Too much coffee - rant, rant, rant....

A.)

The more I read on these threads the more I think that the Bloc supporters fall into 2 general groups:

1.) people who don't think that current federal parties represent what they want; solution - pick one, load it with candidates that support your views. Believe it: Harper and Dion are waiting for your call with baited breath. Or better yet start another federal party that everyone can vote for. The west did and ended up revamping the old Conservative vote.

2.) people who still cling to the xenophobic and anglo hating backed separtist beliefs. Not that there wasn't discrimination between anglos and fracophones and decades ago there was reason for francophones to be pissed. It' just that it's been a quarter of a century no one seems to have realized that, for all intents and purposes the problems have been more than addressed. There's a time of everything except passing down hatred to the next generation. -Solution - wake up and smell the propaganda - anyone trying to blame the other guy for your problems is lying to you. Which is just about everybody in politics for your entire life. Important note: the Constitution will never be perfected. Anyone complaining about it is simply trolling for unsatisfied voters. Anyone really wanting to improve it for anyone accepts it as is but in need of much work.

B.)

Here's a point of Western confusion:

How can a province containing 25% of the population of a country (and therefore 25% of the elected representatives) plus right around 50% of the Prime Ministers throughout history feel IN ANY WAY not represented in Ottawa? Could it be that there's been just far too much propaganda? Keeping in mind the goal of any politician (especially a separtist one) is to create the illusion of regional shortfall from their area, one has to ponder the noise we always hear. Try living with less than one half the political power you currently have with a province at the other end of the country continually sucking cash out of yours to prop up an unsustainable socialist infrastructure then having them cry about not having enough and needing to leave because you're somehow repressing them (as long as they keep your money)! Forget the fact that you get along with just about every one of them you meet...

The ugly truth about the Bloc policies is that they're designed to create and encourage conflict to sustain the anglo/fracophone hate that was passed down from previous generations. Why anyone wouldn't just walk from that to make something better is really, really weak.

the end is coming for the bloc in Quebec just like the PQ.... we in Quebec want a good ecomony and good jobs..if all these two parties can come up with is lets separate then let "them" fade into the sunset...... they have their pensions guaranteed ...and they wont have any trouble collecting them..... things they are a changing in Quebec..

NWCanuck, your logic is flawed by your contempt towards separatists and generalization of the attitude of the most extreme fringe.

See, it's true there are a damn lot of xenophobic assholes among separatists, at least in absolute numbers (I consider 10,000 to be a damn lot, for instance). But then again, the large majority is really not that bad. Things may just seem a lot worse than usual these days (as in, since about 2 to 5 years) as well, but that's simply because there's currently some kind of media-induced craze that allows xenophobic pricks time in the sun, leading them to be more vocal across the board. I honestly think this won't last and that all and all, Quebec as a whole will just have went through about a decade of ideological crisis that is soon to resorb itself.

I see you base yourself off this forum a lot - you shouldn't. Honestly, who do you think hangs around a forum about politics? Generally those who have the most extreme opinions. And since this obviously is a very federalist, pro-Canada forum, anyone with the guts of being associated with the Bloc in here is probably just *wanting* to go against the current and be overall close to the ideology you denounce. No offense to Bloc members of the forum, but it's kind of true...

As for the B) part of your post...

The numbers are arguable where it comes to money. Some whine because they claim that Quebec, while it receives a lot in perequation and transfers, loses even more in various payments to Ottawa. Either way, Alberta and other rich provinces certainly DO pay even more to Ottawa than Quebec does, but that's actually outside the basis of the argument. I hope I'm making sense here - maybe I should go a bit more in-depth? Do tell if you're not sure you get what I mean.

As for the proportion of PMs whom are from Quebec... true enough, "we" get lots of PMs (in a sense). But again, you know how politics work. The looks are just as important as the content, and someone who is from Quebec might as well be considered to represent the province less well than someone who is not. Someone like Trudeau was never very popular in Quebec despite originating from the province, for he held a strongly centralizing, Ottawa-first philosophy that few Québécois truly identify with.

All and all, I wouldn't let that statistic affect me if I were you. It's essentially meaningless in the world of politics.

Tres Grand can de worms. [popcorn]

This should fester into a flamefest.

I've seen worse. This still seems pretty civil to me. Don't think it's going to devolve just yet.

Methinks the next post will show us how this thread is going to end up as.

You might want to get some recent stats Durandal.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

Look into other transfers too - Like Heath and Social transfers.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/mtpe.html

http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxdollar06/text/h ... r06_e.html

If my company had a balance sheet like this, we would have been bankrupt long ago.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/serv10f.htm

Yes, the redactor of the site I linked doubted that it has changed in the 2 last years because of the Conservative's. That "equalization transfer" thing looks like what we call "fiscall imbalance".

So why does EVERYONE complains about "fiscal imbalance" when we now receive more than we give ? Could it be that they think we have not been given back everything we gave in the past years (before 2005), or everyone from the politicians to the mass-media -- including both fédéralistes and séparatistes -- maintain the population in a big lie. ???

There's also an other thing on economics, don't remember the name, I come back with it.

Péréquation.

A translator gives me "equalization", so it is actually the same thing and not 2 different ways to mesure transfers.

huh. I gotta check these things more often. Amazing what a slow day at work and a location next to the coffe machine will do.

fire_I:

Don't mistake my contempt to the separtists as being one sided. I have plenty of contempt for the federalists, too. They contain xenophobic whackos, people from Ottawa (yuk

) though I can see where you'd get that from my inital post. The danger of doing this at work is that it tends to be rushed and not as well composed as anyone would like.

As for what I base it off of? Using the context of the forum makes sense because it give a common context to start from. If you try to start from too far outside of a localized philosophy it becomes hard to bring other people into it. If that makes sense.

As for the xenophobia - well it's what drives the whole thing. The Francophone population had a legit problem back in the 1950's & 60's with prejudice from the anglophone community. No question. That hate & frustration is what started the whole thing. The only thing is that the problems, for all intents and purposes, no longer exist. The "normal" and "not so bad" people are the ones getting shafted, if they're really interested in perserving francophone values and culture they need to look West. There are hundreds of small, underserviced francophone pockets that would benefit from some genuine, friendly contact with a larger francophone population. Granted they have french speaking schools and the whatnot, but could really benefit from some programs that probably exist in Que. and don't elsewhere.

As for the money argument - don't underestimate any government's ablility to screw with your head (mine included). My argument is based upon a per person dollar contribution over the past 25 or so years. Consider the amount per person that one Albertan contributes in exchange for an extremely low level of representation versus the next to nothing (relatively) contribution that one quebecer/ontarioan would make with their overwhelming control of the funds. It's a common source of frustration in Alberta.

Now, if you want to spread the timeline back to confederation (and yes, it includes Quebec) the waters become murky. Methods of money transfer change and the west was empty and poor. So from that perspective you could argue it the other way. Add on to that the money sent from the Feds to here to put in railways and roads so we could discover oil in the first place and it goes in the other direction. So you are correct to be confused, hope my answer helps.

Crap. Lunchtime at christmas, can't blow this off. Back later.

Ah there's nothing like a slow day at work.

Oh ya. The nation thing? No you're not. See how that works? It's called propaganda. Just because you had some shmoe stand up on stage (elected or no) and tell you one thing doesn't mean it's so. It's kind of like the internet in that sense, I guess. It's designed to create feelings of anger/resentment whenever someone says you're not, so watch out for the programming! Don't forget to create balance in the whole thing - be able to criticize your own as well. Stick with what the BNA and we're fine because we're all subject to it. I'll refrain from sliding into a constitutional debate because I generalize and I think someone's watching me slack off.

Not Laurier's finest moment, for sure! Does speak to the now exinct anglo/franco conflict. By the way - don't forget that there were plenty of francophones just as xenophobic as him. Hate. It's a two way street.

Trudeau was kind of a shmoe, but the multicultural thing turned out to be not that bad of an idea. I get biculturalism and the argument for it, historical and whatnot, but multicultural is the reality we all face. Wether we knew it or not (and I don't think we did), Canadians placed themselves in a position to deal with a closely knit world. The idea can certainly be ridiculed if you look around yourself for 10 miles or so, but understanding and respecting somebody else's culture allows us to function well all over the planet and allows us to interface with a lot of other people. Something that our forefathers (ie Laurier's quote) could not do well. It takes a Canadian to get an ass backwards concept and turn it into a trade deal.

Serious about preserving francophone culture? Forget constitutional arguments - because I said I wouldn't start that. Just start hooking up all the towns & villages across the west that the political propogandists have told you don't exist and see what develops - I bet you could even suck some "unity" money out of the Feds... hmmm.

Anyways, it seems the biggest problem is for a person to find their way around the propaganda. We've all been subject to it and it's all based on past hatred dating back centuries. So exactly how does one bury the hatchet?

Hey what's with the low Canadian birth rate anyway? I don't think it's because we stopped getting laid, we're far too good looking.

To Durandal, NWCanuck and everybody else who mentionned the money argument :

I personally refuse to take a side in this debate. I've seen so many outright contradictory numbers and claims, all of which seem to use different standards, timeframes and accounting methods, that I just think everybody's lying. My first thought would be that Quebec gets more than it pays (it seems likely, at least), but *throws his arms up in the air* I just don't know. That's the big reason why, when I mentionned the claim that Quebec pays more to Ottawa than it receives, I wrote down "some say that" rather than "I believe that".

NWCanuck, about multicuturalism VS biculturalism and the birth rate :

Yep, I'd tend to agree here. I'm all fine with multiculturalism. All and all I'd say it's working fairly well - on par with the american melting pot for sure and miles ahead of the french-style uniculturalism.

As for the birth rate... it's a combination of factors. Too much incentives to consume, too much work, too much taxes, having children no longer being seen as the point and goal of life, etc. It's mostly all about the money though, I'm convinced. Parents won't have as many children as they would because they don't have enough money (or believe they don't) - and everyone's to blame about that, including the parents themselves (in this case, for aiming a standard of living that's too high).