Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by g_bambino

  1. What part of the bill is unconstitutional?
  2. It should when the other parties each have less than 40% of the vote. Regardless, even if you see FPTP as unacceptable, that shouldn't equate with the idea that our methods of elective democracy are broken. Broken means they no longer function.
  3. They are? Where's responsible government?
  4. Obama is not "non-white". How that relates to a comment about non-"white" war heroes no longer being ignored because the president is now non-"white" is self-evident. I hope that's the end of that.
  5. .........Did you read the post I was responding to? No, he doesn't. No, it's not. Well, if you consider the silliness of "white" and "black", then, yes, it's a bit silly. But, otherwise, no. [ed.: +]
  6. Yet, the part of the (apparent, since there's no link) article you quoted spoke specifically about the 150th anniversary of Confederation and then a vague, general reference to events, including "six year's worth of military commemorations". You brought up the War of 1812. There's no way to tell yet what these "military commemorations" will be or what they'll cost. The claim they'll "have significant resource implications for DND organizations and CF units" isn't clear on how "significant" and comes from the DND, which obviously (and understandably) has self-interests.
  7. Mmm.. Wouldn't that be the "let's build subways before we know how to pay for them" train she's not jumping on, rather than the "a downtown relief line is needed" one? If she's saying one's needed but how it'll be funded must be considered, then, that makes sense to me. But, I don' t know right now that that is what she's saying. Admittedly, I haven't looked... [ed.: c/e]
  8. Could be. Based on the fact Perth to Kuala Lumpur is a 5.5 hour flight, I estimate flying from where the plane did its U-turn (50 minutes into its flight) to Perth is approximately 6.5 hours; so, out to the southern Indian Ocean would be about 7. That's apparently how long the fuel that was on board would last for and how much time passed between the plane moving out of radar range and its last known communication with a satellite. But, why fly a plane as far as it would go out into essentially nothing?
  9. Well, RoFo is definitely off my list. But, who among the others seems most appealing is hard to determine. I'm wary of Chow's priorities and the associated financing, but am reserving definite judgment until I see more of her platform (assuming more is coming). That subway "relief line" is an absolute necessity, though.
  10. He said something, alright: "gravy train". Aaaaaannd... that was it. I don't trust your son. [ed.: +]
  11. You should tell that to the people who were at them.
  12. Putting aside the matter of national anniversaries, in what way was Confederation a war? Perhaps you're mixing Canada up with the US?
  13. Well, he's actually half "white". People really seem to (want to?) forget that.
  14. Er, no. There were many BNA acts. These (and other constitutional laws) were patriated via the proclamation of the Constitution Act 1982, which is what EIIR and PET signed on 17 April. We are a democracy. Period.
  15. They shared the same person as monarch of each; it's called a personal union. That's not a synonym for colony. Unless, of course, you want to argue Great Britain/the UK was a colony of Hanover from 1714 to 1837, or England was a colony of Scotland between 1603 and 1707, or the UK is a colony of Canada now. Perhaps a personal union with Canada is what Jacques Parizeau wants.
  16. No, because the responses aren't answers to the question I asked.
  17. Quebec isn't mobile. Well, beyond continental drift, I guess. At best, it could say "I hate you" and then just sit there.
  18. Just because you declare independence doesn't mean you're independent.
  19. Not, it was not. It was an almost totally independent country in a form of personal union with Sweden. In comparison to Quebec, it had many more of its own powers; only Norwegian foreign relations were conducted by the king in his Swedish council.
  20. Separatists say all sorts of conflicting things. They "say" they don't care about the law--federal law, anyway--by ignoring it, while openly moaning about the Clarity Act, indicating they're aware it's going to have some impact on them. The matter of the First Nations (Cree and Inuit) territory within Quebec that the Northeastern Quebec Agreement says is governed by Ottawa falls into the former camp; separatists simply pretend there's no question about it. But, that's now. If it comes to Quebec independence, I don't see what grounds the new country would have in simply taking that land as its own; the province presently governs that area as much as it governs Labrador. Taking one would be tantamount to taking the other. Montreal is a different matter altogether. It is firmly under the control of the Crown in Right of Quebec. [ed.: c/e]
  21. It's not a matter of parts of Quebec seceding from Quebec, it's that the Northeastern Quebec Agreement specifies that certain territories inhabited by First Nations are not within the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec. Simply put, if Quebec declares independence, those lands won't go with it. If Quebec negotiates independence, it will have to negotiate for those lands if it wants them. Of course, the First Nations living in those areas want to go it on their own, they can try to do so, but, that's a matter between them and the federal Crown.
  22. Perhaps he meant the people leading the separatist charge, the ones who think real Quebecers are only the Catholic (even if only "traditionally"), francophone, old stock ones, the ones trying to appeal to that group with "values charters" and invasive language laws. Because the "nation of Quebec" would no longer have the economic benefit of transfer and equalisation payments. The Quebec economy is barely holding on as it is.
  • Create New...