Are You For or Against Separatism in Canada?
Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 22 Next
Schleihauf @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:19 pm
One thing I find irritating about seperatists is that they will brag about how much they've put into Canadian history but they find it so easy to denounce they're heritage.
Mustang1 @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:23 pm
USCAdad USCAdad:
I'm off for an afternoon outing so I'll have to respond tonight.
And I care, why?
$1:
“I think I found someone sufficiently low on the intellectual scale, thanks”
Ewww…yet another playground inspired “I know you are, but what am I” retort. Please, there’s a corner somewhere without a dunce, so find it.
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:26 pm
$1:
How long do we have to wait Arctic in “standing up” for ourselves in Canada?
Wait a minute.....You WAIT to stand up?!
No wonder there are Western Seperatists! 
$1:
The west can easily be a country and you know it but you would rather just never see that happen.
I'm not saying it can't be a country, just not a very good or stable one. Plus, I prefer a united Canada. Whether I want to "see it happen" or not has nothing to do with it. Stop firing shots in the dark...
$1:
Why should any government really listen when we don't have the votes? Why should they?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because you are Canadian citizens?
$1:
You keep saying well solve it in Canada half these problems are going back decades. Some even going back to the 19th century.
Unfortunately, that is politics. Shit takes time. I'd thought you would have realised that by now.
IF you do seperate, all that will happen is that crap will take just as long to get done. The only difference will be that it will be your own self-interests.$1:
So you tell me when does leaving actually become an option or does it in your world and we should just sit here and stand by whatever the feds want to cram down our throats and tell us what to do?
Do I ahve you so flustered that you can't use proper sentence structure?
Leaving becomes an option if/when genocide occurs, virtually all your resources and money are withheld(think Ukraine in 1940's-50's). Unless you have absolutely nothing, everyone is dirt-poor, there are tonnes of homeless people, and you're all starving.
Ontario, Alberta and Quebec combined have enough money to fill the Great Lakes. If there's anyone in Canada that needs money or their voices and interests heard more than anyone else, are the territories and the Atlantic Provinces.
Maybe if we gave Newfoundland Fallowfields Legislation.....Hmmm....
$1:
Separation is standing up for ourselves more
I suppose it depends on your perspective. Many seperatists would agree with you. However, the majority of Canadians would liken you to a whiny teenager/baby who's constantly throwing a temper-tantrum...
$1:
That is just plain moronic.
And your views are completely thought out and lucid?
$1:
You talk of history as it is against the idea even though many countries have broken up and dissolved and have been quite successful.
Such as? (I can't wait to hear this one...)
$1:
Why don’t you look at the history of that and our own history?
I have, and there are many parallels. It's does not look terribly bright for them...
$1:
You can be plagued by a more socialist outlook,
Depends what you call socialist. Let me guess, this has something to do with equalization payments?
Canada does need to change with the times, but seperatism jsut adds mroe luggage and the views of a minority clash with those of the majority, which hinders and weakens the country. And we wonder why nothing gets done...
$1:
Quebec’s using you for more funds again for their benefits,
Trust me, I'm just as pissed off as any Western Canadian about that.
$1:
and the Maritimes and territories needing more of your money just to stay afloat if you want.
If Newfoundland got fallowfields legislation,
The Maritimes got more money to develop and promote their cities,
And if we could find a way to keep the Spanish, Danish and Portugese out of our waters,
And if people would shut up about the seal hunt,
You would be surprised at just how self-sustainable Atlantic Canada could be.
$1:
Also if you want to stand by Canada and it’s corruption and the mismanagement and waste of your tax dollars then go ahead that is your business.
I don't sit around and bitch like you. I get up and try to change things. I was actually happy that Harper was going to make serious reforms to Canada and make the west heard. But I guess you can never be pleased.
If enough Canadians stand up for something they believe in and want, the government will respond. That is the power that the Canadian voting public has over the government. It's a shame you can't see that...
$1:
I say we take our money and move out and build a better Canada.
But it won't be Canada. That is my point. Get that through your thick head...
$1:
You say it won’t be better I know it will be because it couldn’t get any worse than the state of affairs Canada is in now.
Hey Dayseed, I think I just found the "dumbest post of the month" for ya!!!
$1:
It will only be worse for you because Ontario can be stuck with the entire bill and you will see for yourself how much of your money is being thrown away.
As usual, everyone expects Ontario to pay the bill.
Fucking freeloaders. Poor West. You guys actually have to pay money to the government and other provinces? Poor you! I can't believe no one else shoulders that incredible burden! I mean, it must suck sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil that just happened to be in your province, and those damn bastards in Ontario had to work hard for all their business and money! The bastards! They surely don't have it as hard as you...Get a fucking grip.
$1:
But alas you would rather go by that old ideologically and arrogance if it's a bad deal for Ontario it is a bad deal for Canada.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Ya know, I seem to remember you making generalizations and then turning around on me and accusing me of making generalizations. Aren't you making generalizatiosn again now? Hypocrite.
kal kal:
Clogeroo, you clearly have abosolutly no fucking idea how economics work. If, hypothetically, Quebec got a Government retarded enough to separate, the "country" would fail. A shiload of the land to the north (you know, the land that has a lot of natural resources?) belongs to the natives, and guess what, they would stay with Canada. All of the major corporations in Quebec -Bombardier and CN to name two- would pull out and move their headquarters to another province. All trade agreements, including NAFTA, and any with Europe and Asia, would be null and void, because they are with Canada, not Quebec. How the fuck do you expect the province to support itself, eh? Negotiate new agreements? I don't think so. To negotiate new agreements you have to offer something better than what the other countries currently have in place, and I guarentee you Quebec doesn't have the economy to make that happen. Quebec would also need its own currency, legal system, government system, etc.
Open your fucking eyes and get a clue.
Oh, and one other thing. I heard this second party and haven't confirmed it so it may not be true... but you know that little US military base south of the St. Lawrence? They have standing orders to take the first 100 miles north of the river if Quebec ever separates, so they gain control of the seaway. And guess what! Quebec wouldn't be able to defend itself! It would have no military! Of course, I'm pretty sure someone like you will just dismiss this as nothing, and probably just find lame-ass half thought of drunken-stupour induced excuses for everything else I have said.
Open your fucking eyes and get a clue.
Oh, and one other thing. I heard this second party and haven't confirmed it so it may not be true... but you know that little US military base south of the St. Lawrence? They have standing orders to take the first 100 miles north of the river if Quebec ever separates, so they gain control of the seaway. And guess what! Quebec wouldn't be able to defend itself! It would have no military! Of course, I'm pretty sure someone like you will just dismiss this as nothing, and probably just find lame-ass half thought of drunken-stupour induced excuses for everything else I have said.
Oh my God, thank you. Another(among many) with at least an ounce of logic!
$1:
It doesn't really matter which province you're talking about. I used Quebec here as an example because it's the easiest to illustrate. The principles are the same for any province, albeit the Geographical conditions different.
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Wow that is totally ignorant. We are not Quebec and nothing like the province. You might as well compare us to PEI. So yes it does matter.
kal kal:
No, it doesn't. The attitude is different. The international economics are the same. You have a better infrastructure, better set up to be self supportive, but that doesn't matter. You'll still need a source of income that you won't get without trade agreements.
kal, welcome to team logic. Enjoy your stay.
Mustang1 @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:27 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
USCAdad USCAdad:
Look what the US Supremes have been able to do with the commerce clause then tell me about going overboard. The Canadian Supremes have just had less time to play.
Irrelevant. Tell me how the Canadian Supreme Court could become an oligarchy without the ability to enact or propose legislation. Are you redefining an oligarchy?
$1:
Yes, the Supreme Court does have a lot of independence. Who checks them and with what? Not the provinces but the legislature/executive and the not with standing clause. Point moot? You don't actually get there from here, you'll have to argue it.
Sorry, S.33 of the Charter DOES give the Provinces power to check the Supreme Court. You're flatly wrong.
$1:
OK, once again, you're off track! I wasn't arguing that the Charter isn't open ended enough. I was arguing exactly the opposite, that with time the Courts will overstep their boundaries to the point where the not withstanding clause will have to be used. The only thing that keeps this from happening is relatively sane justices. Long live Bev.
Bev rules just like Johnny S before her. However, how then is the Charter not open-ended enough? What would you remove from the Charter? I'll spot you a mulligan for reversing your original point of "This hasn't really been tested yet, but with an open ended Charter it could and I'd bet will given time." You've flatly implied the Charter isn't open-ended.
$1:
They don't have to reject them, they can just not move on them in a meaningful way. I can certainly take this up with my GF, she's a Constitutional Law Prof. I'm pretty sure I understand this correctly, but I can always double check with what I consider an authority on the subject.
THAT'S ANOTHER DODGE
I've asked how redefining the Charter would address insufficient distribution of powers and this is the second time you have flatly failed to address the point. I'll consider this to be a concession that you were blowing hot air. If you don't want to address challenges made to you, just say so, but don't waste my time with fluff.
Can do. I just added another dodge to your tally. Nice![/quote]
Captain Dunce is taking a break from his intellectual ass kicking, but don’t worry he’ll be back with a litany of playground comebacks, nonsensical mush and tough guy bravado. In short, he’ll be ready for another round of cheek slapping my elbow.
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:43 pm
$1:
I'm against separation but I'm tired of the provencial blackmail...
3.2 Billion to Quebec and 6.8 for the rest of Canada....this is nothing but BullShit on a grand scale..
I'm just sooooo sick of Quebec being called a Have not Province..While this government screws the Maritimes yet again....Never mind separation its time we kicked them th4e hell out of our country...
3.2 Billion to Quebec and 6.8 for the rest of Canada....this is nothing but BullShit on a grand scale..
I'm just sooooo sick of Quebec being called a Have not Province..While this government screws the Maritimes yet again....Never mind separation its time we kicked them th4e hell out of our country...
Ditto. Except for the kick them outta the country country. They just need to be put in their rightful place.....The high chair fro babies.
$1:
I don't care what the next majority party is, but when they do it, I want them to fucking OWN quebec. Give them less then PEI. There is no doubt in my mind that the other provinces would be like....WTF? BOO YAH! And vote them in for eternity.
If that ever happened, chances are you'd be right...
But first, you'd need to take away a lot of Quebec's unwarranted power...
$1:
I'm totally against separation. If Quebec goes, what happens to the Maritimes? And who decides what parts of Quebec get to stay in Canada and what goes with them?
The biggest reason I'm against spearation is that it could effectively mean the end of Canada, because Alberta likely would never accept Ontario's domination of our country. That means either it would separate or the system would have to get totally reworked, which I can't see Ontario accepting either. Odds are, Canada would break up into two - four separate countries, all of which would get swallowed by the USA at some point in the future.
The biggest reason I'm against spearation is that it could effectively mean the end of Canada, because Alberta likely would never accept Ontario's domination of our country. That means either it would separate or the system would have to get totally reworked, which I can't see Ontario accepting either. Odds are, Canada would break up into two - four separate countries, all of which would get swallowed by the USA at some point in the future.
I hear ya, man.
I would also like to note that the Acadians are a definitely unique culture and heritage, but I have yet to see any serious threat or push for seperation...
Man, I am so down with the Maritimers...
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:52 pm
$1:
Mostly it's a lot of name calling and all separatists are stupid
I'm sorry, but they are stupid. I have yet to meet a Canadian seperatist who can argue for seperation without it looking like a pipedream.
Also Clog, in your arguments you seem to be relying heavily on Alberta. What happens if you do seperate, but Alberta gets fed up with having to hold the rest of the west up/together?
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Ah…no winner or loser, but you should read up on McRoberts’ “Misconceiving Canada” as it actually argues that Canadian federalism does need a “revamping.”
Hmm, I'll have to look into that...
$1:
One thing I find irritating about seperatists is that they will brag about how much they've put into Canadian history but they find it so easy to denounce they're heritage.
Or how they've helped this country a great deal and now because they're pissed off, want to leave. What fucking hypocritical babies...
USCAdad @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:09 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
USCAdad USCAdad:
Look what the US Supremes have been able to do with the commerce clause then tell me about going overboard. The Canadian Supremes have just had less time to play.
Irrelevant. Tell me how the Canadian Supreme Court could become an oligarchy without the ability to enact or propose legislation. Are you redefining an oligarchy?
Let's look at SSM. The court can decide that any legislation is under inclusive. It can't write law but it can say that what's currently the law is not consistent with the charter. You don't have to write law. If you can say what does and doesn't pass that's good enough.
$1:
$1:
Yes, the Supreme Court does have a lot of independence. Who checks them and with what? Not the provinces but the legislature/executive and the not with standing clause. Point moot? You don't actually get there from here, you'll have to argue it.
Sorry, S.33 of the Charter DOES give the Provinces power to check the Supreme Court. You're flatly wrong.
$1:
$1:
OK, once again, you're off track! I wasn't arguing that the Charter isn't open ended enough. I was arguing exactly the opposite, that with time the Courts will overstep their boundaries to the point where the not withstanding clause will have to be used. The only thing that keeps this from happening is relatively sane justices. Long live Bev.
Bev rules just like Johnny S before her. However, how then is the Charter not open-ended enough? What would you remove from the Charter? I'll spot you a mulligan for reversing your original point of "This hasn't really been tested yet, but with an open ended Charter it could and I'd bet will given time." You've flatly implied the Charter isn't open-ended.
I haven't reversed my position. You have to remember that I come from the Yank side. We've had our constitution twisted upside down and inside out in a system that was supposed to clearly demarcate Federal and State jurisdictions.... until Lincoln. I'm not going to argue that the Canadian Constitution isn't open enough. I'm going to argue that if it's open to the whims of the judiciary it can mean anything they say it does and you have limited ability to disagree.
$1:
$1:
They don't have to reject them, they can just not move on them in a meaningful way. I can certainly take this up with my GF, she's a Constitutional Law Prof. I'm pretty sure I understand this correctly, but I can always double check with what I consider an authority on the subject.
THAT'S ANOTHER DODGE
I've asked how redefining the Charter would address insufficient distribution of powers and this is the second time you have flatly failed to address the point. I'll consider this to be a concession that you were blowing hot air. If you don't want to address challenges made to you, just say so, but don't waste my time with fluff.
The problem is that insist on miss-reading my point on the separation vs. division of powers... they are different beasts. I will argue that Canada has created a system that works better than the US one thus far but, that it has weaknesses within it that will recreate the same problems the US is having over time. As I understand it, Canadian law is murky in this area and Provincial and Federal authorities are forced to negotiate. Whether this will last the test of time is yet to be seen. However, given a rather cynical outlook on humanity and its use of power the outcome will eventually out itself. Look at How Stevie is having the local dog catcher nominate judges. You think Bev and her ilk are going to last under such a respect for the judiciary? I think not. If the Fraser Institute had more say in what Canada's jurisprudence looked like, you'd see my point.
[/quote]you may want to adjust your count.[/quote]
Can do. I just added another dodge to your tally. Nice![/quote]
Well I suppose it beats understanding the argument.
Mr_Canada old @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:16 pm
$1:
As usual, everyone expects Ontario to pay the bill. Fucking freeloaders. Poor West. You guys actually have to pay money to the government and other provinces? Poor you! I can't believe no one else shoulders that incredible burden! I mean, it must suck sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil that just happened to be in your province, and those damn bastards in Ontario had to work hard for all their business and money! The bastards! They surely don't have it as hard as you...
Get a fucking grip.
Holy Fucking Mackinaw, AGREED!
Fucking freeloaders. Poor West. You guys actually have to pay money to the government and other provinces? Poor you! I can't believe no one else shoulders that incredible burden! I mean, it must suck sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil that just happened to be in your province, and those damn bastards in Ontario had to work hard for all their business and money! The bastards! They surely don't have it as hard as you...Get a fucking grip.
I don't belong here, someone get me to Ontario before I get shot....
Sephariel @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:31 pm
Its quite sad that this idea of Quebec=Separatists still live on. In the past few years, sovereignty has lost alot of its appeal to Quebecers.
Right now, 75% of Quebecers are against the separation, and I'm sure that it will increase a little more again with time. Just now in Quebec elections, the PQ is in third place.
Sovereignty was a fad, people were daydreaming of a perfect country, but I'm pretty sure now that they opened their eyes, and saw that Canada is a strong country, that have the same values as they have.
Why leave a country where we are already living a good life ?
Now you know, Canadian friends, that the Quebec of 2007 is not the one of the 90s. So, I guess this view of Quebec=Separatists can go away now. 
When you bash Quebec altogheter, you bash a majority of Canadians.
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:36 pm
Now it's more about being recognised as a distinct society rather than seperation...
Sephariel @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:40 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
Now it's more about being recognised as a distinct society rather than seperation...
Harper already recognized the Québecois as a nation.
Mr_Canada old @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:43 pm
$1:
When you bash Quebec altogheter, you bash a majority of Canadians.
That'd be the Sen Fan, I mean Arctic,
Kidding.
I personally love Quebec,
Just not the Separatists, of course. But they are in every province, unfortunately.
Met my share here in Alberta....
Apparently Clogaroo thinks there are a large number of BC Separatists.... I think they are to busy getting high to give a shit what Canada does...
Saskatchewan... Nevermind..
Manitoba.... WTF, Also nevermind... Newfoundland is still pissed off...
PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia... No...
Ontario.... Alot of Native movements.... Fucking Caledonia...
USCAdad @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:01 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
USCAdad USCAdad:
You have History on your side? How's the British Empire doing these days?
“You have History on your side? How's the British Empire doing these days?”
We were talking about CANADIAN CONFEDERATION. Please try to relate your comments to the proper context. Next.
Oh, you're a Canadian Con trying to disown Mulroney, why didn't I get it. It's not old Canadian law it's the stuff that got invented right after the LCD calculator. It must be pretty easy knowing your history with the breadth of that time period.
$1:
$1:
“And I'll have to go for the other side. There seems to be little enlightenment emanating from your little bulb to enlighten anything.”
And you matter why? Besides, didn’t you just write, “Mostly it's a lot of name calling and all separatists are stupid sort of thing.” Hmm…maybe you should practice what you preach? This smells of hypocrisy and you reek of it. Exactly when are you supposed to turn loose this intellectual leviathan? Sounds like empty prattle to me.
Dissing me for stooping to your level? Play ground taunts should be met with intellectual pearls? Now I'm confused, first you sounded like a stereo typical Albertan and now you're going for the Quebecois shtick. You are truly pan Canadian.
$1:
$1:
“Well, I'm not. I believe in small government just as I believe in small class sizes. It has nothing to do with ethnic purity.”
I claimed Quebec separatism operated off of ethnic nationalism – evidently you have something to say on the matter, so let’s see it. I don’t care whether you like small government or parade about your trailer in your Jack Sparrow costume, my comment still stands and you’re firing blanks. Methinks you may be in over your head, but you’re the instigator so I’ll keep responding in kind
Ummm the thread is on separation in general, not Quebec separatism. Should I type slower?
$1:
$1:
“
Obviously no need. You have enough shortcomings of your own.”
Obviously no need. You have enough shortcomings of your own.”
Brilliant, wit, Voltaire. No seriously, if this and a pirates hat is all you’ve got, then take your comedically challenged ass and go sit in the corner till you can come back with something other than, “I know you are, but what am I?” dreck. Damn.
What's the matter? Don't like the taste of your medicine? Bring argument and respectful debate and you'll get the same. Bring monkey bar bullying in and I'll meet you in kind. Quit whining.
$1:
$1:
“Obviously the Quebec Separatist have not been successful. That doesn't mean that a different political aproach, preaching the benefits to all Canadians, would be a failure.”
Tell ya’ what, Papineau, you tell me why it would be a success. I’d love to hear your esteemed opinion on the matter – now don’t dodge as it kinda’ makes you look bad, but I’ll spot you two posts to dig yourself out the hole.
Two easy ones. Get bigger or get smaller. Either argue that small Federal Government is really in the interest of all Provinces or make your secessionist claims realistically small. Of course, under the latter scenario Quebec wouldn't actually have the resources to go it alone and they seem too pig headed to take the first path but both could be winners.
$1:
$1:
“There's insufficient division of powers. The Court only has the not withstanding clause to hem it in. This hasn't really been tested yet, but with an open ended Charter it could and I'd bet will given time. Otherwise, I'd say the flaw is being too big to effectively and efficiently fix regional problems. Canada can't drop the prime rate for Quebec while raising it for Alberta. There are to many differences to be taken into consideration by an overarching political system that ultimately has its own power as its primary concern.”
Uh oh…it looks like our little pirate has gone and tried to wade into specifics – what mayhem, forum fans, as he tries to traverse the raging seas of constitutionalism, federalism and asymmetrical policies.
Firstly, explain how there is insufficient division of powers? Be specific. Do you mean constitutionally? You mean you disagree with the Constitutional Act (and the BNA act before it)’s division of powers? Why? Hasn’t historical JCPC decisions rectified any shortcomings?
Division of powers is the separation of the three branches of government. The Supreme court is in the enviable situation of deciding what is included in the Constitution (living tree, remember) and insisting on their interpretation. The only check to this is the not withstanding clause. The privy council? How much more power would you like the Court to have. Just to help your thought process let's say that Bev isn't on the bench any more and that Stevie's judicial process has appointed Hwacker to determine the meaning of the Constitution. What would you do then?
$1:
Secondly, what does Sec. 33 have to do with anything? The Charter clearly looks to constitutional supremacy and Sec 33 limits this temporarily. Sec. 33 has been used (ironically, mostly by Quebec) and it can only temporally halt certain section (Sec. 2 and 7-5) so what is your point? Please demonstrate how this hasn’t been tested? In fact, you may want to peruse Sec. 1 as it addresses your flawed notion of a questionable “open ended” Charter. Sorry, Capt Jack, but a little education goes a long way – take the hint and get some.
Back with the ad hominems, and so soon. You must be an intellectual giant. Constitutional supremacy? What supremacy does the Constitution have that's not decided by the court. The Constitution contains exactly what the court says it does. Yes, you'd be right if you guessed circular argument. Of course, you wouldn't have a problem with that now would you?
$1:
$1:
“There are to many differences to be taken into consideration by an overarching political system that ultimately has its own power as its primary concern.”
Don’t obfuscate the issue by dropping such nonsensical mush. Crap or get off the pot – demonstrate, with objective fact, why political dissolution is the only viable solution to these alleged problems. If not, take your ball and go home because it’s time for the adults to talk.
Sorry can't meet your bate. I don't think that dissolution is the only or even best solution. It may be the only one that's left at the end of the day, but I won't argue that it's best. I'm in favor of weak union remember?
$1:
$1:
“Yes, juvenile at best. If it were in Canada's best economic interest to get swallowed by the US would you advocate that? Freedom and self determination are worth quite a lot. And yes, Quebec would have to learn to balance their own checkbook.”
So, despite your infantile prattle, all you can advocate is that ethnic nationalism trumps economic uncertainty? Brilliant – you sell that to the Quebecois.
So you weren't sure that the ad hominem was going to work so you through in a straw man? I'm not arguing ethnic nationalism. I argue government closest to the people works best for the people. One size doesn't fit all yada de yada de yada. Would you prefer a brilliant teacher in a class of three hundred or a decent teacher and a class of ten? This may be a difficult question for you if you went to one of those cattle call universities.
$1:
$1:
“Oh there's a great logical leap. You throw up a straw man and then use an ad hominem? Why even bother?”
Really, an argument to the man? Perhaps. And you haven’t done the same thing here? Please, don’t chastise me for things you can’t abstain from. I’m still waiting for this arrival of the Justice League of Intellect and all you can do is needle. Poor little Jack, and let’s see you demonstrate that I committed a fallacy of extension.
Don't ask me to argue to a standard that you're not able to produce. You want muck? I give you muck. You want debate? Bring some.
$1:
$1:
“Yes, but solving the big one would be meaningless? We've decided to let your breast cancer go unchecked because you also have skin cancer? Great.”
Brilliant, Captain Dunce, just gets off the soapbox where he lectured about argumentative fallacies and follows it up with…yep, you guessed it: an argumentative fallacy! Nice work on the bad analogy, swifty, but all you did was come off as stunted and disingenuous. This is fun, but I’m not sure how you’re making out with your constant nose smashing of my knee. Oh well.
You're obviously a legend in your own mind. Care to explain the fallacy? Or was it disingenuous that you would like to stick with? Throw the words around, my nose is quite alright. Your imagination is getting the work out.
$1:
$1:
“Who exactly is demonstrating cultural insecurity here?”
Huh? Demonstrate how I’m the only one here promoting “cultural insecurity”? By the way, that was also another argumentative fallacy. You’re not doing well here, are you matey?
Oh there you go. You just made a triple word argumentative fallacy. I see how easy this is to accuse others of, I'd take it myself if it wasn't lame. If you're going to claim argumentative fallacy I'd like a bit more explanation or even a citation of the particular fallacy, otherwise it's posturing like the rest of your argument. I can't wait to see this one.
$1:
$1:
“Separation would certainly encourage Quebec fiscal responsibility. BC does just fine on this.”
Is there a point in there? I’m sorry, I can’t translate fucktardese.
Oh, that's brilliant analysis there. Um sorry, I'll have to throw this one back at you. You only speak fucktardese, you don't translate? Is this like speaking in tongues for you?
$1:
$1:
“It's obvious that the Feds can't move on this in a timely fashion. It's yet one more example of personal and regional prosperity being sacrificed on the alter of Nationalism.”
Move on what? He never clarified his point – so what exactly are you trying to mash out here? And you’re criticizing Nationalism in a thread that based on nationalist separation movements? Genius, Levesque, you’ve just kicked yourself in nads, Space Ranger, and shiver me timbers matey, you just crapped the deck.
You can't follow the arguments and you blame me? Now you're sounding like the Lib. The point was the slow process of getting professional immigrants into their sphere of training. I can't do all your work for you. Nice drivel at the end though. This is obviously your realm of expertise.
$1:
$1:
“
Whatever, I'm non interventionist. Arguing against saving the world one bullet at a time isn't going to go far with me... try a neocon, they're big on this sort of thing.”
Whatever, I'm non interventionist. Arguing against saving the world one bullet at a time isn't going to go far with me... try a neocon, they're big on this sort of thing.”
Empty minutia.
I'll translate this one for you. "I have no idea how to counter this so I'll punt". Good idea. You would be better off if you used this more often. Better yet, just admit you don't know what you're talking about and have to rely on lame argument for self congratulations.
$1:
$1:
“Perhaps the UN should coopt you. Riots, hey these things can't always be consensual. Does this work for sex too? Since when does consent matter for unions if the union is good and right under the lord?”
Oh really, the UN should [coopt[ us? Why? I’d love to see what this has to do with my questioning of a consensus regarding constitutional matters? It seems like your wee intellect just resorts to free association and responds with anything rather than something. Any way you slice it, my point still stands, and your cognitive disabilities are not my concern.
If the UN or some other international body decided that they had a global Constitution that everyone was subject to reguardless of their consent, hopefully you would have a problem. Given the way that certain segments are gaga over Kyoto this shouldn't surprise me.
$1:
$1:
“Somewhere, you've lost the fact that this thread is about separation in general and not just the loss of your local Quebecois.”
Somewhere, you’ve lost the fact that I was dealing with an ethnic nationalist from Quebec that only wanted to promote total political dissolution because it saved Quebec from tying to push another losing plebiscite. Please keep your comprehension to yourself.
My comprehension is obviously lost on you, pearls for the swine. If this is the case keep your posts directed at your boogey man Quebecois or in a Quebec separatist thread.
$1:
$1:
“Congratulations, you've offered nothing but page upon page of drivel. I'm bummed that I forgot my computer at home last weekend. Reading page after page of what passes for argument this morning has been truly painful.”
Oh, I don’t doubt it’s painful for an intellectually challenged peon like you. I’ll bet the nosebleeds were pretty intense, eh, matey? In fact, instead of promulgating your ignorance, why don’t you go get a book and immerse yourself in Canadian history and politics, as it’s really not my job to educate the chronically unaware. Next time, pick a fight with someone a little lower on the intellectual level as then; maybe, just maybe, you might matter.
I reiterate. I spend a great deal of time debating Canadian Law with a Prof. You're really not that much of a challenge.
Poisson @ Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:00 am
Sephariel Sephariel:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
Now it's more about being recognised as a distinct society rather than seperation...
Harper already recognized the Québecois as a nation.
Now put that in the constitution along with other equal recognizations of other nations (the First Nations, Acadian, English Canadian, etc), and I'll be happy forever.
I would support separation of any province, not just Quebec, in Canada. If the federal power comes from the provinces, then that means a province has the right to decide to stop giving the federal government some of its powers and leave the union to manage its own affairs if it thinks it can do it better than Ottawa. My view holds the same for the USA as well.
Poisson @ Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:00 am
.............
Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 22 Next