Quebec student strike

[Signals.Cpl]

Um no. Hitler came to power when? '39? No. That's when WWII started. Try reading your wiki page over and over again until you get it, ok?

When we speak of Hitler and his fascism we have to start even before 1933 when he was appointed Chancellor.

Class dismissed.

We can actually start with the fascists in Italy in the 1920's as the first fascist government of that era.

[Rick]

Napolean...sure, his fascist style pretty much set the standards for the modern era. Harper's following his lead..

[Signals.Cpl]

Napolean...sure, his fascist style pretty much set the standards for the modern era. Harper's following his lead..

Ok, give CONCRETE examples of how Harper is a fascist, with sources. I really want to see how you bs your way through this one

[Rick]

Class dismissed.

Arrogance...sure sign of a neo-con...

Edited May 26, 2012 by Rick

[Rick]

Ok, give CONCRETE examples of how Harper is a fascist, with sources. I really want to see how you bs your way through this one

It's late...I'll leave you with some reading.

http://politicsanditsdiscontents.blogspot.ca/2012/02/contemporary-fascism-harper-government.html

[Claudius]

Napolean...sure, his fascist style pretty much set the standards for the modern era. Harper's following his lead..

Except for the whole election thing, the withdrawing troops from war and endorsing gay marriage then yeah I guess he's exactly like Napoleon.

(rolls eyes)

[Claudius]

Arrogance...sure sign of a neo-con...

"witty" comebacks that only took ten minutes to come up with; assumptions, labels and name-calling to try and cover up one's obvious mistakes....A sure sign of the ignorant wannabie-activist who doesn't have the guts to do any real learning.

BTW I couldn't be farther from a neo-con but that wouldn't matter to you since "neo-con" to someone like you is no different than the "cooties" name calling of school yard children.

[Claudius]

It's late...I'll leave you with some reading.

http://politicsanditsdiscontents.blogspot.ca/2012/02/contemporary-fascism-harper-government.html

Gotta love it. You ask him for proof and he just hands you a meaningless blog by nobody that doesn't even address the point.

Like I said before: just regurgitates someone else's talking points that he doesn't even understand himself.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Claudius

[Claudius]

We can actually start with the fascists in Italy in the 1920's as the first fascist government of that era.

...and Austria, but let's start him off slow....you know with training wheels and all.

[Signals.Cpl]

It's late...I'll leave you with some reading.

http://politicsanditsdiscontents.blogspot.ca/2012/02/contemporary-fascism-harper-government.html

I guess you can't back up your claim. If you claim he is fascist you should present concise points WHY, rather they send to leftwing nutcase websites.

[g_bambino]

thats your opinion...

Nope. It's a fact. Teachers, administrators, maintenance workers, staff all need paid for their time so they can buy houses and food for themselves and whatnot; buildings need built, heated, lit, and maintained; materials and books need to be purchased; and on and on and on. Education ain't free and never will be.

[jacee]

Fighting words: A look at what Quebec student protesters are really thinking

Interesting interviews with students.

Education ain't free and never will be.

It is free for elementary and secondary, and should be for postsecondary too.

[g_bambino]

It is free for elementary and secondary...

No, it's not.

[GostHacked]

A protest that blocks traffic or prevents others from going about their business is not peaceful.

Rush hour in Montreal does the same as a protest.

[Argus]

Arrogance...sure sign of a neo-con...

Are you saying Pierre Trudeau was a neo-con?

[Argus]

Fighting words: A look at what Quebec student protesters are really thinking

Interesting interviews with students.

It is free for elementary and secondary, and should be for postsecondary too.

That seems to be your whole thing. Only almost no one in the country agrees with you. Basic education is provided for by the state. Higher education is heavily subsidized by the state, but you are expected to contribute something. And seriously, if that's too much for you then you clearly don't have the necessary drive and desire to be successful in any sort of professional endeavor anyway and would be better off digging ditches or something.

[Claudius]

This needs a separate thread. There's two arguments going on here, 1)the validity of the Quebec student protest and 2) the validity of a free education.

The Quebec students are not protesting for a free education for them and the rest of Canada. That's a bit of fib being perpetrated when people need a counter argument to things like the fact they enjoy the lowest tuitions in the country (thanks at least in part to the average $6billion in transfer payments they get every year for the past decade), or the sobering fact they are protesting in the minority, or the fact that this increase the students claim they can't afford is per diem about the same price as a pint of beer - the same pints they enjoy after a hard day of gettin' their "activist" on.

Not to mention that all this reverence for a good education is juxtaposed against the backdrop of Quebec having the highest post-secondary drop out rates in the country (and it's been that way for a long time).

Free education is an interesting topic, and not as cut and dry as many might think, imo. But let's quit pretending that's the reason the Quebec students are chucking rocks through windows or disrupting other peoples classes.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Claudius

[Claudius]

Fighting words: A look at what Quebec student protesters are really thinking

From an interview from the link above:

Q: Is what is going on evidence of a healthy democracy?

A: It’s direct democracy. It’s people going out in the streets. We don’t live in a democracy right now. We live in a representative democracy that is basically flawed.

"Direct democracy". Hmm. That's an interesting claim considering they are actually pissed off that democracy was used in these decisions and they simply don't like it. Everyone thinks democracy is flawed when they don't win. That kind of thinking is flawed. "Direct democracy" the way this person is defining it means making every ones life miserable because they didn't win.

The statement from this person imo is BS because they are in the minority, but it does point out that democracy isn't really about "everyone getting what they want and being happy". Quite the opposite. Even in a pure majority the Greek philosophers were quick to point out that 51% of a group lording their will over the other 49% is as much a tyranny as anything else. Democracy doesn't "work" because everyone gets what they want. It works because it is a medium of mediocrity. I don't mean that as an insult. What I mean is it only works if everyone is willing to abide by the results even if it screws them. The pay off for this is society is spared the incredible lows of leaders like another Hitler or Stalin, but at the same time it inhibits the occasional "highs" a society can produce for a leader like a Charlemagne or the like....Edit: or a Churchill who was considered a great leader but wasn't directly elected.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Claudius

[Signals.Cpl]

From an interview from the link above:

"Direct democracy". Hmm. That's an interesting claim considering they are actually pissed off that democracy was used in these decisions and they simply don't like it. Everyone thinks democracy is flawed when they don't win. That kind of thinking is flawed. "Direct democracy" the way this person is defining it means making every ones life miserable because they didn't win.

The statement from this person imo is BS because they are in the minority, but it does point out that democracy isn't really about "everyone getting what they want and being happy". Quite the opposite. Even in a pure majority the Greek philosophers were quick to point out that 51% of a group lording their will over the other 49% is as much a tyranny as anything else. Democracy doesn't "work" because everyone gets what they want. It works because it is a medium of mediocrity. I don't mean that as an insult. What I mean is it only works if everyone is willing to abide by the results even if it screws them. The pay off for this is society is spared the incredible lows of leaders like another Hitler or Stalin, but at the same time it inhibits the occasional "highs" a society can produce for a leader like a Charlemagne or the like....Edit: or a Churchill who was considered a great leader but wasn't directly elected.

I wonder do any of them have any idea how to run a direct democracy of 30,000,000 people who on many issues are uninformed and unwilling to learn about the many subject pet project people may support. even with direct democracy there is no guarantee that you will get what you want, all that you can hope for is being the loudest/most violent in order to drone out the competition or scare the undecided. Direct Democracy in more intimate settings are possiable, but once you get a significant population then direct democracy becomes more flawed then representative democracy.

[Michael Hardner]

"Direct democracy". Hmm. That's an interesting claim considering they are actually pissed off that democracy was used in these decisions and they simply don't like it. Everyone thinks democracy is flawed when they don't win. That kind of thinking is flawed. "Direct democracy" the way this person is defining it means making every ones life miserable because they didn't win.

I see what you're saying, but voting isn't the sum total of the expression of democracy. Speech and protest are part of it, too, so she's not entirely wrong. They're taking their message directly to people, which seems pretty democratic to me. Look at the news from around the world to see how the protest has become relevant again.

[Claudius]

I see what you're saying, but voting isn't the sum total of the expression of democracy. Speech and protest are part of it, too, so she's not entirely wrong. They're taking their message directly to people, which seems pretty democratic to me. Look at the news from around the world to see how the protest has become relevant again.

A protest yes, but that doesn't include disrupting everyone elses life, or intimidating those who disagree or the destruction of property. She seems to think it is. I realize to some people that is the very definition of protest: annoying everyone and disrupting things. Not so. That is not necessary to "take the message to the people" or to show the government how many people are in disagreement.

Stopping traffic and destroying property or intimidating people isn't, "getting the message across", unless that message is, "see things our way or else we'll screw with you or destroy something...", which is just an intimidation, not protest.

I mean what would you think if I came along and threw a brick through your window and when you run out to ask me "wtf!?", I say, "Hey hey it's okay, this is just direct democracy: I'm protesting for free day care". I'm pretty sure you'd think that was bull.

Remember this is part protest and part "strike", and it's in that "strike" vein that they seem to think they have a right to do whatever they please to "get the message out". I disagree vehemently.

Nothing wrong with protest at all, but there is something wrong imo when you figure peaceful protest isn't enough, you must make disruptions/violence/destruction instead. That's just juvenile imo and naturally the state (which is actually you and I) will push back.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Claudius

[wyly]

I see what you're saying, but voting isn't the sum total of the expression of democracy. Speech and protest are part of it, too, so she's not entirely wrong. They're taking their message directly to people, which seems pretty democratic to me. Look at the news from around the world to see how the protest has become relevant again.

governments often don't listen and they also count on voter apathy, that people will just grumble a wee bit and then accept whatever decisions are made...vigorous protests are a sign government has gone too far, a protest by students traditionally the most apathetic of all voters should be taken as a sign that there is discontent among the general population...

I don't get the need for violence and destruction but maybe some feel a need to send a stronger message...

[wyly]

Fighting words: A look at what Quebec student protesters are really thinking

Interesting interviews with students.

It is free for elementary and secondary, and should be for postsecondary too.

ya I used to think the students should be happy with their situation, my post-secondary kids are paying far more for their education than Quebec students...but now I'm of the opinion that a well educated population is a wealthier, healthier and more employed population...society is paid back for the investment in productivity...give free tuition for all post secondary students...

[Michael Hardner]

A protest yes, but that doesn't include disrupting everyone elses life, or intimidating those who disagree or the destruction of property.

Protests are disruptive, that's the point. There are limits, of course, and you could easily argue that just having them out their filling the public square making noise is disruptive. A 15 minute traffic delay or so isn't enough for me to get interested in suspending peoples' rights, anyway.

I don't think the organizers are advocating for destruction, so that could be anybody's fault.

I mean what would you think if I came along and threw a brick through your window and when you run out to ask me "wtf!?", I say, "Hey hey it's okay, this is just direct democracy: I'm protesting for free day care". I'm pretty sure you'd think that was bull.

Strawman.

[Michael Hardner]

a protest by students traditionally the most apathetic of all voters should be taken as a sign that there is discontent among the general population...

If my life is made more difficult by the government, due to some poll-driven bureaucrat's decision that says I won't make noise about it, then you'd better believe I will learn to make noise pretty quickly.