Would you like a trial separation

[scribblet]

...

Why they would want to leave the sweet deal they have already??? Just goes to show that their 'argument' for seperation is based on emotion alone, not logic. They already have the best of both worlds from their perspective, although they don't seem to recognize it.

Exactly, but isn' it time we stood up to Quebec.

We opened the door of the tent to the proverbial “Camel” and soon he began to take over the tent.

[scribblet]

.....

Meanwhile the rest of Canada could elect a fiscally conservative but socially liberal Prime Minister whose values are in tune with the majority of Canadians.

I normally ignore your over the top rhetoric, but this is a hoot - I think we just did elect that P.M.

and gee - I guess the Liberals don't crave power like 'vampires crave blood' yeah right

Edited October 21, 2008 by scriblett

[Argus]

There's a difference between saying I want to leave and saying I want to kick that group out. Especially when someone's saying I want to kick that group out because I don't like them or their democratic choices.

So let me see if I've got you right here - It's BAD to say you don't like Quebec or its democratic choices and values, and wish they would go, but it's perfectly all right for a Quebecer to say he doesn't like Canada and it's democratic choices and values and so wants to leave.

If I say i want Canada to seperate from Quebec would that make it okay?

If people actually cared about this country they'd want to discuss real solutions. But their dislike for people seems to outweigh everything else.

My dislike for people? This is just more of the old hypocrisy about Quebec the politically correct insist on. A Quebecer can spew out the most inflammatory anti-English and anti-Canadian insults he wants and he'll be labelled A nationalist, or a seperatist, or a proud Quebecois, but if an Anglo expresses any irritation or dislike of Quebec's politics or policies he's basically with the KKK and should be wearing a sheet.

The fact is, and they have made this fairly clear for decades, the great majority of the French people of Quebec have no interest in, let alone love, of Canada. Only economic circumstances and the presence of Anglos and immigrants to dillute the vote keeps them in Canada. And I absolutely guarantee you this - if oil were discovered in Quebec tomorrow, similiar to the amount in Alberta - Quebec would separate within a year. Ask any of the Quebecers here if I'm wrong. Even those who are allegedly federalists wouldn't exactly be pulling their hair out and wailing in misery over it, either. They'd shrug and set about building their new country wit hardly a glance back.

[White Doors]

If I say i want Canada to seperate from Quebec would that make it okay?

Apparently, yes.

[normanchateau]

I normally ignore your over the top rhetoric, but this is a hoot - I think we just did elect that P.M.

Harper...fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Now that is a hoot.

[scribblet]

Harper is an economic conservative, and certainly has not instituted anything remotely considered socially conservative. If you read a very right wing socially conservative forum, they are very upset with him for not being a social conservative. You seem to be one of the few people who promote the idea that he is one. Yeah I know, lesbians and all that, no point in going over the same ground over and over again, just reference the other threads were your fallacies were pointed out. I suppose it though, if you repeat the mantra enough times you believe it yourself.

[marksman]

So let me see if I've got you right here - It's BAD to say you don't like Quebec or its democratic choices and values, and wish they would go, but it's perfectly all right for a Quebecer to say he doesn't like Canada and it's democratic choices and values and so wants to leave.

If I say i want Canada to seperate from Quebec would that make it okay?

Feeling a bit self-righteous today?

In 1 case you've got someone saying I've made a choice for myself and I want to go my own way. What you're saying is you've made a choice for other people and want to force them out. There's a huge difference between someone choosing for themselves and someone forcing a choice on them.

It's amazing that concepts like that still have to be explained to some people.

My dislike for people? This is just more of the old hypocrisy about Quebec the politically correct insist on. A Quebecer can spew out the most inflammatory anti-English and anti-Canadian insults he wants and he'll be labelled A nationalist, or a seperatist, or a proud Quebecois, but if an Anglo expresses any irritation or dislike of Quebec's politics or policies he's basically with the KKK and should be wearing a sheet.

When you're finished with your soapbox maybe you'd like to read your own posts. You said you disliked Quebec so don't get all crazy when I say that you dislike Quebec. And that's all I said. If someone else called you the KKK then take it up with them.

I'm saying your premise sounds like bigotry. If you'd said let's get rid of all the white people in Canada what do you think that sounds like? If you'd said let's get rid of all the Acadians what do you think that sounds like?

If I was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you're someone who sees a problem but is seriously misguided about the solution. If I'd been like most people seem to be on this forum I'd have called you the KKK.

Your anti-English Quebecer example would be someone who's probably a separatist and probably a proud Quebecer and definitely a bigot. Strangely it's possible to be all of those things.

[marksman]

Unfortunately, their democratic choices are taking more money than their fair share from the government pot. In addition, anything that is in the federal culture and arts budget tends to disproportionately go to Quebec.

Sure it benefits them but it creates discontent among the rest of Canada. Particularly the two money makers(Ontario and Alberta).

A real solution would be either reducing equalization payments to zero over a period of a few years or at least make sure the money we are sending to them isn't going to services above and beyond our own. This way Quebec can claim self-sufficiency and people won't have a reason to dislike them.

See those are solutions at least worthy of discussion. I think equalization payments have got to stay but better monitoring can't hurt. The only problem there is trying to agree on how much the provinces are giving and how much they're getting. Each province is always going to say they're contributing more and getting less.

I'm also convinced that even if things were equal we'd still be dealing with provinces pointing at each other and complaining. It seems like that's the cheapest way to score points with the voters these days.

[White Doors]

Feeling a bit self-righteous today?

In 1 case you've got someone saying I've made a choice for myself and I want to go my own way. What you're saying is you've made a choice for other people and want to force them out. There's a huge difference between someone choosing for themselves and someone forcing a choice on them.

It's amazing that concepts like that still have to be explained to some people.

When you're finished with your soapbox maybe you'd like to read your own posts. You said you disliked Quebec so don't get all crazy when I say that you dislike Quebec. And that's all I said. If someone else called you the KKK then take it up with them.

I'm saying your premise sounds like bigotry. If you'd said let's get rid of all the white people in Canada what do you think that sounds like? If you'd said let's get rid of all the Acadians what do you think that sounds like?

If I was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you're someone who sees a problem but is seriously misguided about the solution. If I'd been like most people seem to be on this forum I'd have called you the KKK.

Your anti-English Quebecer example would be someone who's probably a separatist and probably a proud Quebecer and definitely a bigot. Strangely it's possible to be all of those things.

except he's not saying to kick them out, he is saying to give them their own country.

Amazing that someone would need to explain the difference.

[Who's Doing What?]

I normally ignore your over the top rhetoric, but this is a hoot - I think we just did elect that P.M.

and gee - I guess the Liberals don't crave power like 'vampires crave blood' yeah right

I think you have it backwards. You elected a fiscally liberal, and socially conservative PM.

[Argus]

In 1 case you've got someone saying I've made a choice for myself and I want to go my own way. What you're saying is you've made a choice for other people and want to force them out. There's a huge difference between someone choosing for themselves and someone forcing a choice on them.

It's amazing that concepts like that still have to be explained to some people.

It's amazing you think there's a huge difference between Quebecers saying they don't want to associate with Canada any more and Canadians saying they dont want to associate with Quebecers any more.

I'm saying your premise sounds like bigotry.

Apparently you don't know what bigotry is.

If you'd said let's get rid of all the white people in Canada what do you think that sounds like? If you'd said let's get rid of all the Acadians what do you think that sounds like?

Like saying let's get rid of all the French people, which is not what I said.

If I was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you're someone who sees a problem but is seriously misguided about the solution

I'd say my problem was Quebec, and an awful lot of people seem to feel them leaving is the proper solution.

[marksman]

It's amazing you think there's a huge difference between Quebecers saying they don't want to associate with Canada any more and Canadians saying they dont want to associate with Quebecers any more.

No matter how you phrase it your question is still about trying to impose a decision on an entire province without giving them any say and without any negotiations about how that should be done. So yes there's still a difference between someone saying they've made a choice for themselves and someone imposing a choice on someone else without any chance for discussion.

Like saying let's get rid of all the French people, which is not what I said.

You keep defending yourself against a claim that noone has made. You're saying lets get rid of all the Quebecers.

I'd say my problem was Quebec, and an awful lot of people seem to feel them leaving is the proper solution.

And even more people seem to feel that a better solution involves a whole Canada not a divided 1. And of the people who'd like to see Quebec leave most realize the necessity of discussions between Quebec and different communities in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Mad_Michael]

I think you have it backwards. You elected a fiscally liberal, and socially conservative PM.

Yes, that's Harper. Fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Just like the Republicans in the USA.

[guyser]

and an awful lot of people seem to feel them leaving is the proper solution.

Overwhelming majority want them as part of Canada.

[Who's Doing What?]

Yes, that's Harper. Fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Just like the Republicans in the USA.

Both spend like "drunken saliors, and think the govt should be able to tell people what is right(christian) and wrong(anything not deemed acceptable by the bible).

Give Harper credit though he has been smart enough to keep his "firewall around Alberta" mouth shut and stick to more politically acceptable ideas.

[normanchateau]

Harper is an economic conservative, and certainly has not instituted anything remotely considered socially conservative. If you read a very right wing socially conservative forum, they are very upset with him for not being a social conservative. You seem to be one of the few people who promote the idea that he is one. Yeah I know, lesbians and all that, no point in going over the same ground over and over again, just reference the other threads were your fallacies were pointed out. I suppose it though, if you repeat the mantra enough times you believe it yourself.

1) I agree that he's not instituted a social conservative agenda. With a minority government, he'd have no chance of success as he discovered recently when he revisited same sex marriage during his first term in office. My point is that he IS a social conservative, NOT that he's instituted a social conservative agenda. Surely you would agree that an Evangelical Christian like Harper who opposes abortion, opposes same sex marriage, opposes embryonic stem cell research and opposes marijuana decriminalization has social conservative values. The extremists in the social conservative movement are indeed upset with him but it's because he's not yet instituted his own social conservative values into government priorities.

2) You claim Harper is an economic conservative. If so, why are his policies exactly the opposite? He and his Finance Minister are the biggest government spenders of all time:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

Martin cut CBC funding. Harper increased it just as he increased overall spending on the arts and culture. Harper's cuts to programs thus far have been more symbolic than substantial. The Conservative mantra that Harper is a financial conservative might be true in theory but is inconsistent with his out-of-control spending.

3) My "fallacies were pointed out."?? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Care to elaborate or substantiate your allegations? If you actually have evidence, please provide it.