Claudius

This needs a separate thread. There's two arguments going on here, 1)the validity of the Quebec student protest and 2) the validity of a free education. The Quebec students are not protesting for a free education for them and the rest of Canada. That's a bit of fib being perpetrated when people need a counter argument to things like the fact they enjoy the lowest tuitions in the country (thanks at least in part to the average $6billion in transfer payments they get every year for the past decade), or the sobering fact they are protesting in the minority, or the fact that this increase the students claim they can't afford is per diem about the same price as a pint of beer - the same pints they enjoy after a hard day of gettin' their "activist" on. Not to mention that all this reverence for a good education is juxtaposed against the backdrop of Quebec having the highest post-secondary drop out rates in the country (and it's been that way for a long time). Free education is an interesting topic, and not as cut and dry as many might think, imo. But let's quit pretending that's the reason the Quebec students are chucking rocks through windows or disrupting other peoples classes.

Well it hasn't been verbally suggested because when you lay it out like that people can easily see that proposal is stupid, but like said, what's the end game with Mulcair's accusations then? What? He just wants to wag his finger and make sure these provinces to know that they're the supposed reason no one in Ontario can get a job? The say-it-out-loud suggestion isn't there but that's the insinuation.

Leviticus also tells you to not eat pork, not cut your sideburns, not cut your beard, not have any kind of "rounded" hairstyle, not eat anything from the sea that does not have scales. Until you also cut out all of those things quit using a 2000 year old philosophy book as an excuse to hate people who did nothing wrong to you and classify them as inhuman.

A: What "guys' do you think I belong to? B: No it isnt the same thing I said about the long gun registry. C: I never said the bill wouldn't pass, I said most of it won't survive a supreme court challenge. Considering how much it's already been diluted in the face of...well, no real opposition since they have a majority (remember how everyone liked to think that majority = king?), it's already changed much more than the LGR ever did. D: The Ontario supreme court already struck part of it down so I'm already partially "right" to a degree. Say what you want about the Liberal party, (I know I do) they were at least experienced enough to run most of their proposals through a gambit of constitutional lawyers before presenting them. The CPC didn't do anything like that at all.

Maybe if you weren't such a mouthpiece towards someone who was only trying to help you out she would've clued you in that what you want is Workers Compensation, not E.I.

We get this from the guy who claims to support human rights and protection of the environment and then turns around to swing his pom-poms for his hero China. Hilarious.

Childrens ramblings aside.... The really amature thing about the omnibill is that it is ham-fisted. Most of it won't survive the first supreme court challenge or even the first provincial supreme court challenge (Ontario already pre-emptively struck down the pot law) and a lot of it has already been diluted in the face of impressive attacks by a neutered NDP opposition. The bill won't survive in it's present state past the next 4 years.

This is the typical childs game. First they claim "Harper is the worst this-or-that in Canadian history" Someone comes along to point out that "the-liberals-did-it-too" only to show that no, the "worst" claim is false. The child turns around and says: "Do the HarperCons have no higher aspirations than to be as bad as the scandal-ridden Liberals?" ....and that's why the Liberal party has 34 seats today, and the CPC won the first majority in Canadian history without a single seat from Quebec: because the face of the Liberal party is a smart-mouth brat that every adult knows can't hold their own or explain their claims.

Just as many backed this majority as backed every other Canadian majority since WWII. For that matter 37-38% is a pretty good majority for most of the standing European governments too. Wake us when you get tired of regurgitating a talking point based on total ignorance of all things related to the Canadian political system or its history.

If you read very carefully you'll notice that this doesn't prove anything. There were already other students in other provinces who supported it; the crux is how many People in British Columbia or Ontario support it. No numbers at all, simply a story telling us what we already knew: other students and people also support it. So what? That doesn't speak to whether or not they are in the minority or majority which is something I PROVED and you RAN AWAY from. Typical forum rats. There's nothing you can do. You can show them that 2 + 2 = 4 and they can still post back for a 1000 posts insisting that it's wrong no matter how many polls you show them, no matter how much evidence you show them, they just insist on believing whatever they want.

...and Austria, but let's start him off slow....you know with training wheels and all.

No two polls, showing us that the students aren't in the majority thereby proving the claim that you pulled out of thin air wrong. What were your sources again? Oh right: you didn't have any. Typical forum kids. They demand proof then refuse to read it when you give it to them, and then claim you can't prove it. The most laughable part of it is that they think that "strategy" works. Oh and BTW: you figure the French one is right wing? lol. Hilarious. I bet you just call anything right wing when you can't think of anything else right? When a bee stings you or when coffee burns your tongue do you shake your fist and call it right wing too? lol.

Gotta love it. You ask him for proof and he just hands you a meaningless blog by nobody that doesn't even address the point. Like I said before: just regurgitates someone else's talking points that he doesn't even understand himself.

"witty" comebacks that only took ten minutes to come up with; assumptions, labels and name-calling to try and cover up one's obvious mistakes....A sure sign of the ignorant wannabie-activist who doesn't have the guts to do any real learning. BTW I couldn't be farther from a neo-con but that wouldn't matter to you since "neo-con" to someone like you is no different than the "cooties" name calling of school yard children.

Except for the whole election thing, the withdrawing troops from war and endorsing gay marriage then yeah I guess he's exactly like Napoleon. (rolls eyes)

^^ Oh and P.S. you'll notice I didn't have to run to wiki for this because I already knew it..... ...because I read.... ...and went to real school not the imaginary one you and "socialist" pretend to attend.

Um no. Hitler came to power when? '39? No. That's when WWII started. Try reading your wiki page over and over again until you get it, ok? When we speak of Hitler and his fascism we have to start even before 1933 when he was appointed Chancellor. Class dismissed.

Sounds just like Harper's Conservatives feelings about university professors, scientists etc... Actually if you're honest it sounds like a lot of parties and more than a couple NGO's. Fact is you're talking about a minority (the students) using violence because they don't like a democratic decision regardless of whether or not it's a provincial democratic decision or even a democratic decision among their own student councils/unions and then take to the streets to use violence and intimidation to get their way in spite of democratic rule. That's fascism. Maybe you need to read from the beginning, you know before this century to realize that Mob Rule is the very worst form of fascist tyranny. Start with Plato and Socrates and finish with the "Reign of Terror" that came immediately after the French revolution. Nope. Clearly it's you that has a dime-store understanding of politics, fascism and democracy. Basically you have the ten-minute-wiki-read version and the regurgitation of a host of meaningless talking points you don't even understand yourself.

You have numbers to support this? Of course you don't, because it's not true. They've been in the minority since day one. http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/dossiers/conflit-etudiant/201205/18/01-4526881-sondage-crop-la-presse-les-quebecois-en-faveur-de-la-ligne-dure.php And if you don't speak french: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/23/tasha-kheiriddin-quebecs-silent-majority-needs-to-make-some-noise-about-protests/

That's interesting and maybe a good discussion topic but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The students aren't protesting for free education, they're protesting because of an increase in tuition that amounts to less than 1 of the 2-3 pints of beer they drink every day.

Spoken like a child who has everything paid for them and doesn't work and hasn't the foggiest notion what things cost. No. $50K is not rich,no remotely. Even $60-70k and you'll have a hard time buying a house. In fact that is one of the reasons I support the Occupy Wall street movement.

You're funny, almost as funny as Mr."Math-is-useless" Socialist over there. So you have a MINORITY of students who can't abide by a democratic rule and run out into the streets forcing their will through violence and you think it's the "other guys" who are fascists? I don't think you have a clue what democracy is or what fascism is or for that matter any thing about Germany in the early 40's (especially when it began in the late 30's). You should really pick up a book once in a while and maybe even read it.

Yep, and even those who don't understand it has a lot to do with the math you claim is useless.

Yet another groundless assumption thrown up like a smokescreen when you can't use reason.

The only assumptions here have been from you. You make them when you can't answer something. Just like you accuse me of changing the subject when I point out that you just changed the subject. What does this have to do with anything I've said? Yes education is a right, and failure in trying to educate yourself is always a danger if you already think you have all the answers and live off of assumptions.