Are You For or Against Separatism in Canada?
Previous 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Mysterio10 @ Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:07 am
You can say that again!
Seagram @ Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:37 pm
Quebec cannot separate, they talk about it and sure maybe some even want to, but if they separated all that would end up happening is the immediate collaps of the economy. Hugh portions of the Quebec "liberal" economy are driven by equalization payment and flat out hand outs, all comming from Ottawa. If Quebec misses even one of those payments it is like a third world country overnight. What have they got? Cows, electricity and Ubisoft. Everyone has cows so there will be no buying of milk/cheese from Quebec. Ottawa has huge portions of the James Bay power station so it seems unlikely they would give up control of that, and Ubisoft is the only large company left in Quebec that has not been chased out by bill 101. Even Bombardie has move much of its manufacturing elsewhere. Then there is the new Native nation that would pop up in some key Quebec areas, James Bay not the least of which, plus perhaps in the turmoil and islamic state or two. I say let them separtate so that when they come begging for help we as Canadians can say sure sign here, and the question can be buried once and for all, forever shutting up the malcontents. If you want to fix Quebec you have to strike down Bill 101, if they struck down bill 101 then the economy could work itself out without interferance from the language police and all of thier facist like policies. Investment would begin to come back to Quebec and the need for money from Ottawa would dwindle, but I digress.
biopiracy @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:09 pm
Istanbul Istanbul:
Back on topic.
Yes and no.
Depends!
Yes and no.
Depends!
It's annoying to see a once great country being ruined, I'm lukewarm but I think a good solid win by MR France could bring the pot to a boil.
Motorcycleboy @ Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:49 pm
Seagram Seagram:
Quebec cannot separate, they talk about it and sure maybe some even want to, but if they separated all that would end up happening is the immediate collaps of the economy. Hugh portions of the Quebec "liberal" economy are driven by equalization payment and flat out hand outs, all comming from Ottawa. If Quebec misses even one of those payments it is like a third world country overnight. What have they got? Cows, electricity and Ubisoft. Everyone has cows so there will be no buying of milk/cheese from Quebec. Ottawa has huge portions of the James Bay power station so it seems unlikely they would give up control of that, and Ubisoft is the only large company left in Quebec that has not been chased out by bill 101. Even Bombardie has move much of its manufacturing elsewhere. Then there is the new Native nation that would pop up in some key Quebec areas, James Bay not the least of which, plus perhaps in the turmoil and islamic state or two. I say let them separtate so that when they come begging for help we as Canadians can say sure sign here, and the question can be buried once and for all, forever shutting up the malcontents. If you want to fix Quebec you have to strike down Bill 101, if they struck down bill 101 then the economy could work itself out without interferance from the language police and all of thier facist like policies. Investment would begin to come back to Quebec and the need for money from Ottawa would dwindle, but I digress.
I agree with you Seagram. An independent Quebec would be a disaster. They would soon learn that the whole union friendly, social welfare project is unsustainable without copious amounts of cash from Ontario and Alberta.
But that doesn't mean they can't separate. I think, given the right set of circumstances, they could and would go.
Like you however, I just think they'd be way worse off.
Motorcycleboy @ Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:58 pm
Sorry Dayseed. I'm not even going to dignify the hostile nonsense you wrote with a response. All you seem capable of typing out is a plethora of verbose invective. Then you have the audacity to call it an "argument".
I responded to your questions. Yet, you've repeatedly avoided answering any of the rebuttals I've put to you. Instead, you've done nothing more than delve into insulting, irrelevent digression.
Until you can bring the quality of your debate up to a mature level, I will no longer engage you.
Sorry, but CKA has some standards, and so do I.
Dayseed @ Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:10 pm
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
Sorry Dayseed. I'm not even going to dignify the hostile nonsense you wrote with a response. All you seem capable of typing out is a plethora of verbose invective. Then you have the audacity to call it an "argument".
Um, you just did Dummy Matt/Mate/Mark. Nope, if you had semi-competent reading skills, an understanding of the law or constitutional matters, you'd see them.
$1:
I responded to your questions.
No you didn't. I posted it in bold 3 or 4 times.
$1:
Yet, you've repeatedly avoided answering any of the rebuttals I've put to you. Instead, you've done nothing more than delve into insulting, irrelevent digression.
Actually, you presented an argumentative fallacy and you put the very question I posed to you back to me. I've stayed on topic the entire time there Dummy Matt/Mate/Mark.
$1:
Until you can bring the quality of your debate up to a mature level, I will no longer engage you.
Dude, I don't want to get engaged to you either. I don't know why this suddenly occurred to you. But, when you're talking maturity, you're the chap who changed his profile name to dodge questions, not once, but twice. Way to go Grade 3 Dummy Matt!
$1:
Sorry, but CKA has some standards, and so do I.
Translation: Dummy Matt didn't know how to answer any of the questions posed to him as he doesn't have a firm understanding of the constitution or other matters concerning the Supreme Court and it's decisions.
What we have here is the Dummy Matt Concession Speech. Thanks, I'll tuck another win under my belt.
Toodles!
Mysterio10 @ Tue May 01, 2007 4:30 pm
You guys are like a bunch of children!
Mustang1 @ Tue May 01, 2007 4:43 pm
Mysterio10 Mysterio10:
You guys are like a bunch of children!
Mysterio10 @ Tue May 01, 2007 4:47 pm
Ha ha ha
Mysterio10 @ Wed May 02, 2007 2:06 pm
As the starter of this thread I'll add another question, are you a capitalists or communist? And why?
thelaw @ Tue May 15, 2007 11:16 pm
QBC QBC:
Against, and I'll take it one further, it's treason and should be treated as such.
Leagaly that is what the Statute of westminster did in 1931, but it was not explained to you. No British law applied to Canada after 1931 - canadas justice dep.
thelaw @ Tue May 15, 2007 11:21 pm
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
WDHIII WDHIII:
Self determination is fine but like ANY fine restraunt.........
PAY YUR TAB BEFORE YA LEAVE
PAY YUR TAB BEFORE YA LEAVE
Fair point. Quebec owes a huge proportion on the country's debt. But I'd be magnanimous and say they only need to pay for their share of the population, say, 20-23%.
We in the rest of Canada would still come out ahead because we wouldn't have to keep paying to support them.
thelaw @ Tue May 15, 2007 11:27 pm
juggernaut juggernaut:
I hate having our country, being part of the common wealth.
what does the common wealth do that the un doesn't for Canada but confuse the people as to what is our sic constitution . a farce and lie from day one.
thelaw @ Tue May 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Sure I'm for the west creating it's own confederation with still Queen Elizabeth the second as it's head of state.
Good fucking luck!!!
Mustang1 Mustang1:
I’m against it. I believe in Confederation and the principles that guided it then and preserve it now. My Canada includes Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, etc and I question the motives of shortsighted automatons that clamour for separatism. Separation, in a Canadian context, has nothing to do with self-determination (this has a specific intention and it wasn’t for nation-states like Canada), democracy (how is this democratic? I’d love to hear this one) or rational thought – it’s born out of nationalism (which, at its core, is problematic) and simple naivety.
Also, people talk of seperatism because they are being whiny little bitches who want mroe than their fair share and so decide to take advantage of those who want to keep this great country united...
Also peopl talk of keeping the Country together because they are being big whiny bitches who want all the control and take advantage of the west.
thelaw @ Tue May 15, 2007 11:51 pm
QBC QBC:
Against, and I'll take it one further, it's treason and should be treated as such.
read and get the British to explain to you what they did when they passed the statute of westminster; and then read what the Canadian government justice post says - No British law applies after 1931.j Each province got its independence in 1931 ; except the federal government did not inform the people of their freedom. That is why they have not celebrated Canada"s independence as on Dec 11 1931; or any other day. They just kept power as the Statute of westminster was not passed. That is fraud and treason.
Previous 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next