Are You For or Against Separatism in Canada?
Previous 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 22 Next
Mustang1 @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:12 am
Well, Arctic, you have your “answer” and per usual it’s overflowing with subjective nonsense, ignorance, historical unawareness, dodging, anti-intellectualism and oversimplified conclusions drawn from a limited perspective. If all “separatists” are like this, then Canada will outlast Rome. 
1Peg @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:18 am
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
Clogeroo, your answers to my questions and such are all "wells", "ifs", "Maybes", "Perhaps'" and "I'd say's".
It's all fine and dandy for one man to assume something, but entirely different for the millions of others and what could happen. Open your eyes, man!
It's all fine and dandy for one man to assume something, but entirely different for the millions of others and what could happen. Open your eyes, man!
What do you expect I don't have magic crystal ball to tell you what will happen. Most of your questions are fairly vague as well and are pretty much what if this happened or this may happen. Let's face it the west won't die without Canada put it that way. Whatever money we are sending to Ottawa will be going back to our provinces to spend on how many or how little programmes we want. Whatever royalties Ottawa is collecting on our resources we would get back. We gain by this not lose economically and politically we gain a whole lot more too. I'm not interested in building a giant wall between Ontario and Manitoba and I doubt that would happen. It is unlikely Canada will hurt itself in spite of our leaving either if money is at stake and access to our resources which account for over half in the now current country.
Many sovereign states can co-operate quite efficiently despite being separated as I pointed out like Australia and New Zealand do or even as North America does. Once we get the votes we will be gone and if Canada doesn't want to recognise it we will leave anyway and you can keep our share of debt and whatever money you would get from negotiations. It will take some work but it can be done and will be worth it in the end. Also do you honestly believe Canada would remain so for ever? Look at other countries historically borders change and people move a part or together. Did Rome last? No. Ottoman Empire? Gone. Byzantines now part of Turkey. Lots of countries have changed and will continue to do so and this country is not immune from that. Borders will change as they always have been. This is reality and this is clearly not the early 20th century anymore and we are not some feeble people totally dependent on Canada, Canada is deepening on us.
Let’s face it if Canada really wanted to keep us here you have to offer us something. We should get a triple E senate, the House of Commons should be based on representation by population not just rewarded seats and extra to whomever you deem deserves them. We should be made into a confederation not the federation we are and the government must decentralise. Canada is going to have to change but it clearly is not looking like it will therefore leaving is the remaining option and as more people realise this the more we will have pushing for our province to leave. This is about what we want not what you want and it is up to our province to decide if we should remain part of this federation or if we should leave. I also imagine once the Maritimes become more productive or can carry their own weight they too will be gone and Newfoundland probably will be the first to go.
Agree
Clogeroo @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:37 am
$1:
Here we go Dummy Matt!
I thought that was your derogative childish like name for me? I feel so betrayed dayseed.
Dayseed @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:53 am
Clog,
You're Skippy Ear-Bleeder. Unfortunately, I have to retract ever promising you could be the new Dummy Matt. There can be only one.
Sorry.
Mustang1 @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:14 am
fire_i fire_i:
Not necessarilly. But are you? It works both ways. I accept the fact that it's very possible I'm wrong. But apparently you don't.
Nope, I have history on my side and you’re guessing. Either way, as it stands currently no one is buying state dissolvent nonsense (other than the fringe)
$1:
“It was an example. If you need an example to be dead-on the subject, you need to back down a little and try to see things from a broader point of view.”
It’s a poor example. Sorry. I want a modern political example in the Canadian context. It’s not my role to argue your points. If you can’t find one, then don’t retreat to bad parallel to buttress your points.
$1:
“Yes, maybe I'm incorrect and need enlightenment. But again... this can work both ways.
I’ll go with the former and ignore the latter as it’s merely projection
$1:
“And you say I have an agenda - but do you have proofs? No you don't. Do you need proofs before saying something like that? Generally I'd say yes, but it appears you don't, as if whatever you said could be only be the one and only truth - judging from the tone of your post, that's what you appear to think ; If I'm wrong, sorry for misjudging you, but if I'm right, well, then you don't need to bother replying at all, it's unimportant anyway.”
Are you a Quebec Separatist or not? Simple question. My intuition says you are and that you’re simply flaming the flames of political break up to further your political goals of ethnic nationalism.
$1:
“Anyway, it's well known, in life, few things are black and white ; everything's a shade of grey. I'm certainly not 100% right, but I'm certainly not 100% wrong either. The same goes for you.”
Don’t paint me with your shortcomings – I simply asked to you to justify dissolution beyond ethnic nationalist sentiments, which are largely predicated on emotions.
$1:
“Hence the use of could and might. Conjecture was the point of that sentence. Anyway, the argument I supported with that statement wasn't "Canada should be divided", but "the majority isn't always right" : I think it's important to note that. Using this as argument to support division of Canada would have been a poor decision, it indeed wouldn't bring much - but in that case, that wasn't my intention.”
Firstly, it still stands as an argumentative fallacy = fallacy of extension. Secondly, in this case, how is the majority wrong? You’ve had 2 plebiscites and you’ve clearly rationalizing the fact that a majority of people in Quebec DO NOT want separation, so now you’re retreating to some intellectually relativist stance that supports your ethnic nationalist minority. Fat chance – besides, I seriously doubt you’d support that same notion had “Yes” side been victorious.
$1:
“The first part of your post is true, but we wouldn't risk as much as you think. Politically, we probably wouldn't lose much - the political system is very flawed in Canada, it would be hard to do worse (if you stay in a democratic context I mean). I talked of that in my long-ass post on page 7. However, I do agree that if our system was reformed as to correct the imbalance and "musical chair game" it represents (even if that'd be hard), then yes, politically speaking we'd all lose.”]
How is the system seriously flawed? And how does separation offer the only solutions to said flaws? I’ll be eagerly awaiting your critique of our political system.
$1:
“Unless that by political hardship, you mean relations between the new ex-Canadian states would be poor? That's possible if everyone leaves Canada one after the other while keeping a bitter taste after being discontented repeatedly... but that's not quite the possibility I'm advocating : I'd rather be in for an agreed-upon, pre-planned and simultaneous seccession. You may say that will never happen, I'll have to reluctantly agree ; it's not impossible, and far from unthinkable, but chances are it will never happen. Anyway, to get back to the matter at hand, if the ex-Canadian states I'm mentionning rather went for a pre-planned approach, chances are most of the political strife would be avoided. Of course, that can only happen with the support of the people - if too many disagree inside any bloc, better forget the idea already, it wouldn't work and would be undemocratic. Evidently, it won't happen any time soon (but here, I have to say my definition of soon is arbitrary and that you, for example, may think 100 years is "soon" - in this case however, I consider it's rather far away).”
Talk about naïve idealism. Ethnic nationalism (which is what you’re advocating for) isn’t about pragmatism or political realism or sound economics, it’s about naked emotionalism. This makes pre-planned, mutually acceptable terms improbable. Are you actually suggesting that Quebec would open itself up to partition by the Canadian government? It’s only fair – you want Canada partitioned, so the same should apply to you. How about the land you started with 1867? What about your share of debt? Are you actually suggesting that after succession, Quebec (whose dependent upon equalization payments currently) is going to afford its fair share of the debt? Please. This is a pipedream, and all you can do is hedge your bets by falling back on a relative time frame.
$1:
“Or maybe you meant diplomacy with already existing countries? Well, we've seen what would almost certainly happen already with the implosion of Yugoslavia - the world moved on. And that's without saying that region of the world suffered from ethnic cleansing around the time it divided, which could only make matters extremely more complex - yet, the world moved on...”
This should be good – please demonstrate the similarities between Yugoslavia and Quebec. There’s a glaring error here, but I’ll be sporting and see if you can identify it. Again, this is another poor comparison.
$1:
“Now, economically. Would division hurt us all? Yes, probably, especially on short term. On long term, I'd think things would at least even out considering we'd probably save some money from slightly reduced bureaucracy and less hassle when it comes to exploiting ressources (I adressed that latter issue shortly in my loooong post on page 7). But that's just my opinion, and you don't want to hear opinions (other than your own at least...), so I'll let you think what you want. Don't even bother replying to this. I already know you disagree and will say I can only be entirely off.”
Actually, I’ll respond anyway, but thanks for the suggestion. Firstly, you will be economically hurt. Secondly, you assume it will somehow get better, but where’s your analysis? How will Quebec “even out” without equalization payments, trade (what, you’re automatically in NAFTA?) and a significantly smaller piece of geography (yep, you’re divisible too) and what’s your plan for investment and immigration? This is the work of a juvenile at a computer and has little to do with reality.
$1:
“Of course I'm a Quebec separatist, I advocate the separation of the entire country, I think it's fitting, eh.”
So, my hunch was right. You’re here to stir up crap in the faint hope that Canada will break up before you ever get your precious “winning conditions” in Quebec. Nice try, stick to your own ethnic nationalism and let’s see how you do.
$1:
“Do I have a grasp on things? I'll tell you the truth. Probably not. One, I live in an area where half the population wants to seccess, and let me tell you, the atmosphere's damn heavy around these parts. The single issue of seccession causes much anger, cynism, disinterest and hate, and that on both sides - no, not only the separatists are turned into bastards and assholes. Plus, I'm 16. Therefore my perception of things may just be flawed. I know many people, you first, will be positive I'm wrong on all the line - that's fine. But to everyone else : read all my three posts in this thread and, if you recognize yourself in what I said, please consider what I wrote as I'm possibly not really entirely off.”
Minutia. Either your arguments are sound (which they’re not) or they’re simply based off subjective observations. I’m not here to entertain the whims of a 16 year old that thinks civil strife; economic hardship and political turmoil are “cool.” Sorry.
$1:
“Oh, and we separatists aren't as unaware as you think. We just have different priorities. You'd be surprised how mant times I hear "God are those separatists unimformed" and "God do those federalists know nothing" every week. It just happens we think Feds are wrong because they often steer away from the human side and that Feds think we are wrong because we often steer away from the economic side. It's a matter of perception more than anything else and saying separatists are generally unimformed is wrong in itself since chances are it's just they have different priorities than you.”
Then prove me wrong. I’ve asked you a litany of diagnostic questions, so you can have your chance to substantiate your assertion
$1:
“To get to your question : the problems I see are that of strife between provincial government, dislike of the citizens of the rest of the country (that old [Province]-Bashing), discontent created by overboard redistribution of riches, discontent created by insufficient redistribution of riches (Ironic), fights over competence fields, uneven valorization of provinces's potential, lack of representativity of the government, favoritism towards a part of the country over the other (right now, Quebec), disagreement over usage of the millitary, lack of ability to obtain consensus over the constitution of all things, increased bureaucracy, and I get tired of writing here. Anyway, I know what will happen, no matter how many problems I list, and even in the case you'd have to agree some would indeed be solved efficiently through division, you always will have the luxury to reply that while some things don't work, most do work and that "those few problems" aren't worth "taking the chance of hardship" for.”
Okay let’s look at this, shall we?
1. Provincial/Governmental relations - welcome to federalism. Guess what, problems also exist between provinces and municipalities – how will separation eradicate that?
2. Province Bashing – huh? Is this cultural insecurity? Get over it. This exists regionally and municipally, and what makes separation a solid buttress against it anyway?
3. Equalization Payments – you currently get a tonne. Will separation solve this? Probably, but then how will you ever hope to maintain your current under worked unionized lifestyle without Canada’s cheques? Which do you think the people of Quebec will choose?
4. Fights over competence fields – huh? Do you mean federal hiring programs? This is justification for civil strife, economic hardships and political turmoil? I’d love to see your salesmanship in this one.
5. Disagreement over usage of the military – provinces disagree over the use of out military? There’s provincial blocks? Please. If this is some banal attempt to rationalize Quebec’s shameful past of failing to help Europe in time of tyranny and destruction, then forget as I’m not buy it. Besides, you’ll still have ideological differences within your new “state” and then how will you address it?
6. Lack of ability to obtain consensus over the constitution of all things - Why do you need a consensus on the constitution (which safeguard minority rights?)? This should be good – you didn’t sign it, but you seem content to fall back to Sec. 33 whenever individual freedoms get in the way of your ethnic nationalism. Evidently, consensus isn’t needed in cotemporary Quebec mega-constitutional practices. Constitutions won’t ever get a consensus (they act as a safeguard for minority rights, or will your proposed forego that as it hurts nationalism)– this is naivety at its finest and ignorance at its worst to believe a new state with a new constitution will somehow define political reality.
7. Increased Bureaucracy – this wrongly assumes that all of Canada will disintegrate (another argumentative fallacy). It won’t – if Quebec leaves (which it won’t) then it will still have a national (which now likely grows to accommodate the duel roles of the old federal and provincial responsibilities) and municipal level of government. It won’t be very large geographically (after its partition by the Canadian government) so likely it should be to handle the political load with two levels. Good point – mathematically, a potentially smaller bureaucracy is the perfect reason for political dissolution. Somewhere, Voltaire weeps.
Congratulations, you’ve cherry picked a few problems in the current Canadian system. You’ve failed, however, to demonstrate how separation will solve them as they’re inherent issues within democratic systems.
$1:
“Giving up? I'm stating a solution among many others. If you see division of a country as "giving up", then we're bound to never agree : I rather see it as affirmation of oneself (as long as it's not done exclusively out of hate and not conviction, that is. And I'll take time to note, before someone starts taking the easy way out... no, I'm not being hateful).
Then there have been problems like that of never-ending intestinal fighting in Canada since it exists - it's those I think division of Canada would solve, not the everyday and/or temporary problems any country can fix like you seem to mention. I'm not for retreat in the face of dillema either, I just stand for a more radical solution.”
Then there have been problems like that of never-ending intestinal fighting in Canada since it exists - it's those I think division of Canada would solve, not the everyday and/or temporary problems any country can fix like you seem to mention. I'm not for retreat in the face of dillema either, I just stand for a more radical solution.”
Your “radical solution” doesn’t create problem as well? Hmm…you’re solving problems with a tactic that presents a diversionary dilemma? Brilliant! Shh…no one will see it clearly, but then you’ll still have the original problems when the new state is declared. Damn, well, that almost worked.
$1:
“
First, I don't like how you use "separatist" as if it was a synonym for "idiot".”
First, I don't like how you use "separatist" as if it was a synonym for "idiot".”
First, I don’t’ like how you put words into my mouth.
$1:
“Yes it's personnal opinion, as much as thinking it'd create more problems than it addresses is your personnal opinion. If I was a God, and knew everything when it comes to macroeconomics, politics, diplomacy, the dynamics of war and how in the world they fill Caramilks, then I'd be able to respond effectively to this without leaving a gaping hole for you to point out and ridicule my argumentation.”
Well…if you actually did understand micro/macro economics, politics, diplomacy and the dynamics of war, you likely wouldn’t be a separatist! Zing! That one is for free, but I’m not here to argue subjective prattle, so if this opinion, than fine, you’re entitled to it, but that doesn’t mean it matters to anyone other than you.
$1:
“The problem is, I'm no God, and like you say yourself, division would lead to highly unpredictable results. I'm positive no one, you and I included, can effectively take a shot at guessing what would happen and obtain an accurate portrait. That's just too much to ask for a single person. You'd need a whole team of specialists to plan the most likely possibilities, and even then there'd still be some oddball results they haven't expected.
I could try and explain all the ins and outs of division, but I'd likely be wrong and, alone, it'd take me forever to try and find a way how we could prevent errors. And even then, I'd overlook so many things it could still be possible for anyone to simply step up and point out "lol, all you said is BS because you don't address every single possibility and find a way to deal with it perfectly".
I'm more of throwing the idea in the air right now, even though it's far from being perfect. With time, it can only get better. It's easy to dismiss it, everyone can do that, there's no problem there : it doesn't require any kind of skill either, one could be utterly unimformed yet be able to point out the problems with divisionnism and rule out the whole possibility. It's easy.
But after ridiculizing the possibility, who mentions an alternative solution to the problems I mentionned above? Few, even if it's just to solve one problem - again, there's no magic solution, I don't expect someone to find a perfect way to solve every problem I'd ever think of, but why stick to attacking an idea one considers incorrect if he has nothing other than a degrading statu quo to propose as solution to problems it is known it cannot solve? Wouldn't it be better to think of an alternative first and attack afterwards?”
I could try and explain all the ins and outs of division, but I'd likely be wrong and, alone, it'd take me forever to try and find a way how we could prevent errors. And even then, I'd overlook so many things it could still be possible for anyone to simply step up and point out "lol, all you said is BS because you don't address every single possibility and find a way to deal with it perfectly".
I'm more of throwing the idea in the air right now, even though it's far from being perfect. With time, it can only get better. It's easy to dismiss it, everyone can do that, there's no problem there : it doesn't require any kind of skill either, one could be utterly unimformed yet be able to point out the problems with divisionnism and rule out the whole possibility. It's easy.
But after ridiculizing the possibility, who mentions an alternative solution to the problems I mentionned above? Few, even if it's just to solve one problem - again, there's no magic solution, I don't expect someone to find a perfect way to solve every problem I'd ever think of, but why stick to attacking an idea one considers incorrect if he has nothing other than a degrading statu quo to propose as solution to problems it is known it cannot solve? Wouldn't it be better to think of an alternative first and attack afterwards?”
Admitting that, you don’t know, could have easily summed this up
$1:
“.They say one month is an eternity in politics... so 100 years? It's gigantic. The current facts simply don't hold on such a long timestamp - therefore, by claiming division of Canada will not happen, you are downplaying the possibility - I'd say you should have said it probably will not happen. Again, shades of grey. However, I have to agree that with the current situation, seeing Canada divide in the next 25 years is a negligible possibility, with the possible exception of Quebec seccession (and even then).”
Hedging your bets again? You can manipulate the timeframe in whatever method you deem fit, but Confederation has been successful for 140 years, is currently operating without major problems and while it won’t last forever, it won’t divide in the next 25 years (sorry, you’re just guessing, so the point is moot). At any rate, I still have history on my side you’re left with uneducated shots in the dark.
$1:
“Yes, you're right. When I say Canada will be down by 2100, I have no fact to back it up. It's just a gut feeling. I simply see some small hints right now - maybe I consider them too much. I don't say I'm right. I think so, but thinking it doesn't mean it's the case.”
Read more as it might stop you from making such silly proclamations.
$1:
“Anyway, I also can accuse you. Your mainstream position doesn't allow you to go into "grandiose declarations" to quote you, but it does allow you to dismiss be me as an extremist idiot since you perfectly know the current situation is not Hell on Earth. Tied one-all, I'd say.”
Tied one-all? Please, talk about another grandiose statement. Sorry, you’re not debating; you’re broadcasting an opinion. You consistently dodge the salient point by issuing statements that claim you don’t know, you’re guessing, you’re throwing out a hunch, but how is this discourse? Besides, you’re an extremist by your own admission as you’re about “radical” solutions instead of pragmatic approaches. Sorry, but as you get a little older and gain some solid scholarly work under your belt, you may find that extremism is best afforded to the young and inexperienced.
sandorski @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:20 pm
Torn. I like the idea that a Province could determine their fate, but at the same time think that Provinces leaving undermines the whole Country. The Federal Government would likely be forced to Military Action and Civil War is likely to occur.
CDNBear @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:27 pm
My personal honest opinion...
I think we should seperate the Quebecuois from Kebec.
Then we would be doing something constructive.
btw, I don't care where you put them after they're seperated, but I know what we can do with Kebec when they've seperated, we can have it join the RoC and be a free society to speak, print and post whatever language they choose, free from harrassemnet.
Mr_Canada old @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:33 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Well, Arctic, you have your “answer” and per usual it’s overflowing with subjective nonsense, ignorance, historical unawareness, dodging, anti-intellectualism and oversimplified conclusions drawn from a limited perspective. If all “separatists” are like this, then Canada will outlast Rome.
ROTFL
"It's Game 7 in the Stanley Cup Finals, third period.... 1 minute left! Sane vs. Nutcases
Dayseed skates down the ice, he passes it to Dayseed, passes it back, slap shot! SCORE! Holy Mackinaw! Scored with 10 seconds left! Clogeroo was completely unable to stop that one! The Canadian Sane wins! The Canadian Sane have won the Stanley Cup!
The score is 15-0, Clogeroo and the Separatist Nutcases have lost!
It's amazing they made it this far even.... They made it here with nothing but whining, ifs, ands, buts, maybes and other idiocy.
The Sane slapped the Nutcases around all game! Clogeroo of the Nutcases proceeds to start screaming and throws his stick into the crowd, then falls to the ice and starts crying... Pathetic..."
Clogeroo @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:46 pm
$1:
"It's Game 7 in the Stanley Cup Finals, third period.... 1 minute left! Sane vs. Nutcases
Dayseed skates down the ice, he passes it to Dayseed, passes it back, slap shot! SCORE! Holy Mackinaw! Scored with 10 seconds left! Clogeroo was completely unable to stop that one! The Canadian Sane wins! The Canadian Sane have won the Stanley Cup!
The score is 15-0, Clogeroo and the Separatist Nutcases have lost!
It's amazing they made it this far even.... They made it here with nothing but whining, ifs, ands, buts, maybes and other idiocy.
Sanity slapped the Nutcases around all game! Clogeroo of the Nutcases proceeds to start screaming and throws his stick into the crowd, then falls to the ice and starts crying... Pathetic..."
Dayseed skates down the ice, he passes it to Dayseed, passes it back, slap shot! SCORE! Holy Mackinaw! Scored with 10 seconds left! Clogeroo was completely unable to stop that one! The Canadian Sane wins! The Canadian Sane have won the Stanley Cup!
The score is 15-0, Clogeroo and the Separatist Nutcases have lost!
It's amazing they made it this far even.... They made it here with nothing but whining, ifs, ands, buts, maybes and other idiocy.
Sanity slapped the Nutcases around all game! Clogeroo of the Nutcases proceeds to start screaming and throws his stick into the crowd, then falls to the ice and starts crying... Pathetic..."
Id say breaking up Canada is one of the sanest ideas going. This country has been nothing but bureaucracy, bonkers, and bullstick. Its continuation just assures this triple b triangle will keep going on.
Also I think you are the only one who cries especially when tricks targets you or anyone attacks your precious Leafs.
Mr_Canada old @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:56 pm
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Id say breaking up Canada is one of the sanest ideas going. This country has been nothing but bureaucracy, bonkers, and bullstick. Its continuation just assures this triple b triangle will keep going on.
Also I think you are the only one who cries especially when tricks targets you or anyone attacks your precious Leafs.
Separatism? Sane? HA!
Also I think you are the only one who cries especially when tricks targets you or anyone attacks your precious Leafs.
Tricks 'targets' me? WTF?
Anyone insults my Leafs? That's not crying look at it liek this...
You insult Canada near me, you'll get me yelling at you in French.
You insult the Leafs, you'll get me yelling at you in hockey. It's not crying, it's simple team pride, Like I'm going to support the Anti-Leafers, what do you expect me to say when the scream "Leafs Suck"? "Yeah"?
Idiot.
Mustang1 @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:06 pm
Breaking up Canada is one of truly dumbest ideas. Its proponents are nothing more than uneducated lumps who misinterpret, misarticulate and are misinform about our current political system. It’s goofs playing political scientist and I’ve got 140 years of history that says these little tykes should have a timeout for gumming up CKA with such dreck.
Arctic_Menace @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:11 pm
$1:
Well what do you expect when he yanks it out his ass 
$1:
Who would really benefit if this happened?
Quebec definately would not.
Can they handle taking on their share of the National Debt?
Can they get a good deal with trade agreements with other provinces?
Americans would welcome them with open arms, but how much of their culture and "ways" would poison the socialistic fabric of their culture?
If the separtists want to have their own place? There are two little islands off the coast of Newfoundland called St. Pierre and Miquelon. The french culture is still there, and they can be out of the hair of Canada.
All they want is a way to get more control over their way of living. They are scard of loosing the French language and social culture that they have enjoyed for hundreds of years.
Get rid of the Separtists "babies", and things across canada would be better.
Quebec definately would not.
Can they handle taking on their share of the National Debt?
Can they get a good deal with trade agreements with other provinces?
Americans would welcome them with open arms, but how much of their culture and "ways" would poison the socialistic fabric of their culture?
If the separtists want to have their own place? There are two little islands off the coast of Newfoundland called St. Pierre and Miquelon. The french culture is still there, and they can be out of the hair of Canada.
All they want is a way to get more control over their way of living. They are scard of loosing the French language and social culture that they have enjoyed for hundreds of years.
Get rid of the Separtists "babies", and things across canada would be better.
$1:
They care about the taxes, and the equalization payments.
Thanks for generalising.
To the Ontarian Businessman, seperation means increased hassle and tariffs, adn lossed opportunity.
To the average Ontarian, seperation means breaking up, which not a lot of us want, because it makes us weaker and then we become more apprehensive of our neighbour to the South...
$1:
Separation by any one Province in Canada would undermine our economic system and place on the world stage... I for one am against separation but I am in favour of more provincial powers and equalization of funds for all.... the majority of people in Quebec understand that it is important for them to be part of the Federation.. most immigrants know that they immigrated the the Great Country of Canada and all that it offer.... tomorrow election will be interesting...
$1:
What do you expect I don't have magic crystal ball to tell you what will happen.
Then don't come out and say what you think will happen because you thought it all up by yourself!!!
$1:
Most of your questions are fairly vague as well and are pretty much what if this happened or this may happen.
Riiiiiight.
$1:
Let's face it the west won't die without Canada put it that way.
True, it won't die, but life would become increasingly difficult. Business, the economy, military, foreign policy, global acceptance and credibility all become a shitload harder...
Also, I find it funny how you said you were more Canadian than Mr_C, yet you advocate seperatism, which effectively destroys Canada, and the dream the founders who you so cherish strived for...
$1:
Many sovereign states can co-operate quite efficiently despite being separated as I pointed out like Australia and New Zealand do or even as North America does.
Two flaws with your argument here...
#1. Have any regions in the nations you listed ever tried to seperate or face the fear of seperation? No.
#2. We can work effectively(if you choose to call it that. NAFTA blows) for very few similarities: proximity and cultural similarity.
Now before you go calling me a hypocrite, hear this:
Canadians, like New Zealanders, are in constant fear of losing their culture and sovereignty to their more powerful counterparts(America and Australia). Just ask some Kiwis next time you see some.
$1:
Whatever royalties Ottawa is collecting on our resources we would get back.
You think that my city keeps your money?
If that was the case, we'd all be living in luxurious houses, there would be no homeless people, and we would've spent the $875 M on our now cancelled LRT...
$1:
Also do you honestly believe Canada would remain so for ever?
If we can finally get rid of people like you and/or start working together, then yes...
$1:
It will take some work but it can be done and will be worth it in the end. Also do you honestly believe Canada would remain so for ever? Look at other countries historically borders change and people move a part or together. Did Rome last? No. Ottoman Empire? Gone. Byzantines now part of Turkey. Lots of countries have changed and will continue to do so and this country is not immune from that. Borders will change as they always have been. This is reality and this is clearly not the early 20th century anymore and we are not some feeble people totally dependent on Canada, Canada is deepening on us.
So then by your logic, your precious independent West would eventually crumble and die as well.
It is also interesting to note, that the examples you gave were all EMPIRES. Canada has never been an empire. Empires fall for a multitude of reasons, too many for my lazy ass to write at the moment.
"Canada" is not depending on "us" for two reasons:
#1. You are still part of Canada, dumbass...
#2. "Canada" depends on all the provinces "in" her to help make it a better place for the people already living here, and those who will come here seeking a better life...
$1:
Let’s face it if Canada really wanted to keep us here you have to offer us something.
So it's like I've been saying, you're gonna bitch and whine because you're not getting treated like Quebec?
$1:
the House of Commons should be based on representation by population
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't something very similar to that already in place?
$1:
not just rewarded seats and extra to whomever you deem deserves them.
Who is "you"? Also, your Hero Harper si in power, so isn't he supposed to be doing this stuff for you Westerners now?
$1:
We should be made into a confederation
We were and still are.
$1:
Canada is going to have to change but it clearly is not looking like it will therefore leaving is the remaining option and as more people realise this the more we will have pushing for our province to leave.
$1:
This is about what we want not what you want and it is up to our province to decide if we should remain part of this federation or if we should leave.
Two questions:
#1. Who is "you"?
#2. What about the people who would like to stay in Canada?
Clogeroo @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:19 pm
$1:
Separatism? Sane? HA!
Tricks 'targets' me? WTF?
Anyone insults my Leafs? That's not crying look at it liek this...
You insult Canada near me, you'll get me yelling at you in French.
You insult the Leafs, you'll get me yelling at you in hockey. It's not crying, it's simple team pride, Like I'm going to support the Anti-Leafers, what do you expect me to say when the scream "Leafs Suck"? "Yeah"?
Idiot.
Tricks 'targets' me? WTF?
Anyone insults my Leafs? That's not crying look at it liek this...
You insult Canada near me, you'll get me yelling at you in French.
You insult the Leafs, you'll get me yelling at you in hockey. It's not crying, it's simple team pride, Like I'm going to support the Anti-Leafers, what do you expect me to say when the scream "Leafs Suck"? "Yeah"?
Idiot.
Can you even speak French?
You insult your own province you live which is part of your little united canada and have really never said anything good about it from what I have seen so you insutlt your own country really. Oh except Ontario you seem to love that place.
You could say the leafs are good team go leafs go instead of telling everyone to F Off or go dayseed on everyone. Take the latest of your "Leaf Nation support thread"
$1:
The following is a massive hate message to all Referee's in the NHL. I have a clear message for you, FUCK YOU.
The following is a parody of the Anti-Flag song called "Turncoat".
This is Called "Nazi Ref":
Enjoy (listen to it with the song is best):
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the league!
Go Leafs Go!
You cheat us out of a Leafs goal!
We're fed up with stupid penalties!
You screw us when were on a roll!
We're fed up with stupid penalties!
Who put these assholes in control?
We're fed up with stupid penalties!
Who is it that pays you?
Must be the other guys because you're a...
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the league!
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the league!
You just can't see!
How can it be
That you scam us out again!
The NHL always sides with you
Who cares how obvious the truth
You cheat the Leafs when you can!
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the league!
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the...
NAZI!
TRAITOR!
A CHEATER! What a REF!
Criminal with protection of the league! The league!
Criminal with protection of the league!
The following is a parody of the Anti-Flag song called "Turncoat".
This is Called "Nazi Ref":
Enjoy (listen to it with the song is best):
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the league!
Go Leafs Go!
You cheat us out of a Leafs goal!
We're fed up with stupid penalties!
You screw us when were on a roll!
We're fed up with stupid penalties!
Who put these assholes in control?
We're fed up with stupid penalties!
Who is it that pays you?
Must be the other guys because you're a...
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the league!
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the league!
You just can't see!
How can it be
That you scam us out again!
The NHL always sides with you
Who cares how obvious the truth
You cheat the Leafs when you can!
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the league!
NAZI! TRAITOR! CHEATER! REF!
Criminal with protection of the...
NAZI!
TRAITOR!
A CHEATER! What a REF!
Criminal with protection of the league! The league!
Criminal with protection of the league!
Calling the referees nazis, traitors, cheaters, and swearing at them all in a mad frenzy as some kind of song... You really prove your sanity Mr.Canada.
Tricks @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:32 pm
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Tricks 'targets' me? WTF?
Well....
Arctic_Menace @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:38 pm
$1:
Well, Arctic, you have your “answer” and per usual it’s overflowing with subjective nonsense, ignorance, historical unawareness, dodging, anti-intellectualism and oversimplified conclusions drawn from a limited perspective.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what I expected.
$1:
If all “separatists” are like this, then Canada will outlast Rome.
Mustang1 Mustang1:
How is the system seriously flawed? And how does separation offer the only solutions to said flaws? I’ll be eagerly awaiting your critique of our political system.
Fuck, I should've asked that question!
Mustang1 Mustang1:
$1:
“Or maybe you meant diplomacy with already existing countries? Well, we've seen what would almost certainly happen already with the implosion of Yugoslavia - the world moved on. And that's without saying that region of the world suffered from ethnic cleansing around the time it divided, which could only make matters extremely more complex - yet, the world moved on...”
This should be good – please demonstrate the similarities between Yugoslavia and Quebec. There’s a glaring error here, but I’ll be sporting and see if you can identify it. Again, this is another poor comparison.
Ooh! I think I might know the answer but I'm not sure...
Also, no ethnic cleansing? As if! The Quebecois already treat their Anglos like shit. What makes you thinks that they're going to be nicer to them if Quebec seperates?
$1:
Okay let’s look at this, shall we?
1. Provincial/Governmental relations - welcome to federalism. Guess what, problems also exist between provinces and municipalities – how will separation eradicate that?
2. Province Bashing – huh? Is this cultural insecurity? Get over it. This exists regionally and municipally, and what makes separation a solid buttress against it anyway?
3. Equalization Payments – you currently get a tonne. Will separation solve this? Probably, but then how will you ever hope to maintain your current under worked unionized lifestyle without Canada’s cheques? Which do you think the people of Quebec will choose?
4. Fights over competence fields – huh? Do you mean federal hiring programs? This is justification for civil strife, economic hardships and political turmoil? I’d love to see your salesmanship in this one.
5. Disagreement over usage of the military – provinces disagree over the use of out military? There’s provincial blocks? Please. If this is some banal attempt to rationalize Quebec’s shameful past of failing to help Europe in time of tyranny and destruction, then forget as I’m not buy it. Besides, you’ll still have ideological differences within your new “state” and then how will you address it?
6. Lack of ability to obtain consensus over the constitution of all things - Why do you need a consensus on the constitution (which safeguard minority rights?)? This should be good – you didn’t sign it, but you seem content to fall back to Sec. 33 whenever individual freedoms get in the way of your ethnic nationalism. Evidently, consensus isn’t needed in cotemporary Quebec mega-constitutional practices. Constitutions won’t ever get a consensus (they act as a safeguard for minority rights, or will your proposed forego that as it hurts nationalism)– this is naivety at its finest and ignorance at its worst to believe a new state with a new constitution will somehow define political reality.
7. Increased Bureaucracy – this wrongly assumes that all of Canada will disintegrate (another argumentative fallacy). It won’t – if Quebec leaves (which it won’t) then it will still have a national (which now likely grows to accommodate the duel roles of the old federal and provincial responsibilities) and municipal level of government. It won’t be very large geographically (after its partition by the Canadian government) so likely it should be to handle the political load with two levels. Good point – mathematically, a potentially smaller bureaucracy is the perfect reason for political dissolution. Somewhere, Voltaire weeps.
Congratulations, you’ve cherry picked a few problems in the current Canadian system. You’ve failed, however, to demonstrate how separation will solve them as they’re inherent issues within democratic systems.
1. Provincial/Governmental relations - welcome to federalism. Guess what, problems also exist between provinces and municipalities – how will separation eradicate that?
2. Province Bashing – huh? Is this cultural insecurity? Get over it. This exists regionally and municipally, and what makes separation a solid buttress against it anyway?
3. Equalization Payments – you currently get a tonne. Will separation solve this? Probably, but then how will you ever hope to maintain your current under worked unionized lifestyle without Canada’s cheques? Which do you think the people of Quebec will choose?
4. Fights over competence fields – huh? Do you mean federal hiring programs? This is justification for civil strife, economic hardships and political turmoil? I’d love to see your salesmanship in this one.
5. Disagreement over usage of the military – provinces disagree over the use of out military? There’s provincial blocks? Please. If this is some banal attempt to rationalize Quebec’s shameful past of failing to help Europe in time of tyranny and destruction, then forget as I’m not buy it. Besides, you’ll still have ideological differences within your new “state” and then how will you address it?
6. Lack of ability to obtain consensus over the constitution of all things - Why do you need a consensus on the constitution (which safeguard minority rights?)? This should be good – you didn’t sign it, but you seem content to fall back to Sec. 33 whenever individual freedoms get in the way of your ethnic nationalism. Evidently, consensus isn’t needed in cotemporary Quebec mega-constitutional practices. Constitutions won’t ever get a consensus (they act as a safeguard for minority rights, or will your proposed forego that as it hurts nationalism)– this is naivety at its finest and ignorance at its worst to believe a new state with a new constitution will somehow define political reality.
7. Increased Bureaucracy – this wrongly assumes that all of Canada will disintegrate (another argumentative fallacy). It won’t – if Quebec leaves (which it won’t) then it will still have a national (which now likely grows to accommodate the duel roles of the old federal and provincial responsibilities) and municipal level of government. It won’t be very large geographically (after its partition by the Canadian government) so likely it should be to handle the political load with two levels. Good point – mathematically, a potentially smaller bureaucracy is the perfect reason for political dissolution. Somewhere, Voltaire weeps.
Congratulations, you’ve cherry picked a few problems in the current Canadian system. You’ve failed, however, to demonstrate how separation will solve them as they’re inherent issues within democratic systems.
Way to go, Mustang1.
The following are for you, Clogeroo.
Hey, that rhymes!
$1:
Your “radical solution” doesn’t create problem as well? Hmm…you’re solving problems with a tactic that presents a diversionary dilemma? Brilliant! Shh…no one will see it clearly, but then you’ll still have the original problems when the new state is declared. Damn, well, that almost worked.
$1:
Well…if you actually did understand micro/macro economics, politics, diplomacy and the dynamics of war, you likely wouldn’t be a separatist! Zing! That one is for free, but I’m not here to argue subjective prattle, so if this opinion, than fine, you’re entitled to it, but that doesn’t mean it matters to anyone other than you.
$1:
Sorry, but as you get a little older and gain some solid scholarly work under your belt, you may find that extremism is best afforded to the young and inexperienced.
There ya go, Clogeroo.
$1:
"It's Game 7 in the Stanley Cup Finals, third period.... 1 minute left! Sane vs. Nutcases
Dayseed skates down the ice, he passes it to Dayseed, passes it back, slap shot! SCORE! Holy Mackinaw! Scored with 10 seconds left! Clogeroo was completely unable to stop that one! The Canadian Sane wins! The Canadian Sane have won the Stanley Cup!
The score is 15-0, Clogeroo and the Separatist Nutcases have lost!
It's amazing they made it this far even.... They made it here with nothing but whining, ifs, ands, buts, maybes and other idiocy.
The Sane slapped the Nutcases around all game! Clogeroo of the Nutcases proceeds to start screaming and throws his stick into the crowd, then falls to the ice and starts crying... Pathetic..."
Dayseed skates down the ice, he passes it to Dayseed, passes it back, slap shot! SCORE! Holy Mackinaw! Scored with 10 seconds left! Clogeroo was completely unable to stop that one! The Canadian Sane wins! The Canadian Sane have won the Stanley Cup!
The score is 15-0, Clogeroo and the Separatist Nutcases have lost!
It's amazing they made it this far even.... They made it here with nothing but whining, ifs, ands, buts, maybes and other idiocy.
The Sane slapped the Nutcases around all game! Clogeroo of the Nutcases proceeds to start screaming and throws his stick into the crowd, then falls to the ice and starts crying... Pathetic..."
What are you talking about? It'd be game four of the Stanley Cup, bitch!!!
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Id say breaking up Canada is one of the sanest ideas going.
The fathers of Confederation would disagree heavily with you on that...
$1:
Also I think you are the only one who cries especially when tricks targets you or anyone attacks your precious Leafs.
I'd rather have an emotionally sensitive Nationalist/Fascist(as some have called him) in my country, than a whiny, bitchy, pessimistic seperatist...
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Breaking up Canada is one of truly dumbest ideas. Its proponents are nothing more than uneducated lumps who misinterpret, misarticulate and are misinform about our current political system. It’s goofs playing political scientist and I’ve got 140 years of history that says these little tykes should have a timeout for gumming up CKA with such dreck.
Nice.
Previous 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 22 Next