New Gov Gen a.....separatist?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 Next
QuickCall @ Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:30 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
QuickCall QuickCall:
Huh? What's the link?
Exactly. Read a history book – it’s not my job to educate the chronically unaware
No relation, you're just trying to change the subject because you lost the debate.
Mustang1 Mustang1:
$1:
“Yes, and? What's the point here?”
Still don’t see the link? It’s a commentary on your out of whack chronology.
Still no relation, you're just trying to change the subject because you lost the debate.
Mustang1 Mustang1:
All you had to do is say you were wrong about Cartier.
I did admit I was wrong, Cartier didn't discover Canada, since Canada didn't exist. But he did baptized Canada, even tough you wont admit it and will try to change the subject.
Mustang1 Mustang1:
$1:
“How many languages do you speak chum?”
Nice non-sequitor. Let me try: how many sports do you play?
You didn't answer, retard! I asked how many languages you speak to explain why I can make mistakes when I write english, which isnt my mother tongue (I can ear you saying "Alert! He's a damn frog!" you racist red neck).
Veux-tu qu'on discute en français pour voir si tu es capable, ou juste un autre ignorant de tête carrée avec un complexe d'infériorité?
Mustang1 Mustang1:
$1:
“As I was saying, New France stoped existing, but not Canada.
So a red neck saying "We should take back the land that was ours" is an idiot and the people who try to defend such an idea and/or the person is also a red neck and/or an idiot. Si le chapeau te fait, mets-toi le ou je pense.”
So a red neck saying "We should take back the land that was ours" is an idiot and the people who try to defend such an idea and/or the person is also a red neck and/or an idiot. Si le chapeau te fait, mets-toi le ou je pense.”
That’s my point – New France was over and the evolution of what was to eventually become Canada continued into a new cultural/political phase: British North America.
You ARE a fanatic aren't you? New-France stopped existing, yet it's inhabitants stayed here, kept their language, culture, traditions and institutions, despite some red neck attempts at exterminating them, but CANADA ALREADY EXISTED, AND STILL DOES. You can cry and do all the projections you want, it wont change the facts. CANADA was french, and now it's bilingual, and some frustrated imperialists are sooooo frustrated about that, poor them, such SUPERIOR poeple acting like cry babies, bouhouhou!
Mustang1 Mustang1:
$1:
“As I was saying, Canada was invaded militarely in 1759...”
Yep. Point? It was the beginning of the end of New France.
The point, since you ask, is that Canada existed 224 years before the british invasion, and that it took me 24 hours to have you admit it, retard!
Ta mauvaise foi me pue au nez...
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Point?
Even at six against one, you have to be explained every pont in detail retard? Pathetic ex-conquerors... mouhahahaaa! History will one day show, you became weak retards and lost your empire. Wait and see... frustrated wimp.
Mustang1 Mustang1:
What the hell was the garbled piece of mush? You initially claimed, “Quebec was against the conscription, because Canada decided to fight only when London was attacked.’ It’s wrong.
It's not wrong, and if it is, why don't you prove it, you lazy british imperialist pig? You have been manipulated by british brain-washing, and now are frustrated because I haven't? Poor you...
Mustang1 Mustang1:
There’s a subtle hint in the nuance that might tip you off that I did understand your “attempt” at humour.
I'm sorry. Not being british, I am not a hypocrite, and don't talk or read between the lines like the coward that you are. (What if I was to write in french and between the lines? You inferior retard!). Have you ever wondered where the word "frank" as in "being frank" or "speaking frankly" comes from? From London maybe???
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Tell you what - You show me exactly where I’ve erred then – you won’t, but that will only call notice to the fact that you’ve ultimately got nothing other than empty platitudes.
I could, but it would mean opening up new windows, copying and pasting.
You know where you screwed up, and I'm not paid to 32help you out, you lazy imperialist retard.
Tell me how much you're gonna pay me for it and I'll do it. Otherwise, you're waisting my time and are planning to change the subject as usual anyways.
This is not my first visit to a forum you know.
I have seen forum junkies like you before, in many fields.
You have an inferiority complex, get well soon!
EyeBrock @ Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:57 pm
Quickcall said:
$1:
What is wrong with a french citizenship? I personaly would accept any citizenship as long as I don't have to lose my original one.
Not you? Or is it that you are anti-french?
Not you? Or is it that you are anti-french?
Whats wrong with being Canadian ONLY. I think that our leaders should be exclusively Canadians. No mixed loyalty please, no French, US or Brit citizens need apply, Canadians only.
QuickCall @ Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:29 pm
Here is proof that CANADA existed before the british invasion of 1759 and was french:
1)
http://www.chezrichard.com/img/Canada1534.jpg
2)
http://www.chezrichard.com/img/Canada1550.jpg
3)
http://www.chezrichard.com/img/Canada1664.jpg
4)
http://www.chezrichard.com/img/Canada1695.jpg
I rest my case your honor...
Enough with the retards.
I showed you my proof, you are all stuck in your utopic fantasies.
Goodbye.
No need to discuss this matter with you...
I have a proof that you are wrong, you have nothing.
Ciao! Losers! 
EyeBrock @ Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:53 pm
Is that it? Some dodgy French maps? Wow, overwhelming proof there old bean!
QuickCall @ Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:04 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Is that it? Some dodgy French maps? Wow, overwhelming proof there old bean!
Where is your proof that CANADA did not exist before the british barbarian invasion of 1759?
You have none...
Sore loser!
QBC @ Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:08 pm
QuickCall QuickCall:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Is that it? Some dodgy French maps? Wow, overwhelming proof there old bean!
Where is your proof that CANADA did not exist before the british barbarian invasion of 1759?
You have none...
Sore loser!
Name calling isn't very nice Quickcall, try and be friends k?
QuickCall @ Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:46 pm
QBC QBC:
QuickCall QuickCall:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Is that it? Some dodgy French maps? Wow, overwhelming proof there old bean!
Where is your proof that CANADA did not exist before the british barbarian invasion of 1759?
You have none...
Sore loser!
Name calling isn't very nice Quickcall, try and be friends k?
What name calling?
"Sore loser"?
Where were you when your little friend called me a retarded for saying that CANADA was baptized in 1534 by a frenchman named Jacques Cartier.
Where were you when they attacked me 6 against one with lies, twisting my words, changing subjects, and personaly attacking me?
Don't bother, I am leaving.
This forum is like most forums on any subject on the web:
A bunch of fanatics have been here since the start, and the new guy has to lick ass...
Well, forget it, the web is free.
Your threats wont change the facts.
Canada existed before 1759.
That's all.
Good luck with your self-fulfilling utopic dream folks!
Pfff!
ShepherdsDog @ Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:53 pm
Tman1 @ Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:55 pm
Mustang1 @ Sun Aug 14, 2005 7:57 am
QuickCall QuickCall:
No relation, you're just trying to change the subject because you lost the debate.
Translation: you had no idea what the subject was or how to comprehend it. I lost the debate? Wouldn’t that assume you had a legitimate position and that this component of history was debatable. Sorry…you were never even in the running.
$1:
“Still no relation, you're just trying to change the subject because you lost the debate.”
Translation: you still can’t grant the concept that your history is third-rate crap. Get over it. Oh…your chronology, like you, is still out of whack. Dodging won’t overcome that.
$1:
“I did admit I was wrong, Cartier didn't discover Canada, since Canada didn't exist. But he did baptized Canada, even tough you wont admit it and will try to change the subject.”
All right…you are still wrong. I concede the fact that you were hopelessly incorrect. Besides, one more quick correction, Cartier discovered New France and Champlain colonized it.
$1:
“You didn't answer, retard! I asked how many languages you speak to explain why I can make mistakes when I write english, which isnt my mother tongue (I can ear you saying "Alert! He's a damn frog!" you racist red neck).”
I did answer, fucktatd. You didn’t get it. Your intellectual shortcomings are not my problem. Besides, don’t cower behind linguistics to save your sorry ass – whether you mangle English, French, Latin or Sanskrit, your history, ideas and analytical skills still suck. Your ignorance is a universal language
$1:
“(I can ear you saying "Alert! He's a damn frog!" you racist red neck).”
You can hear me? I’m surprised you can hear anything with all of those other voices screaming incessantly in your head. Damn, it must be crowded in there.
$1:
“You ARE a fanatic aren't you? New-France stopped existing, yet it's inhabitants stayed here, kept their language, culture, traditions and institutions, despite some red neck attempts at exterminating them, but CANADA ALREADY EXISTED, AND STILL DOES. You can cry and do all the projections you want, it wont change the facts. CANADA was french, and now it's bilingual, and some frustrated imperialists are sooooo frustrated about that, poor them, such SUPERIOR poeple acting like cry babies, bouhouhou!”
Stop with the incessant whining – your crying and moaning are practically audible. The point that you can’t seem to grasp is that while some sections of what was to become the modern-day nation-state of Canada were initially part of New France, it ended on September 13, 1759. After that – British North America. Get over it.
$1:
“The point, since you ask, is that Canada existed 224 years before the british invasion, and that it took me 24 hours to have you admit it, retard!”
New France existed before it got its collective ass handed to it on the Plains of Abraham. Sorry.
$1:
“Even at six against one, you have to be explained every pont in detail retard? Pathetic ex-conquerors... mouhahahaaa! History will one day show, you became weak retards and lost your empire. Wait and see... frustrated wimp.”
Non Sequitur. You don’t possess even the foggiest notion about the discipline of history, so your proclamations are simply banal.
$1:
“It's not wrong, and if it is, why don't you prove it, you lazy british imperialist pig? You have been manipulated by british brain-washing, and now are frustrated because I haven't? Poor you...”
Translation: you don’t crap about history. I’ve called you on your little misstep (one of many) and now you can’t substantiate your bogus claim. The onus is on you, not me, to substantiate your laboured attempt at historical discourse. I already gave you a hint, my cognitively challenged chum – look up Canada’s official entry into the war and then ascertain the first Luftwaffe attack dates against London.
$1:
“I'm sorry. Not being british, I am not a hypocrite, and don't talk or read between the lines like the coward that you are. (What if I was to write in french and between the lines? You inferior retard!). Have you ever wondered where the word "frank" as in "being frank" or "speaking frankly" comes from? From London maybe???”
Keep dodging, suck. Your attempt to obfuscate your intellectual shortcomings is transparent. You are anti-Canadian, intellectual Philistine whose piss-poor attempt at history is nothing more than an uneducated simpleton’s attempt to hide an agenda. We’ve all seen it. Keep up the Canadian and British bashing – your kind has nothing but empty platitudes. Easy to counter and dismantle.
$1:
“I could, but it would mean opening up new windows, copying and pasting.
You know where you screwed up, and I'm not paid to 32help you out, you lazy imperialist retard.”
You know where you screwed up, and I'm not paid to 32help you out, you lazy imperialist retard.”
DODGE!!!!!!!!! Again, I called your bluff and now you are bitching and moaning about having to substantiate your allegations. I offered you the opportunity to substantiate your erroneous claims and you cower and offer up pitiful excuses. Nice. Evidently you think that this isn’t transparent – you’ve got nothing. You don’t know history. You don’t know politics. You don’t know much. Sensing a trend?
$1:
“Tell me how much you're gonna pay me for it and I'll do it. Otherwise, you're waisting my time and are planning to change the subject as usual anyways.”
I’m supposed to fund your arguments?!?!? Nice try…I don’t sponsor other’s piss-poor points nor do I educate the chronically unaware. Got it?
$1:
“This is not my first visit to a forum you know.”
And I care?
$1:
“I have seen forum junkies like you before, in many fields.”
Congratulations! Want a cookie? Why not go back to those forums and tell everyone what you’ve discovered and how you’ve made a complete ass of yourself in the process. Something tells me the latter won’t surprise them.
$1:
“You have an inferiority complex, get well soon!”
And you have a persecutions complex and are into intellectual masochism. The latter is obvious because you seem to love getting beat by me!
Motorcycleboy @ Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:08 am
QuickCall QuickCall:
[[Yes, of course, but why do you think she isn't boyond reproach?
Because her husband is suspected of being a separatist?
Do you see separatism as some sort of crime or sickness?
Half the people in Quebec are separatist, are they all sick or criminals?
.
Because her husband is suspected of being a separatist?
Do you see separatism as some sort of crime or sickness?
Half the people in Quebec are separatist, are they all sick or criminals?
.
I don't see seperatism as a "crime or sickness." In fact, I personally wouldn't be upset to see Quebec go. I think it would be fun watching Quebecers try to fund their little socialist utopia without bags and bags of cash from Alberta and Ontario every month. But that's beside the point.
The fact is that most Canadians disagree with my point of view. They like their country as it is and I have to respect that. The fact is the Governor General is the highest position in the Federal Government. As such, her Federalist credentials must be ironclad and unquestionable. Her's are not.
ShepherdsDog @ Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:31 pm
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada
$1:
In the film, Jean is seen with several sovereigntist hardliners, including poet Gerald Godin -- a co-founder of Rassemblment pour l'independence nationale and Parti Quebecois cabinet minister, Yves Prefontaine, former FLQ member Pierre Vallieres, novelist Dany Laferriere, Andree Ferretti and poet Paul Chamberland, according to Le Quebecois.
At the beginning of one scene, the guests toast independence.
Vallieres later says: "Not only should Martinique go to independence, but to revolution, as Quebec should."
To that, Jean replies: "Yes, one doesn't give independence, one takes it."
While it isn't clear what Jean was referring to 14 years ago, Le Quebecois has drawn fresh allegations about her position on Quebec sovereignty.
At the beginning of one scene, the guests toast independence.
Vallieres later says: "Not only should Martinique go to independence, but to revolution, as Quebec should."
To that, Jean replies: "Yes, one doesn't give independence, one takes it."
While it isn't clear what Jean was referring to 14 years ago, Le Quebecois has drawn fresh allegations about her position on Quebec sovereignty.
Can people really be that dense that they don't know what she was referring to?
$1:
"It is now clear that it's the couple that has long maintained relationships with FLQ members and independence supporters, and not only Jean-Daniel Lafond," Le Quebecois said in a news release.
Nice friends. So much for the character of the Governor General being above reproach.
Lord-Beaverbrook @ Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:48 pm
Bouboumaster Bouboumaster:
Qu'est-ce que sa fait qu'elle soit souvrainiste? Aux dernières nouvelles, on ne devrait même pas avoir de gouverneuse générale! Sa ne sert plus à rien. Elle n'a aucuns pouvoirs là ou elle est.
This brings up a good point. Why did trudeau appease the french? As we all know appeasment never works for example the Munich pact. For th emost part only Quebec and New Brunswich use french. How many people that are not of french descent can honestly say they can speak fluently or even remember more than the basics such as nous tu il el un une ey a?
QuickCall @ Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:10 am
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
The fact is the Governor General is the highest position in the Federal Government. As such, her Federalist credentials must be ironclad and unquestionable. Her's are not.
As a private investigator for 19 years, I can tell you without the shadow of a doubt, no one on earth is beyond reproach. You could put anyone there, the separatists can find something to make the whole thing look bad.
As you know, the last referendum showed that 49% of Quebecers are separatists. Do you think, to be a proud and respectable Canadian, you would have to stop talking to half the people around you? Ridiculous...
QuickCall @ Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:20 am
Lord-Beaverbrook Lord-Beaverbrook:
Bouboumaster Bouboumaster:
Qu'est-ce que sa fait qu'elle soit souvrainiste? Aux dernières nouvelles, on ne devrait même pas avoir de gouverneuse générale! Sa ne sert plus à rien. Elle n'a aucuns pouvoirs là ou elle est.
This brings up a good point. Why did trudeau appease the french?...
Wow! Talk about a misunderstanding...
Bobou said "Why does it matter if she's a separatist? We shouldn't even have a governor general..."
And you answer by wondering why did Trudeau appease the french?
First of all, I never saw Trudeau trying to appease the french.
Secondly, France has nothing to do with our internal problems.
Thirdly, Trudeau is hated by a vast majority here in Quebec.
Lord-Beaverbrook Lord-Beaverbrook:
For th emost part only Quebec and New Brunswich use french. How many people that are not of french descent can honestly say they can speak fluently or even remember more than the basics such as nous tu il el un une ey a?
That is right. Only in Quebec and northern new-brunswick people have managed not to be assimilated. The french names in the west still exist, but they lost their language. All this proves is that there is assimilation and a risk of losing one of our cultures. Once I was in toronto, speaking french in a bus to a Montrealer. And aborigene came to me and said "Hey! Speak white!". In Quebec, the aborigenes kept their language and live normal lives. In Ontario, they speak english only and beg for money on Bloor street. Nice...
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 Next