Charles Anthony

To me, being a Canadian means: anybody who either breathes Canadian air or stands on Canadian soil or declares himself as Canadian and any combination of the above. I suppose you could call me very liberal. Wait a minute. When you say "multi-culturalism" are you talking about: 1) the simple fact that not all Canadians have discarded their pre-Canadian ethnic heritage? or 2) state-endorsed public policies? The two are very different. Using the term "multi-culturalism" without clarifying the above is a non-statement at best.

This might even put the kibosh on the comfortable misconception held by Rest-o-Canadians of Quebec politics.

I like this rant. It reminds me of a party-conversation when I stepped into the middle of two public servants talking about work. After a brief pause, one of them turned to me and asked "What do you do? Are you with government too?" and I found the wording of his question slightly odd. While I stammered to quickly think of a smart-aleck comment, he said it should not be a difficult question to answer. I replied: "If half of my clientele are public servants, how can I NOT be with government? You did not ask me if I was a public servant." It is impossible to avoid the long tentacles of government. Everybody was cordial so I chose not to ask them if they are ashamed of labelling themselves as public servants.

Why?

Yes, of course. Forgive me but that question and your answers are completely irrelevant because, surprise, surprise: about 30% of Quebecois want sovereignty. They are convinced (rightly or wrongly) that they would be better off. That is enough to unequivocally say: there is no concensus. I have about 30% of the Quebec population on my side. That is a lot. I almost had 50% only a few years ago. However, let me get this straight: you are staring at the counting of election results while simultaneously attributing my comment which was made long before the election and with no reference and with no contingency on the possible winner......??? Yes, it does. You are really attributing a lot of credit to the Quebec voters. I wonder if their analytical skills are as critical or as discerning as that. You can make sense out of his economic policies?? Instead of saying he "stepped quite a ways back" how about you call it what the Quebec press aptly calls it: grosso modo, c'est la foutaise. Are you calling it differently for us, the rest-o-Canadians? Interesting, given the fact that not a single Quebec voter walked into the urns saying "I want to give a third of my vote to this party and a third of my vote to that party and keep a third for my favorite party." The wheeling and dealing will be among elected parties instead of between crony-lobbyists and elected officials. Quebeckers may learn to expect different things from their government. Compared to before, they may even learn how to govern themselves independent of a foreign influence.Here is one for all of you hindsightologists: One day after the election, how many Quebec voters (the handlers of the party leaders excluded) can tell you half of the election platform of the party for whom they voted? Here is one more: This is the death of the Parti Quebecois like Kim Campbell and Jean Chretien (with his wise and populist economic policies) were the death of the Progressive Conservatives only a few years ago. Anybody remember how that played out?

Just as a point of order: you repeated my entire post just to add a tiny response to one of my lines. Check out these threads: NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply" Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes! Their actions could be more symbolic than somebody else's symbolic representation of their beliefs. So what? Your defense to go to war is based on symbolism. What could be worse than that?

I am convinced that all people are inherently greedy more than they are religious. Yes. Do not take a cue from them. Combining capitalism with politics is NOT honest commercial trade.

Why should we care about any of the above????? Show them the power of The Almighty Dollar and engage in honest commercial trade.

All of these horrifying acts of evil can be found throughout the world perpetrated by non-Muslims too. Would "The History Book According To Michael Coren" include what happened elsewhere as well?

No, it will not. The three-way split is not just a Canada versus Quebec issue but it also pits interventionists againsts minarchists. The evidence is that it will be a minority government. This is something that Quebeckers have never experienced. Quebeckers have never had politicians who had to negotiate amongst eachother within Quebec in this manner. There is no concensus as to what independence would do.

I would only give your view any weight if it turned out that ALL Muslim women covered their faces with a veil. As it turns out -- and I will boldly say "As you should know better" -- that is not the case. Only some Muslim women cover their face and the many just cover their heads.

I did not need to be because I am suggesting a possible result. You, on the other hand, were ruling out a possible result. Like I said, you do not understand that they are entering an entire political environment that is completely foreign to them. None of that matters if Quebeckers want to be an independent state in the future.I am hoping that their upcoming experience with a minority government will make them start thinking of politics differently. Your questions will become moot.

With respect, you do not understand the rule of the hijab. A women can unveil herself before an other (Muslim or non-Muslim) woman. They do it all of the time. Thus, a woman scrutineer need only be present. When I used to vote, nobody except one or two people saw my photo-ID.

Indication of what? Were you alive during the last minority government in Quebec? No. I do not think you understand that Quebeckers are being thrust into a political environment they have never EVER experienced before. I am hoping that they might like it and may respond to it unexpectedly.

Before the next federal election, for the first time -- for all practical purposes -- Quebeckers will have their own little "Canadian" government. The three-way split will produce a new show to follow and a different taste of politics. Here is for hoping: Quebeckers will like it and figure they can go at it alone.

Ayn Rand is too vague, slightly misleading or confused. Instead of saying: She should have simply said: "State-enforced legal tender is the root of all evil."

With respect, the poll question is meaningless without a definition of civilized. I must be ornery on this one: my best guess is that Christianity has made no difference. People can interpret Christianity to justify taking up arms against an invading force. A Christian (or anybody else, for that matter) can always see himself as acting in self-defense despite evidence to the countrary. I am confident that without Christ on their side, politicians would justify warfare some other way. People can also interpret Christianity to justify submission to invading forces. Here is what constitutes being civilized: putting down guns before talking. That is civilized. [Hmmm..... worthy of a thread of its own...]

Even though this thread is more aptly titled and opened, this same affair is first introduced in the ambiguously titled Separation of Church and State thread.

Why is that noteworthy?I believe it is noteworthy because Muslims are commonly all lumped together as one antagonist. For example: Shoe is on the other foot -- France becomes al-Qaeda,s newest enemyWhen I postulated that Muslims might be attacking Muslims here in Canada, I got ridiculed.

That video is the first time I had a chance to hear and see Mario Dumont for any extended period of time. I am dumb-founded. He reminds me of a high school student counsel candidate. He has soooo much confidence and lofty goals supported by nothing but childish naivety. That is the impression I get. I felt like I wanted to buy his cup of lemonade -- not because I was thirsty -- but out of sympathy for the little entrepreneur who has been outside in the heat for so long. I have no capacity to judge his abilities but he is enthusiastic and unique. Never, never, never. Not only was Derome asking tough questions but he was bordering on rude. This seems to be a popular style coming out of Quebec. There is an other television interviewer -- I forget the name (Dutrissac?), he sits with his guests in a dark studio surrounded by a bunch of staticky television screens -- who does the similar cut-through-the-crap-interrogation interview approach. Dumont handled himself well. Let me add one more thing -- my advice to Mario Dumont and his advisors, if they are reading: ride the wave of your charm and take it as far as possible; do something radical, drop all of your plans this Saturday night, make a surprise public appearance at the Bell Center and lend your support to The Habs (your province) at one of their last few games this season. I think Perry Mason can sweep the floor with Alfred Hitchcock and Norman Bates.

Who exactly do you mean by "we"? If you are asking for a government subsidy, the answer is NO.

Yvon = le Québec d'aujourd'hui ? = le Canada

I am asking if people think it should be. Do you? Clearly things are not safe the way they are now. You and others are asking the government to do something about it. No. I think it should be regulated by a free market. It certainly is not working now! I am asking people to answer the questions I wrote in post #4 above and which you repeated in their entirety. No. My questions are clear. I do not think people have the courage to admit what they truly want extracted from the public purse. Everybody wants something but refuses to admit that they are looking to get the tax-payer to pay their fare.

What I find noteworthy is that this Muslim against Muslim.

I don't have one. I used the term in the same context you did.We may be letting the nebulous concept of poverty get the best of us. Just like it is convenient for a government to wage a war against terror, fighting poverty may be smoke-screen for bureaucratic baloney. The sky can truly be the limit for how we must reduce poverty.