punked Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 I didn't say she was stupid. I said she was a dull speaker whose English sucked. Chretien had an accent. Turmel would need years of practice to be as good as Chretien. Her English doesn't suck though I have had conversations with her and I can tell you that you are wrong. I get it you are trying Dion her and make English Canada hate her, that is fine but it is spin. She is just fine in English heck look at that Block endorsement she wrote in 2006. Her English is quite good however she does have an accent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 She is just fine in English heck look at that Block endorsement she wrote in 2006. Punked, if you think Turmel wrote this herself, you are quite naive about the internal workings of the PSAC, or indeed for any large organization. Oh I'm not saying she didn't approve the final version before signing it and having it published. A union as large as the PSAC has an entire staff at the ready to write this kind of stuff for elected officers. I know, I've done it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Punked, if you think Turmel wrote this herself, you are quite naive about the internal workings of the PSAC, or indeed for any large organization. Oh I'm not saying she didn't approve the final version before signing it and having it published. A union as large as the PSAC has an entire staff at the ready to write this kind of stuff for elected officers. I know, I've done it. She signed her name to it, and until someone steps up to say they wrote it, it is effectively hers. This is the endorsement that Conservatives here are pinning her as a Separatist for this it. So if she didn't write it then she didn't endorse the Bloc at all. That is my point, you don't get to say "She endorsed Sepratist thus she is a Sepratist" And ignore that the title of the endorsement is "I DO NOT SUPPORT SEPARATISM". That is my point really. People on this board refuse to learn anything about their claims. PS her English is very good that is all I am saying. There is going be a lot of spin coming from the Conservatives that she can't speak or understand English. She was the head of a National union, she speaks English well however she comes from Deep French Canada and thus has a heavy accent. Those two things should not be mixed up, I have spoken with her in English and she is just fine. She gave countless speeches in English as a Union leader to act differently is silly. Edited July 28, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 The vast majority of the membership knows nothing about their union and takes no part in it. That's true. In union lingo, the members who get involved are called "activists". They're the ones who are selected to attend conventions where resolutions to set the course of the union are presented and adopted. Many of them take the union's developmental training courses and ultimately, the more dedicated and gifted ones rise through the ranks and get elected to positions of power. That's the path Nycole Turmel took and she rose to become the PSAC's first woman President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 She signed her name to it, and until someone steps up to say they wrote it, it is effectively hers. I can't argue with that, except to say that even if someone did come forward to say they wrote it for her, I would still say she owns it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 I can't argue with that, except to say that even if someone did come forward to say they wrote it for her, I would still say she owns it. It is funny though because that letter the one that says in the title in big bold letter "I DO NOT SUPPORT SEPARATISM" is what this whole thread is about. It is what lead a number member to accuse her of being a Sepratist. What has Canada come to when a Federalist party leader is accused of being a Sepratist for writing a letter saying they do not support Separatism. I mean seriously the conservatives want so bad to have the big bad Bloc around they willing to try and turn a Federalist party into a Separatist party because they miss the Separatist so much. This thread has convinced me what I have thought all along. The Liberals and Conservatives don't want the Sepratist to be gone, it is only the NDP who are really trying to have a go at this whole idea of Federalism and not wanting to have an English/French Canada divide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 This thread has convinced me what I have thought all along. The Liberals and Conservatives don't want the Sepratist to be gone, it is only the NDP who are really trying to have a go at this whole idea of Federalism and not wanting to have an English/French Canada divide. You're a staunch NDPer. I wouldn't expect you to feel any other way than the NDP is the best and the rest suck. Kudos for being consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus Posted July 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Here is their 2006 endorsement. It was titled "PSAC endorses Bloc’s progressive policies, not its goal of separatism" That was the title, it wasn't some line buried somewhere in the endorsement it was the title. As you can see Nycole Turmel wrote it her self. That has been my point this whole thread. Conservatives love to re-write history but fact is Mrs. Turmel went out of her way in 2006 to say she and PSAC do not support Separatism. Any idiot could find it, yet there are plenty of people who refuse to actually look into any issue because they want to believe something instead of the truth. http://wp.psacbc.com...-of-separatism/ The reason is that the Bloc is proactive and progressive on a range of issues, from pay equity to anti-scab legislation to child care. On the basis of its strong support for social, human and labour rights alone, it gets support from workers and their families. Uhmmm...so was the platform of the NDP at the time. And to a lesser extent, the Green Party as well. Both are Federalist parties and had candidates run in her riding in 2006. Why choose a BQ candidate? The raison d'etre for the BQ was to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. You can ice it as much as you like but here is the party policy of the BQ, taken directly from their website: Sa mission fondamentale est la promotion et la réalisation de la souveraineté du Québec à la suite d'une décision démocratique des Québécoises et des Québécois en ce sens. Translation: Its fundamental mission is the promotion and realization of the sovereignty of Quebec as a result of a democratic decision of Quebecers in this sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 I for one welcome the NPD's new sovereigntist leader! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Uhmmm...so was the platform of the NDP at the time. And to a lesser extent, the Green Party as well. Both are Federalist parties and had candidates run in her riding in 2006. Why choose a BQ candidate? You are asking dumb questions and making assertions the whole time ignoring the "Endorsement" you cite as your proof she is a Separatist says in the title SHE DOESN'T SUPPORT SEPRATISM! End of story. Sorry dude you are as bad as a birther. Edited July 28, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vineon Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Again when PSAC endorsed the Bloc in 2006 they went out of their way to say they think Separatism is stupid and against the interest of their Union, and the Quebec/Canadian people. Interesting. I'm sure it was worded exactly this way. I'm frankly amused this comes from someone keen on accusing others of "rewriting history". (Ah come on now, I get an edit tag for an edit made 3 minutes later?) Edited July 28, 2011 by Vineon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 You are asking dumb questions and making assertions the whole time ignoring the "Endorsement" you cite as your proof she is a Separatist says in the title SHE DOESN'T SUPPORT SEPRATISM! If she didn't support separatism, she wouldn't have endorsed a separatist party, with or without the "we like them, but..." qualifier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 How is it anti-quebec to point out that the woman appears not to have a very strong commitment to Canada? This is the person who leads the official opposition at the moment, which is the government in waiting for all Canadians. I don't think it's irrelevant to question whether she is doing so merely out of expediency to get the most for Quebec if she's on record as supporting separatist candidates. I think Capricorn's post seems to explains the situation quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 If she didn't support separatism, she wouldn't have endorsed a separatist party, with or without the "we like them, but..." qualifier. It wasn't a qualifier, it was part of the central thesis, beginning with the title. And people are criticizing her command of English??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 It is funny though because that letter the one that says in the title in big bold letter "I DO NOT SUPPORT SEPARATISM" is what this whole thread is about. It is what lead a number member to accuse her of being a Sepratist. What has Canada come to when a Federalist party leader is accused of being a Sepratist for writing a letter saying they do not support Separatism. I mean seriously the conservatives want so bad to have the big bad Bloc around they willing to try and turn a Federalist party into a Separatist party because they miss the Separatist so much. This thread has convinced me what I have thought all along. The Liberals and Conservatives don't want the Sepratist to be gone, it is only the NDP who are really trying to have a go at this whole idea of Federalism and not wanting to have an English/French Canada divide. It's a little too much like fascism. We must unite together under the Conservative flag to fight separatism, a tactic which also benefited the Liberals. It's gutter politics at best. Quebec has rejected separatism by throwing out the Bloc and the PQ is allegedly on its last legs as well. Like I said earlier in the thread, Michaelle Jean had to put up with the same allegations and she was nothing of the sort. If she was, it certainly didn't affect her Governor Generalship. This is nothing more than a smear campaign that is so far from reality that the Conservative Party itself has avoided it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Interesting. I'm sure it was worded exactly this way. I'm frankly amused this comes from someone keen on accusing others of "rewriting history". (Ah come on now, I get an edit tag for an edit made 3 minutes later?) One of my biggest pet peeves about this forum. If you make a typo, notice it after you hit submit and go back to edit it, the edit tag shows up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treehugger Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Thank You cyberobvious He may have been a PC but was also a Quebec Nationalist for his whole life. There' where the doubting came in as he wasn't a true PC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 He may have been a PC but was also a Quebec Nationalist for his whole life. There' where the doubting came in as he wasn't a true PC. Yah yah yah got it, we only accept the history we want and rewrite all the other history to be the way we want. We know how Conservatives work this thread has proven that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Yah yah yah got it, we only accept the history we want and rewrite all the other history to be the way we want. Just to get this all straight: an NDP-er who was never a Separatist was actually a Separatist, which tells us something sinister about the NDP; and a PC who was a Separatist was in fact not a "real" PC...which, presumably, is another black mark against "the Left." This Left entity sure is devious and incredibly powerful, and has a hell of a lot to answer for; namely, everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Just to get this all straight: an NDP-er who was never a Separatist was actually a Separatist, which tells us something sinister about the NDP; and a PC who was a Separatist was in fact not a "real" PC...which, presumably, is another black mark against "the Left." This Left entity sure is devious and incredibly powerful, and has a hell of a lot to answer for; namely, everything. yah yah yah I get it. Conservatives can never do anything wrong and everyone else does everything wrong. I get it already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Seems pretty obvious that she is not a separtist. People who say otherwise are lying or can't read. Grow up folks. Making stuff up doesn't win you any debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Seems pretty obvious that she is not a separtist. People who say otherwise are lying or can't read. Grow up folks. Making stuff up doesn't win you any debates. Who cares if she's separtist or not. The moof only proves that the NDQ is pretty irrelevant outside of Quebec and only really replaced the Bloc in the house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Who cares if she's separtist or not. The moof only proves that the NDQ is pretty irrelevant outside of Quebec and only really replaced the Bloc in the house. LOL Non-sensical nonsense..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Who cares if she's separtist or not. The moof only proves that the NDQ is pretty irrelevant outside of Quebec and only really replaced the Bloc in the house. Yah tell that to the 40+ MPs they have outside of Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Yah tell that to the 40+ MPs they have outside of Quebec. They will learn pretty quickly on their own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.