Bakunin

i agree with him that if the npd want to be a serious opposition party and have possibility to win election one day, they could win more than 54 seats in quebec if they ally with the bloc and it could boost its support. Layton already talked about assimetrical federalism that could interest the sovregnist movement. Another thing is that ndp members in quebec are sovreignist, its because of Layton's open mind that they came. The proposition seems vague at this time, but it should be debate.

My ambition is to make money, but not blood money, then if i can retire while im young, work for pleisure where i want and when i want. Politics is one thing i would like to do (in quebec only). What i would like is to do is the first transparent government of the world where evrything about the government would be 100% accessible except the army where we would only see the amount given. Their would be a public bank like building where the money of quebec would be held and when the government make a decision and need money, they ask the bank to do it. Since the bank would be independant, and that all its record could be seen on the internet, if their is 1 person who seems suspicious, then it will be easy to verify. It look like an uthopic thing but i think it could work pretty well. What i would like to do if i would go in politics would be purely for democracy. No left or right politics or federalist vs sovregnist knid of thing. Just make the government more democratic, then whatever the goverment is interventionist or conservative, i don't care because at the end we will be able to observe the bad and good move of the government and if we don't like then we change of government.

I think its sensless and not politically correct. If she want to criticize the star war system, criticize it with details and explain why. Calling the bush administration stupid is a personal opinion. We don't need personnal opinion in politics, we need analyse, fact, new idea and good debate. Calling the bush administration is a personnal attack. If she say its not a good idea to spend allot of money on a project that first we don't know if it will work, how much it cost, and if its a good investment. Then she would have a lot more credibility, but to the place of debating, she attack peoples personnally in the hope that if we think thei are stupid, their idea are stupid.

i think its really easy to criticize the poor for povrety but its not that simple. Children devellop by immitating each others. Its quite normal that if the community and the environnement of that child is quite bad, its harder for him to devellop. What frustrate me the most is to think about all those third world children that has absolutly no educational and job future. The stupid thing is if we would higher their quality life, it would benefit evryone. If we are enough selfish not to help them devellop ( the develloped country), lets not make the mistake of not helping the poor here. Of course their are stupid people in our society, often the society itself help people to become stupid but doing nothing about it won't help to reduce povrety.

yes shes sovreignist but at least she know what she talk about, the other english article are from people who make specialities of bitching the sovreignist movement without knowing it.

in my life time for the federal i guess il have to chose since trudeau to paul martin so, ill pick murloney by default because i don't like other's. For the provincial, ill have to chose from lesvesque to charest. Since i was too young to look politics before lucien bouchard, i would chose bouchard for its politics, economic point of vue and charest can't be seriously considered . For parizeau and landry, i would consider them good premier but not good premier minister. As for René lesvesque, i was around 2 years old when he retired, its too sad because from what i read and heard, he his what i would call the best prime minister had and he is the perfect prime minister. He is my inspiration, he was a democrate first and that is the best quality a prime minister can have i guess. has for world leaders i would choose, De gaulle, gandhi, mandela, allendes... has for my favorite minister for now its yves séguin who is currently finance minister because i have to chose between the minister i know of and im interested in politics only since ~ 6 years, i dont have many choice.

Here is an article from the montreal gazette that clarifiy the whole article of Parizeau. I totally agree with it, its exaclty what i have read. PS, if someone want to reply about this, first read the letter you can find it here: http://www.jacquesparizeau.com/ And im not a parizeau fan, i was as much skeptical as evryone before i had read his letter.

Im in favor of a confederation where quebec would have is politic identity and canada is own or evry province their own. Else i would be in favor of an assymetric federalism that the npd is supporting which mean that the province can opt out of any federal program, but since i doubt this will happend, if their is a referendum ill vote yes because its the only way to move forward and if we vote no, then we know what happend, nothing change, it get worse... Ok, its simple since we have different culture and way of thinking, it often happend that we don't agree with the canadian view. When we don't agree and we are forced by the canadian government it just frustrate us, most of the federalist like charest and its predessesor in quebec would like a change in the way federalism work to give more power to the province, the soft sovreignist are for a change to federalism the hard sovregnist to a complete different country. Sure, i went to other canadian cities and its like going to another country since our culture is so much different. It was a smaller step going to nyc than another canadian city. It doesnt mean i don't like the canadian culture, it mean that its harder for me to adapt or to understand while in nyc, i it was like i was already part of the american culture, like if it was more compatible.

Totally false... Ill give you 1 sample: "Canadian tire" its called "canadian tire" in french too, just like any international corporation. Many immigrants when they come to canada don't even know that their are french speakers.. Before the law 101 they where all learning english so they didn't integrate our culture.. whats the point of immigration if immigrant don't integrate to your culture... Their is nothing radical their.. Yeah its quite similar to rwanda or the jews LOL.... The reality is that before the laws 101 the french wich was the majority of the population was living how the english has to live now... We just switched the role. Its quite hipocryte to talk about genocide when english canadian tryed themselve to assimilate us and in other province than quebec they acheived their goal in assimilating us...

The ppc is the only party who is for partition and it is a party that has 0 elected deputy in quebec too... Its not a surprise that the alliance or the new conservative party never understood quebec. who is trying to avoid the issue ? the liberal federal ? the liberal provincial ? the pq ? the french media ? oh, wait a minute, you mean their is no french at all who talk about it whatever their federalist or sovregnist, right ?

Its not that ridiculous, its just that an english can't see the need because they don't face the same situation as us. Actually we have a great culture and i think it benefit our society, just look at our movie industry, "the barbarian invasion" won prices evrywhere even one oscars.Our humorist, actor, singer and etc, doesn't move to the united states. Except from celine dion but thats a good thing. For sign its a dissuasive law and from what you posted here, our politics on language for school is the same as the canadian one...

I think the law say the french as to be bigger but often its same size, or they put the english sign in italic but like i say, the law is not applyed. I have a sample under my eyes i think, its recordable compact discs, on it their is a french logo and an english logo, its from staples business depot, you can see them here in the top left corner http://www.staples.calogo they are quite similar, the french one looks bigger but its a kind of illusion. the text is smaller since its shorter in english. I think its bigger in cm² its problaby legal in quebec. The law however is a volontary or dissuasive kind of law. Wal-mart in french is wal-mart. Mc donald is Mc donald and Canadian tire is Canadian tire and tim horton is tim horton etc... I dont know anything from the roc culture except hockey but i know the american culture. Just like the roc problably don't know quebec culture like singer,actor etc... except celine dion since she's linked to the american culture. Thats what i think too. I would like canada to work but to work without fighting like cat and dog, politics must be separate one way or another and i doubt that both side will understand it without being hurt and shocked first.

Im sorry you felt like i attacked you, maybe its because of my poor english. The point i was making is that how you react about seabee post is the samething as how we quebecers see it. I totally agree with your comment. That the roc doesn't understand the situation. They think about scenario, think about idea and they don't understand why we don't even bother talking about it. Just like the idea of a left federalist provincial party or partition of quebec.

English sign are not outlawed, they are supposed to put a french sign as big as the other language sign thats all. But the law is not even applyed. As for playfullfellow,i think he understand that quebec and roc is night and day. I went one time to ottawa and i felt less home and comfortable than in new-york usa. i felt less connected culturally i think.

Just as it his to think that because some quebecers want to stay in canada, they are ready to split quebec. There is a reason why this has never been discuss... First the quebec population is not interested and 2nd, the politician are not interested. The one interested are outsiders who are frustrated about quebecers.

the problem with the idea of partitionning is that quebec federalist dont want partition.

You must wake up, we don't live in a uthopia and forcing bilingualism is losing time and money. Partitioning quebec and civil war are english canadian scenario. after loosing by 0,6% the sovreignist did not start a civil war... they went home and went to sleep. Has would any society respecting democracy. you mean coming outside ontario. i already told you... 99% of the left don't support federalism. By the law of nature, nobody make a party that nobody wants.

Exaclty !!! Im really happy, because its the first time someone here really understand us. We have our own little world and the roc is not important for us, actually i think we care more whats happening in usa than in the roc. We don't hate canadian but at the same time we want to be able to control our own business. i agree with takeanumber and playfullfellow, we speak french but its capital for us to be able to "speak white" if don't want to be limited. I don't know if you understand but if i just look on my desk right now, my tv controler is in english, music, cd, games are mostly wrote in english, my internet explorer is in english. And im studying to become a programmer. Evry computer language are in english. Its evrywhere and even in our language. If their is a new revolutionary product invented, if we dont give it a french name quick enough, we will just use the english name for it. On the other hand, for english speakers, learning french is not capital. For english quebecers, its capital but not english canadian. Federalist like the idea of a billingual country, of biculturalism and noe multiculturalism but in reality, its more like 2 country , 2 nations, 2 language, 2 culture, 2 ideology. A cat, and a dog. Sometime similar but on the base, different and no mather what happend.

I think they will be swept like the liberal federal, the population never loved charest anyway, the funiest thing is that in the 2003 election, 6 month before the election the poll was giving the adq winner, then it switched to the pq and 1 week before the election it switched to the liberal. I have to admit that i was tired of the pq too at that time. 9 years is quite long. The problem is that they can't applie their electoral platform. 5 billions tax cut is just impossible and they made a big mistake when they started a war against the unions. Im not a big unions fan but they are pretty strong, it sound funny but the unions are crused the government and next years its negociation time and there already talking about a general strike. I don't know how to explain this but ill try. If you put charest in a stadium, he will get bowed. If you put Landry in a stadium he will be applaud. Its hard to explain because landry didnt do anything since he lost the election. I think its like you put a bottle on the table and you fill it with water, at a point, the bottle is full, well with the pq it took 8 years and with the liberal, less than 1 years. The liberal federal emptied their bottle with martin but filled back the bottle with the ad sponsorship. The problem is that people voted for the bloc and its hard to get frustrated against the bloc because their not in power... the liberal federal are still their filling the bottle of water and it will splash evrywhere. I think that in 2 years, their will still be a strong protesting vote against the liberal federal. Because its hard to pass time without putting water in the bottle. If its going bad for the liberal federal then its bad for the liberal provincial too. This is why the pq dont bother working on the comming election, they are preparing their sovregnty project and we hear more of them than the liberal who are in power.

the adq will possibly win in vanier the pq will win in gouin the 2 others are liberal stronghold i think. in the federal election some liberal stronghold were won by the bloc, what should be interesting to watch is if the liberal are going to do better than the federal liberal. If they do the same, i think its a bad sign for the liberal.

There is a movement that want that if the pq win, the quebec become sovreign wich is not popular. I myself am hardly against. Here is a part of the parizeau letter, practice your french, i dont want to translate. He clearly specifie that the referendum is the final act to quebec sovrengty instead of the first act. like the 1980-1995 referendums. En somme, le Parti Québécois se présenterait aux prochaines élections en demandant le mandat de réaliser la souveraineté. S'il gagne, il commence à la préparer en promulguant une Constitution provisoire en vertu de laquelle, entre autres dispositions, une citoyenneté québécoise est instituée et une Cour constitutionnelle est créée. Le gouvernement met en place l'appareil législatif et administratif pour réaliser la souveraineté. Un projet de Constitution permanente est soumis à un référendum qui devient en quelque sorte l'acte de naissance du nouveau pays. Faut-il aussi préparer une sorte de programme de " bon gouvernement " en attendant que Godot arrive? On l'a cru longtemps au Parti Québécois. Entre l'arrivée au pouvoir et la réalisation de l'indépendance, on a toujours voulu convaincre l'opinion publique que l'on assurerait " un bon gouvernement provincial " et qu'il fallait une trentaine de mesures, une centaine de pages, des flots de discours pour montrer à quel point avant d'être indépendant, on serait sérieux. Peut-être est-il temps d'arrêter cela. Nous avons été au pouvoir dix-huit ans au cours des vingt-huit dernières années. Nous ne devrions plus avoir à convaincre qui que ce soit de notre capacité à gouverner. Que l'on puisse activement préparer l'indépendance du Québec tout en gérant correctement l'économie; l'année 1995 en témoigne. En pleine campagne référendaire, réduire le déficit budgétaire de 2 milliards de dollars, renouveler toutes les conventions collectives du secteur public pour trois ans, à un coût total de cinq pour cent, sans crise, sans grève et en profiter, en passant, pour relancer les investissements et réorganiser la formation professionnelle qui s'effondrait, cela devrait faire comprendre que la " Province de Québec ", on sait comment la gérer, et que les efforts doivent être appliqués à la préparation de l'organisation, de la gestion et des objectifs d'un pays indépendant. Cela veut dire, cependant, qu'entre la date de l'élection et celle du référendum sur la Constitution, il ne faut pas que trop de temps s'écoule; autrement, comme d'habitude, les questions que posent la gestion de la " province " vont se mettre à envahir les préoccupations, à mobiliser les esprits, et à distraire les enthousiasmes.

maplesyrup, in quebec the left is 99,9% sovregnist. the right party "ADQ", are liberal who where with the pq in 1995 for sovregnty. The federalist are mostly liberals, immigrants and english speakers. they are center-right. The federal npd supporter are mostly sovregnist, thats why they are stuck between voting for bloc and npd.

Parizeau wrote a letter who was published in the media. When i heard of it and that they said he was for an "election référendaire" i was against the idea but when i read his article wich is not bad at all, i found it pretty interesting. Since the article dont say exactly what he said here is what he proposed. If the pq get elected, it will "prepare for (independence) by proclaiming a provisional constitution in accordance with which, among other measures, a Quebec citizenship would be instituted and a constitutional court would be created." then there will be a referendum on the constitution. from his letter: "En somme, le Parti Québécois se présenterait aux prochaines élections en demandant le mandat de réaliser la souveraineté. S'il gagne, il commence à la préparer en promulguant une Constitution provisoire en vertu de laquelle, entre autres dispositions, une citoyenneté québécoise est instituée et une Cour constitutionnelle est créée. Le gouvernement met en place l'appareil législatif et administratif pour réaliser la souveraineté. Un projet de Constitution permanente est soumis à un référendum qui devient en quelque sorte l'acte de naissance du nouveau pays. " ------------------------------------- This is different then another movement of the radical sovregnist who want that if the election is won by the pq even if he dont receive 50%+1, then quebec become sovregn. ---------------------------------- I like the idea of parizeau in the way that evrything is more clear. When we vote yes on a referendum we would know what we are voting for. It would give the chance to other provincial party to participate in the project. In fact its more secure than voting yes then the government has the right to do whatever he want.

its from the documentary "the corporation" that's what im saying, someone must be responsible for the act of a corporation. if it put dangerous trash in a lake wich goes to the water source, then somebody must be held responsible. Even if the corporation pay for decontamination, the ceo or the employer who tought of this must be held responsible. Thats why we need better law. me too, it justifie to get someone responsible from those act but abolishing them is a bit radical. You should ask this question to maplesyrup.

maplesyrup is the one who want to abolish them. Me i want better law so when the head of a corporation make something immoral like hiding fact, or polluting the water of a town, I want the head of the corporation to be held responsible and im not talking about giving money im talking about prison just like the enron guy. August: Im not an econnomist and im not english so im trying to translate the best i can and it may lead to misunderstanding. the 730$m "indemnité de départ" was voted by his "conseil d'administration", administrative conceilor or something like that just before the corp go bankrupt. then the "actionnaire" shareholder wanted to sue him but their is now law against this. In french we call this a" méthode de pilliage". im not against corporation im for intelligent law against possible threat to our society. I agree that not all the law are intelligent or perfect but i think that we need them. I dont want "natural law". You were telling me that government where corrupt, i agree on that, justice is corrupt or his not perfect. Evryone know that Enron and the bush administration where working togheter. No, because you want to abolish human law to let the natural law rule. At least i think thats what your trying to tell us, maybe i am wrong, just answer me.