itself is ridiculous.

My point here was simply a response to a previous claim that unions were necessary in the protection of workers rights. My argument more specifically is, the effort spent by many, even assuming they're acting with good faith to fortify the working conditions of just those in their organization, would be better spent solidifying the working conditions for everyone by focusing on the laws that govern every citizen and not exclusively the ones that justify their salaries. You said it best with "most are settled" , where actual laws exist, employers respect them, or will at least submit to legislation This leads me to the moral side (or at least my perception of morality) is it moral to care only about your well being, while systematically refusing to deal with the others, that are in the exact same situation, but don't belong to the group you identify with? Is it moral to claim that certain workers have "rights" but those "rights" only apply to the people that give you dues?

You're right, "Some" is an important word and if i gave the impression that all unions are inherently corrupt i apologize. I would even take your point farther, i personally know people much farther left than me who do incredible things in and around organized labour and I have work for some unscrupulous owners.

The experience of minorities in Quebec is most definitely full of nuance. The contributions of minorities ie Jewish, Greek, Portuguese etc..are undeniable yet often ignored especially from those advocating for separation, in fact I feel one of the major stumbling blocks to Quebec fully integrating into the "Canadian ideal" is that they're(politicians, media, etc..) quick to bring up concerns that revolve around, perceived or valid afronts to their linguistic minority, but at the same time refuse to acknowledge the influence and treatment of minorities in the province. Here I made a point to talk about "protection of the french language" and not solely Quebec, as they do not speak for every francophone, and I resent when separatists claim Quebec is the only french nation in North America, willfully omitting,Franco Ontarienne,Franco Manitobain, Acadiens, etc.... My roots are Acadian( the first and longest existing french nation) but because i was born in Toronto and speak with an accent( though im essentially bilingual,with more french blood coursing through my viens than anything else) im perceived as an Anglophone. Here i must respectfully disagree, though language has been used as a pretext(bill 101 of course an exception, as it serves one purpose and is independent of separation) it(language) I feel was just used as a manner to coalesce people around a political issue(levesques political genius) and if any other jurisdiction could come together in the same way similar results would arise, also the shear size of Quebec(25% of our population) and it's proximity to Ontario(economic motor of Canada) which together represent 60% of our population, are major contributors