Leafless

More cautious about what? Listening to you? "Poor ignorant lackey" should come as a compliment. IMO that is what you are, 'a poor misinformed servile political follower' as indicated by your assholic replies. You should smarten up and reply in a mannerism that reflects intelligent well thought out reasons to support your line of thought rather then reply in a childish manner that mocks and belittles a post and poster that you might not be in agreement with.

That is your opinion. Rights don't grow on trees. Rights are fought for and not handed out like candy by what can be viewed, as by a traitorous Liberal government and a handful of undemocratic corrupt politicians. Oh yeah, I forgot your a Commie fan. Poor ignorant lackey! Poor ignorant lackey! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. There you go! Can't tell an insult from a compliment.

It is not arbitrary. I provided proof that the word 'Quebecois' does not have a single exclusive definition. I cited a reference that the word 'Quebecois' has different meanings and is not suited to describe 'all residents of Quebec' many of who want 'no connection' to the word Quebecois. The word 'Quebecer' appropriately describes all residents of Quebec. Your the one who is inconsistent with your definition of Quebecois and trying to label my definition as arbitrary, when in fact I am proving you wrong concerning the word Quebecois as being not accurate in describing all residents of Quebec since it has SEVERAL meanings. Here is what you said: Post #249: "Quebecois has nothing to do with nationalism" Well the fact is Quebec nationalist and separatist call themselves Quebecois. Post#251: " Quebecois is a resident of Quebec regardless of language or background" Not true. My link provided proof that the Quebecois does not exclusively say that. Post #253 "Regardless I don't think Anglophone residents seem to bother you....Your the one trolling an arbitrary definition." Anglophone residents do certainly concern me and most if not all do not want to be identified with the word Quebecois.

France ceded all North American rights to the British in the 'Treaty of Paris'. French only carries constitutional legal weight in the province of Quebec and the racial discriminatory undemocratic charter that recognizes French 'only under federal entities' but NOT PROVINCIALLY speaking. For Mr. Dion to retain his French citizenship especially as a potential PM in waiting, demonstrates contempt for the country of Canada since it conflicts with the fact, it was Britain that gave us our constitution and not France, the other country that lost to the British. Mr. Dion should wake up and acknowledge retaining his French citizenship will only hamper his chances of potentially becoming Canada's next PM.

The federal government making French an 'official language' of Canada is only valid under federal entities and racially discriminates against the majority English language, since the government of Canada has no business UNILATERALLY dictating language policies. This basically all stems from the B&B Royal Commission which at that time consisted of nothing more than a Liberal government inquiry. It should be noted constitutionally speaking only Quebec is entitled to the legal use of the French language. But since France relating to the 'Treaty of Paris' all of French North America were ceded to Britain by France except the two small islands St.Pierre and Miquelon off of the south shore of Newfoundland. This means French has NO LEGAL BASIS in all of the other provinces in Canada excluding New Brunswick that is a 'officially bilingual province' by its own FREE CHOICE. For the federal government of Canada to make French a working language of the federal government and to promote French in provinces out of its jurisdiction could be seen as a traitorous action by our own federal government. The biggest joke of all is when Liberal Don Bourdia appeared on t.v., endorsed the politically correct fraud that: "...Canada is a bilingual nation with 'linguistic duality, and that since the Quebec Act of 1774 ...both founding nations are equal partners", which is absolutely a false claim.

???Maybe it is just me but I get the feeling of slipping through a sci-fi time warp on this one.... One of us is clearly losing it. English Canadians have been politically stifled by years of Liberals rule and conditioned to accept undemocratic and racist language policies and were never given the LEGAL opportunity to respond to very important issues concerning OUR constitution. Everyone I know, especially relating to political conversations, dislike the Liberals with a poisonous venom relating to the Charter and the political snow job they pulled of on the English speaking majority of this country or rather third rate BANANA REPUBLIC.

I have every right to complain about Dion retaining his French citizenship, the reason primary being it goes back to the 'Plains of Abraham' and shows a disrespect for our inherited British constitution and the country of Canada. Canada's language policies ARE racist and are VALID and I make NO apologies for that. It is a big deal especially when the government of Canada unilaterally writes racial discrimination into our constitution. I don't have any hate towards anyone, but the federal government writing a racist policy into our constitution is a major issue. Are you denying that the creation of Canada's 'official languages' 'OLA' were not prompted by FLQ activities and concerns. French is the language of France. When compared to the majority language of Canada, English, notwithstanding the federal government's definition of 'official languages' which does not reflect the reality of Canada and excludes the provinces, all but New Brunswick being officially bilingual, then yes, IMO French is a foreign language. Not quite true. I knew separatist in the federal government who were there for the cool cash. They were so separatist they use to dress in jeans with a picture of Rene Leveque laminated to their back jean pocket. This is one of the things what official bilingualism has done to our federal government. It has forced management into a difficult position to enforce rules in maintaining a level of respect for our 'Queen' as 'Head of State' and the enforcement of a proper dress code as to not ridicule our federal government.

You are trolling again as I really can't believe anyone being as naive and ignorant to the factual truth as you. Post your proof when you make a controversial statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois The rest of your post is not worth replying to as it is evident no English speaking person would go to the trouble and ridiculous lengths you do to support such an undemocratic initiative as 'official bilingualism' in the federal public service. 'Official bilingualism' in the federal public service is totally 'out of control' by implementing an inferior foreign (separatist supported including 50% of the population of Quebec) language to control the the most sensitive workings of government that all of Canada ultimately depends on. The federal government of Canada is providing Canadians a disservice by leading Canada down a very dangerous path. I quote your source: "But may also" does not mean "exclusively". Regardless, I don't think Anglophone residents of Québec seem to bother you, so it's a non-issue... you're the one trolling on an arbitrary definition. If you like we can agree to use Québécois to refer exclusively to Francophone residents of Québec for the purpose of this thread, but instead you just suggest that I'm a French Nationalist despite the fact that I don't like Québec because of it's socialism and I would never live there. Arbitrary definition? It is obvious you don't have a clue what the word means. The definition (Quebecois) from my source, that you quoted IS FROM AN INFORMED SORCE and has no single exclusive meaning to what a Quebecois is. To describe English Quebecers, immigrant Quebecers and French Quebecers who describe themselves differently, the only word that can be used to cover ALL residents of Quebec is word what even the Prime Minister of the country refers to Quebec residents and that word is QUEBECERS. I know this is hard for you to understand, not being a resident of Quebec.

And you have to ask yourself why? Canada is the only country in the world to implement a major amendment to Canada's constitution (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, human rights legislation) and deny proper representation to Canadians to be part of decision making process concerning this very controversial document. I consider this a slap in the face to be denied this basic right. Now back to the point. The only group to benefit the most from the Charter is Quebec. In fact if you study the document it is clear the the Charter was built around Quebec to force Quebec ideologies including language into Canada. Other groups gained from the Charter but no group comes close to what the charter has undemocratically done for Quebec. IMO the main reason the charter was IMPOSED on Canadians was because of the failure of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord and the inability of Quebec to advance its prosperity due to its self imposed language restrictions discouraging investment in that province. You seem to be having comprehension problems lately. Maybe you should take some time off and go and chew on a candy bar or something.

Of course Canada's federal government practices separation of church and state which I agree with fully. But it also allows freedom of religion, with of course the majority religion Christianity, leaving all of Canada's other religions far behind. Therefore Canada is Not a secular state like you would like everyone to believe. The only point I was making is the hypocrisy of the federal government in trying to have everyone believe that Canada is a secular country by catering to the tiny percentage of homosexual perverts to prove their point. It really makes you wonder how much longer the majority of Canadian citizens will continue to allow the federal government to poop in their faces.

Then stay out of the gay bars. You don't have to listen. I wouldn't go near a gay bar to begin with. But political sites (which I am referring to) like this one are over represented with gays who make it their business to propagate and flood the threads when the opportunity arises to preach their unpopular, antichristian. unorthodox, and anti-capitalistic views.

You are incapable of keeping anything short and sweet. I am ready for any argument but don't deal with people like you who are unable to focus your reply on what you have 'quoted' without dragging in the whole thread, that includes your unsubstantiated nonsensical replies that I have not accepted. If you think you have won, kindly describe what you have won?

No, I mean giving Quebec the tools to remain aloof and nationalistically independent from all other provinces, in order to allow the undemocratic influence and spread of a useless minority language to actually have a direct undemocratic influence and impact, in beating down the English language with its primary purpose of stealing English employment. It seems you have great difficulty understanding that the cult of Quebec only cares about its own nationalistic existence. French politicians ensure on enforcing these traitorous actions in making this a reality. And I get sick and tired of that loud mouthed tiny percentage of homosexuals preaching paganism and a classless society.

Kapitan Robert Everything in your above post as already been covered in this thread many times. You keep coming back with the same old unsubstantiated personal opinion and it is obvious you don't know the meaning of undemocratic federal government initiatives and discriminatory policies which forms the basis and purpose of this thread. It also is apparent you are unable to reply with a few short meaningful sentences but prefer to reply in a relative useless 'mumble jumble' lengthy type reply. It makes no sense to carry out any further debate with you.

You are trolling again as I really can't believe anyone being as naive and ignorant to the factual truth as you. Post your proof when you make a controversial statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

Which doesn't describe Canada at all. You're still free to spout your nonsense, same with ScottSA. This is a mockery, and an insult to people who actually live in a police state. No, sorry. You are simply to naive to understand what years of Liberal rule did to Canada and all being meticulously planned to accomplish what the French failed to do on the 'Plains of Abraham'. Unilaterally, meaning totally ignoring the Canadian electorate, via totalitarianism and social control, the Liberals have transformed Canada into a country that harbours the political interest of Quebec. This includes the spread and acceptance of Canada being a secular state by catering to a tiny percentage of perverts, (homosexuals) to accomplish this, in their quest to destroy the dominating English language and Christianity.

" A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state You got it! And you forgot to throw in a little Marxism, that could also be in the cards.

The sad thing is you have no idea how silly that statement is. You are probably totally impervious to the knowledge that your comment there is illogical and self-contradictory. The only reason gays are recognized as being 'equal' is that we live in a police state controlled by judicial rule, who live in a Liberal fantasy land invented by Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

Animals don't know any better but man does know the difference between right and wrong relating to abnormal perversions. For a federal government to support perverted sexual acts is counterproductive to society at large and is only encouraging the acceptance of other perversions. Strange indeed government SUPPORTS separation of church and state but can't keep its clammy hands out of supporting abnormal sexual perversions.

Quebec is responsible for their own immigration policy unlike the ROC. Why then are they allowing immigration from groups that have been proven to be culturally troublesome or inferior? Regardless you are simply verifying how incompatible and intolerant Quebec is in many areas and why they should just pack up and leave.

Mother nature by definition, relating to the animal world, is a society of poor brainless creatures in relationship to the brain power possessed by man. How you somehow can make a comparison relating to animals and normal homosexuality and drag 'man' down to the level of dumb animals is extremely condescending to the human race in general. I will suggest to you, to search out a more appropriate way of promoting the gay lifestyle, since choosing the 'animal world' to justify homosexuality as 'normal' only illustrates the lowly mental capacity of gays as being on the same level as 'poor dumb animals'.

That is what the problem is when you refer to 'Quebecers' as 'Quebecois', as it adds a political dimension and as a result, does NOT identify ALL residents of Quebec appropriately. You are purposely confusing the association of a 'federal official language' to that of a commonly spoken national language. The TWO are not related. English 'nationally' speaking, is the majority language of all provinces excluding 'officially French province of Quebec' and 'officially bilngual' province of New Brunswick Regardless I fail to see your point as primarily there are monolingual federal public servants and you are magnifying (again) the racial discriminatory self imposed hiring conditions of the federal public service. If that is the case why has the federal government 'unilaterally' made French an 'official language'. It is obvious warring federal parties continue to corrupt the political system in favour, in the case of Quebec an ongoing linguistic war. This is one politically dysfunctional country at a HUGE undemocratic and financial expense. During the Jean Chretien era as PM, he incorporated a 'decentralization program' thus moving federal departments to other provinces. Quebec gained more than any other province in Canada from this decentralization program. Furthermore are you unable to accept the plain common sense logic that Ottawa being the capital of Canada, naturally would be supplying local Ottawa residents the bulk of federal employment. You are making learning the French language a compulsory issue again when that is not the case. The federal government nor anyone else can force Canadians to speak French. The feds are already discriminating enough in that area.

Speaking of pandering, you have left out the most important political transformation of all and that is Harper has been 'Quebeced'. August, you could have easily summed up this nonsensical post into saying, that the boundaries of a corrupt dysfunctional political system knows and has no limits to the degree of personal corruption one must endure in order to politically survive in this country.

Nevertheless, the two battalions that suffered the heavies casualties were both French volunteers from Quebec. Could you please clarify whatever you are trying to say with some form of proof in the form of a link or whatever?

"3. Our business community. By financing election campaigns, it is the business community that indirectly chooses governments and indirectly determines the policies that will be followed. In a country where 75 % of the major corporations; 60% of the manufacturing industry; 60% of the mining industry; 85%0 of the smelting and refining; 90% petroleum; 95% automobile and automobile parts; 90% rubber, 75% chemical; 75% electrical apparatus; 90% computer and 90% of the corporations employing more than 5,000 people are foreign-owned, is it surprising that what is best for Canada's long term future is not necessarily the prime concern of business or of government? And don't expect senior executives of the more than 8,500 American subsidiaries now operating in Canada to speak out in favour of economic independence. When they do, expect them to join the ranks of the unemployed." http://www.empireclubfoundation.com/detail...hID=2132&FT=yes Could Canada defend itself from a U.S. attack? "Canada could never hope to defend itself against the United States with whom it shared a long and indefensible border. Rather than try to create a huge military force, Canada chose to rely on law and diplomacy to settle disputes with its neighbour to the south." http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_st...nding/index.htm How SOVERIGN did you say Canada was again?