Hey Quebec Langishistas, what think you? Election comming up.
The PQ's antics are, as one would expect, all over the English press; the Libs look as sad and tired as the federal libs. I know nothing of the new party, only that the PQ is evidently running scared of them.
I must admit to having got a bit of a chuckle out of accounts the PQ's proposed "secularism charter" that, it is alleged (I haven't actually read it) would prohibit wearing of religious gear ... with the exception of crosses. I've taken a lot of guff over pointing out that some PQ members are a tad parochial, shall we say ... ;)
It truly seems that that Quebec voters are stuck deciding which is the lesser weevil. :(
6 days to go!
I'll vote PQ because it pisses off my Baby boomer family and viper so, so much.
What's that new party all about?
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2012, 10:05:53 AM
What's that new party all about?
Hard to say. The reports I've read* have said it has described itself as being right-of-centre, but the campaign rhetoric has been nothing but.
*Obviously reading about Quebec elections, in English, several provinces away is not a great source of news so Quebecers should feel free to contradict me.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2012, 10:05:53 AM
What's that new party all about?
Hard to say. The reports I've read* have said it has described itself as being right-of-centre, but the campaign rhetoric has been nothing but.
*Obviously reading about Quebec elections, in English, several provinces away is not a great source of news so Quebecers should feel free to contradict me.
Yup, I can't make heads or tails of it. Quebec input needed.
I'll talk of the major parties only, as there are 20 official parties listed for this election.
Parti Libéral du Québec (PLQ).
Centre-left to center party. Erected itself as guardian of the Quiet Revolution, true heir to Jean Lesage visions, mythical Premier whose main achievement was to master the propaganda and make Quebecers believe it was nothing but darkness before him.
The party has been in power for 3 mandates, total 9 years. Multiple scandals of corruption or illegal financing have surfaced over the last few years as the journalists decided to investigate the FTQ (major union in Quebec). The FTQ is the centre wing between the organized crime and the political parties, linking both.
The PLQ has its base among hard core federalists who believe Quebec should be a province like any other and should lose itself in that pseudo canadian nationalism. Recent pro-monarchist delirium in English Canada has reduced the base of this party to English Quebecers and a few french leftist federalists out there.
They have, on paper, a strong economic agenda. The only problem is they never do anything but impose statu quo. Economic statu quo as well as constitutional statu quo. What little Quebec gained with the Conservative government, it was done by the Feds as this government never asked for anything for fear of being branded "seperatist".
Their political platform is mostly more of the same. More public spending, more public investments to stimulate private investment, and the stuff they already promised in their 2 previous budgets: more taxes.
Parti Québécois
Socialist party. In the past, center left, now, tryng everything to win the commie vote.
No one knows of their laïcitiy charter, it hasn't been published yet. All we know is they will keep the crucifix in the National Assembly, for historical&cultural reasons. I don't disagree with that.
They propose to remove a 200$ flat "health tax" the Liberals imposed by raising income tax on everyone earning more than 130 000$.
They propose the same economic agenda as the Liberals, except they want to change the way we perceived royalties, on sales instead of profits. I agree with that too, but it stinks of hypocrisy for them to call the Liberals "thieves" when their new scheme would only give us 4% in royalties (a whopping 23 million$).
They abuse the electors in letting them think we can be as rich as Norway is with its oil, while at the same time opposing most of the new natural resources development, like drilling for shale gaz of shale oil. They think we can compete with Australia on the mining industry while we barely have any mineral exploitation here compared to other countries. They want to raise taxes on the mining industry for all profits above 8%, disregarding the fact that the interior Australian territory, and other countries are much more developped than Northern Quebec (and by northern, we mean James Bay and above).
They let electors believe we can be self-sufficient on our energy needs almost suggesting we can get rid of oil during their 4-5 years in power. Many are stupid enough to believe them.
The seperatist agenda is well known, no need to dwell on it. You agree or you disagree. They promised a referendum by 2014, before Scotland gain independance.
The economic agenda is similar to the Liberal party, status quo, no revolution, no change, everything is perfect, the debt is not an issue.
The social agenda is similar to what the ADQ proposed a few years ago. At the time, the ADQ was called a fascist party for proposing such things, now, the PQ as taken the mantle, but they sure don't want to be called fascists. Go figure ;)
They propose a "popular initiative referendum" wich could cover a variety of subject so long as the petition has 500 000 unique names.
It could, of course, include seperation. It is still unclear if the governement is tied by this petition and must act first on the referendum and second on the result of the referendum. Various answers have been given by the leader and its candidates. Legally in Quebec, a referendum is not binding, meaning a government could ignore its outcome.
They propose a form of economic nationalism were sound financial principles would be thrown overboard in favour of protecting our corporations. As if the Videotron debacle was not enough (Videotron was supposed to be bought by Rogers, the PQ intervene to stop the sale, bought it with Peladeau and we subsequently lost all of our investment value because it was a bad deal).
Traditional vote include everything left of the center and everything nationalist (including "soft federalists") but lately, they have competition on all sides.
The probability is high that the PQ will be the next minority government.
Québec Solidaire
Communist party with a bicephal head or one ultra-feminazi and an Iranian born doctor whose brother is wanted in Europe for terrorism activities.
It's the usual commie stuff. Anti-american, pro-Al Queida, anti-war, pro-violence when it suits their needs, pro-anarchy, nationilize everything but the corner store and small farms. They want to forbid advertizing of any kind, they promote free health care with zero privately owned clinics, free superior education, no laïcity, multi-culturalism (so long as everyone speak French), raise taxes for the filthy rich earning about 78 000$, raise taxes for the filthy rich corporations earning more than 50k a year.
They propose that the public pension fund covers 60% of average life income (25% currently) and they want to promote electricity for transportation (electification of railroads and electric cars). they want to forbid lock-out for the few businesses who actually have the right to use it.
No private corporations should be allowed to give money to charity, hospitals or schools.
And a lot of other non sensical stuff that pleases Montrealers. This party earns 7-8% of the vote, mostly in downtown French Montreal (Plateau Mont-Royal).
They propose a form of direct democracy to determine Quebec's future, preferably seperate from Canada.
The danger they pose is not in itself, but in what the PQ will do to please these hard core nuts.
Option Nationale
Radical left wing seperatist party. Disapointment of the year.
Jean-Martin Aussant is a former Morgan Stanley VP (London), someone highly educated, yet, he propose that we repeat the usual fiasco of nationalizing our natural resources, like other commie countries did, and see our export&profit drop dramatically. As if the examples of the Société des Alcool and Hydro-Quebec were not enough, we need other non profitable state owned corporations.
I believe he is over-zealous in his nationalism. He wants to take steps to make Quebec a country right after his election, disregarding the need for a referendum.
1-2% of the vote, possibility of Aussant himelf being elected due to a deal with Quebec Solidaire to not present any candidate in his riding.
Coallition Avenir Québec
Centre, centre-left.
The economic agenda is similar to that of the PQ and PLQ, but a bit less intrusive.
They are a nationalist party without a referendum agenda. François Legault (leader) has promised no referendum while he is in power, and he promised 10 years in power maximum.
He wants to make Quebec more efficient. He hopes to gain efficiency in various governemtal offices, mainly Hydro Quebec and the School Boards wich he proposed to merge with the regional Education department offices and abolish the Regional Healh Agencies. Not a bad idea. Doubtful he will succeed.
No drastic cuts outside of Hydro-Quebec, and even there, he simply wants to abolish the functions currently occupied by those who will leave for retirement.
Among the most original proposals is to have one "familiy" doctor per individual in Quebec by september 2014. Without requiring private health care clinics. Wishful thinking in my opinion. The State is way too bloated to actually manage its resources. I agree with him that it's not a matter of resources (1 doctor per 1000 inhabitants), but I disagree with him that just wishing it will make it happen.
He is also proposing some form of economic nationalism by requiring the Caisse de Dépôt et de Placement du Québec to reserve 25% of it's stock portfolio for Quebec based corporations (currently, total portfolio is about 22%, but that includes bonds and other financial products; stock ownership is about 12%).
The social agenda is absent from the offical discourse. He is courting the anglos, and it seems to succeed at some point. I expect a lot of 2nd places in traditional anglo ridings. But of course, 2nd place means nothing in a parliamentary system.
Under a CAQ governement, private companies would be forced to give employees 5 days a year for "family" emergency. As if we were not having enough problems now.
Otherwise, more of the same, like the PQ and the PLQ, except that maybe these ones will actually do what they promise. Most of his promises are recycled from previous PQ and PLQ promises.
I'll end up voting for them. I don't like the leader, I don't like the candidate, but there's no way I'll vote for the other clowns. I actually doubt the leader's courage in facing the powerful unions, I believe he'll act like Charest and back off at the first threat, as he did before.
The CAQ will likely be the Official opposition in a PQ minority government.
For a good site on projected results:
http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/
The Liberals have a strong anglo base, and as such they can maintain themselves with the Outaouais and West-Montreal area. Notice how the CAQ has more of the popular vote, yet less projected ridings.
Woah. Thanks Vipes, for that account.
You're welcome :)
I like http://www.threehundredeight.com/ for a feel of the tendencies. First place I saw the rise of the NDP in Quebec at the last Federal election.
Viper's description of the parties is fairly accurate full of the viper "I hate the Unions" rethoric but accurate.
@Viper, Quit the construction business, you'll fall in love with the Unions.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 10:20:09 AM
Hard to say. The reports I've read* have said it has described itself as being right-of-centre, but the campaign rhetoric has been nothing but.
Depends. Many fanatic leftists like Grey Fox ;) will consider the PQ to be centre-right. In that case, the CAQ is clearly centre-right.
Not what I was searching for, but a visual indication of each party's theme:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebecvotes2012/story/2012/08/28/quebec-platform-navigator.html
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 29, 2012, 10:47:21 AM
@Viper, Quit the construction business, you'll fall in love with the Unions.
I never liked bullies.
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2012, 10:57:42 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 10:20:09 AM
Hard to say. The reports I've read* have said it has described itself as being right-of-centre, but the campaign rhetoric has been nothing but.
Depends. Many fanatic leftists like Grey Fox ;) will consider the PQ to be centre-right. In that case, the CAQ is clearly centre-right.
Hey! I'm not crazy. The PQ is left. I don't fit in any traditional left-right definition. I agree with many of the CAQ ideas but my dislikes are more important, plus I won't vote for the traitors.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 29, 2012, 11:02:13 AM
plus I won't vote for the traitors.
The sovereignists are considered traitors in Canada. You should not vote for such a party :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 29, 2012, 10:37:27 AM
Recent pro-monarchist delirium in English Canada has reduced the base of this party to English Quebecers and a few french leftist federalists out there.
:lol:
Reading up on Quebec politics a year or so ago (funny where surfing Wikipedia will take you), ADQ seemed to be a decent party. Looks like they merged with CAQ though.
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 01:55:48 PM
Reading up on Quebec politics a year or so ago (funny where surfing Wikipedia will take you), ADQ seemed to be a decent party. Looks like they merged with CAQ though.
ADQ imploded a while ago. CAQ sort-of, kind-of tries to cover the same ground.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:57:25 PM
ADQ imploded a while ago. CAQ sort-of, kind-of tries to cover the same ground.
ADQ formally merged with CAQ last year, and some of its program (smaller government, war on red tape, heavy structures, and spending wastes inside both civil service and state companies) has been coopted in the CAQ's party line.
I like how Charest has consistently hammered, for days on end, that Legault was a crypto-separatist, that would make a referendum if he was elected, when Legault formally stated before the first debate that now he would vote No in a future referendum. It was priceless in its desperation. It's one of the ugliest and most slanderous campaigns I've ever witnessed, on all sides. Charest's election platform can be resumed to "vote for me, because if you vote for any of the other it's gonna be a referendum or utter chaos". :lmfao:
Quote from: Drakken on August 29, 2012, 04:04:42 PM
ADQ formally merged with CAQ last year, and some of its program (smaller government, war on red tape and spending waste inside the public service) has been coopted in the CAQ's party line.
The CAQ aims for "efficiency" in State, wich is akin to the direction of the Socialist Party in France took under Ségolène Royal, where they talked about the "efficient left". When Pauline Marois tried this in the PQ, she was branded a dangerous right winger and following a near implosion a few years later has abandonned all talks of efficiency to rally all the left. In face, she recently suggested that non left-wing seperatists vote for the CAQ or the Liberals.
The ADQ aimed at reducing the size of the State, carefully audit every governmental program, see what's working, what's not working. The ADQ seeked to give citizens the choice between private health clinics and governmental clinics, the same thing that the "commie euro bastards" ( ;) ) seems to have, strangely. The basis of the ADQ electoral platform was to give the citizens a choice of how they spend their money, like abolishing the wasteful 7$/day kindergarden that costs more to parents than the previous system du to lack of tax credits. ADQ also proposed to sell 7% of Hydro-Quebec (it would be counter productive to sell of it, we would need to pay Federal corporate tax on the profits)
The CAQ simply wants to leave things as they are but try to do it with less people as they retire. This has been tried before, both the PQ and the PLQ promised to do it and failed. While Legault talks about courage, he has been the one to falter in the past, when publicly challenged. I fear to see how he'll react when a bunch of FTQ thugs threaten to break his legs.
Still, it's the best hope for change we have until the right can get its head out of its ass, clean its act, and merge the various fringe political parties in a cohesive force united under decent leadership. Frankly though, with the bad exemple set by the Federal Conservatives, I don't think such a party would have any chance at all in Quebec.
What did the Federal Conservatives do that was such a bad example?
The CAQ is the new vehicle behind which Power Corporation and the federalist elite hide. For instance some of their goals include: privatize Hydro Quebec and downsize (read undermine) even more the State. All items which should be enough to discourage any nationalist to vote for them. Not Viper apparently...
This new vehicle replaces the Liberals whose brand is soiled with too many rumors of scandals to salvage. In fact, up until the beginning of summer, La Presse, the most federalist media in Quebec (and property of a subsidiary of PowerCorp), played the 'law and order' card, kept downplaying those persistent rumors of corruption and insisted Charest was the best man for Qc. That is until the first polls showed massive disaffection against the current government. After that the editorial board of the newspaper made a 180 degree turn and started backing the CAQ and presenting Legault as the new best thing. :P One also as to know that the co-founder and financial backer of this 'new party' is Charles Sirois - current chairman of CIBC and yet another hardcore federalist... These people are as transparent as they are morally bankrupt.
And yes Matlhus, the anglo press is full of the usual Quebec bashing. But then again Qc bashing is Canada's 2nd national sport so nothing new there yes? Obviously I have voted (by anticipation) for the PQ since we cannot afford another mandate under any of the federalist parasites.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 29, 2012, 06:38:42 PM
And yes Matlhus, the anglo press is full of the usual Quebec bashing. But then again Qc bashing is Canada's 2nd national sport so nothing new there yes? Obviously I have voted (by anticipation) for the PQ since we cannot afford another mandate under any of the federalist parasites.
G.
Heh when I read about the PQ's "secularism charter" I admit, I thought of you - that perhaps you were doing a little consulting work for them? ;)
But seriously - surely you can see how that looks. You don't have to be an angry anglo federalist stooge to realize that this was a bad idea. :lol:
Angry Anglo Federalist Stooges >>>>>>>>>> delusional Commie Quebec Lettowists
I love all the 'when we become independent we will become magically rich!!111' lies. Independence will do jack and shit for the average person. Actually it will just make their lives harder. What a brilliant public policy.
Who saying we'll be rich magically?
The gist of the separatis economic rethoric is "We'll stop giving the federal government money to do things we disapprove of and use it to do things we approve"
We're all still going to get taxed at ~45%.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2012, 08:44:04 AM
Who saying we'll be rich magically?
Um the party that is going to win. PQ. You are alll going to be rich like Norway with all your oil and shit.
QuoteThe gist of the separatis economic rethoric is "We'll stop giving the federal government money to do things we disapprove of and use it to do things we approve"
Yeah all that money the Feds drain from Quebec...pity it is in fact the other way around.
QuoteWe're all still going to get taxed at ~45%.
And you will have billions less dollars every year! Hurrah!
Seriously. Brilliant.
Grallon solidified my support for CAQ. They now have my official endorsement.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2012, 08:44:04 AM
We're all still going to get taxed at ~45%.
:nelson:
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2012, 08:44:04 AM
Who saying we'll be rich magically?
The gist of the separatis economic rethoric is "We'll stop giving the federal government money to do things we disapprove of and use it to do things we approve"
We're all still going to get taxed at ~45%.
I wish we were taxed at 45% :(
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2012, 05:01:40 PM
What did the Federal Conservatives do that was such a bad example?
they didn't reduce expenses and concentrated on their social agenda rather than the economic one.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 09:50:00 AM
they didn't reduce expenses and concentrated on their social agenda rather than the economic one.
Really? Man, total fail. It is like they are taking a page out of the 'how to suck' playbook the Republicans are writing.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2012, 08:44:04 AM
Who saying we'll be rich magically?
Um the party that is going to win. PQ. You are alll going to be rich like Norway with all your oil and shit.
QuoteThe gist of the separatis economic rethoric is "We'll stop giving the federal government money to do things we disapprove of and use it to do things we approve"
Yeah all that money the Feds drain from Quebec...pity it is in fact the other way around.
QuoteWe're all still going to get taxed at ~45%.
And you will have billions less dollars every year! Hurrah!
Seriously. Brilliant.
Who knows? No one ever quote figures how much goes to the federal government from taxes collected in Quebec.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 30, 2012, 09:24:23 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2012, 08:44:04 AM
We're all still going to get taxed at ~45%.
:nelson:
It's okay. There's a trade up, my house didn't cost me 1 million $ like it would have in Vancouver.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Who knows? No one ever quote figures how much goes to the federal government from taxes collected in Quebec.
Surely that is not secret information :hmm:
Quote from: Grallon on August 29, 2012, 06:38:42 PM
The CAQ is the new vehicle behind which Power Corporation and the federalist elite hide. For instance some of their goals include: privatize Hydro Quebec and downsize (read undermine) even more the State. All items which should be enough to discourage any nationalist to vote for them. Not Viper apparently...
They did not propose to privatize Hydro-Quebec. They want to reduce the number of people working there, just as the PQ and the PLQ suggested in the past.
All nationalists should vote for the CAQ, for they are the only ones who stand a chance to reinforce Quebec and make it possible to either pull more than our own weight in Canada or become a independant country.
Of course, there are those like you who believe in status quo. There are people, a majority of them unfortunately, who believe more government, more corruption, more flawed rules are a necessity. We need more bureaucrats, we need more FTQ scum funneling mafia money to the political party.
It's your right to be wrong. I just wish people like you who wish to live in poverty would let others aspire to their dreams instead of constantly bringing us down.
And you see Power Corp everywhere. Power Corp was behind the Liberals up 'til the polls showed they were way behind. Then their attitude changed. Like they did at the federal level.
QuoteThis new vehicle replaces the Liberals whose brand is soiled with too many rumors of scandals to salvage. In fact, up until the beginning of summer, La Presse, the most federalist media in Quebec (and property of a subsidiary of PowerCorp), played the 'law and order' card, kept downplaying those persistent rumors of corruption and insisted Charest was the best man for Qc. That is until the first polls showed massive disaffection against the current government. After that the editorial board of the newspaper made a 180 degree turn and started backing the CAQ and presenting Legault as the new best thing. :P One also as to know that the co-founder and financial backer of this 'new party' is Charles Sirois - current chairman of CIBC and yet another hardcore federalist... These people are as transparent as they are morally bankrupt.
The PQ is just as corrupt as the Liberal party. As journalists are now starting to scratch the PQ card, it shows. First, their silence when the ADQ first asked for a public inquiry on the construction industry. Second, their insistance that Duchesneau has no credibility once he started accusing all political parties of illegal financing. They spend the last 2 years positioning him as Quebec's Elliot Ness, tried to recruit him, but once the mud they were slinging came back to them, he was just... a media whore. Interesting attitude...
Then, all this illegal financing by people around Marois. The not-illegal-but-totally-immoral circumvention of zoning laws to build his manor, on lands acquired for 1$ from the governement, while both he and Marois were holding public offices. Then, the generous pension fund, increased 2fold by Marois while she was Minister of Finance to her husband, head of the Société Générale de Financement, wich lost 1 billion$ while he was there. While the PQ used our money for the same kind of politically motivated financing they want to do again. It seems people like you and Grey Fox never learn from our mistake. Somehow, this idea of having a country seems more important than good governance, honesty and integrity. Don't ask me to follow you on this. Quebec should be independant, but not at any cost.
And I refuse to affirm myself by crushing the others to make me "feel good". Individual rights must be preserved. Extending law 101 to colleges is simply the dumbest idea of the PQ. Adults should make their own choices. If by college an immigrant still prefer english over french, it's his choice, not ours to make. 2 more years in French won't make him love Mari-Mai or Éric Lapointe.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2012, 08:44:04 AM
We're all still going to get taxed at ~45%.
55%, now with the PQ.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 08:49:24 AM
Um the party that is going to win. PQ. You are alll going to be rich like Norway with all your oil and shit.
To be fair, I think a lot of people think that. We'll get rich just by having oil, we won't even need to drill it. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 10:04:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Who knows? No one ever quote figures how much goes to the federal government from taxes collected in Quebec.
Surely that is not secret information :hmm:
Quebec has the fun distinction of being the only province to get equalization payments every year since its inception. They used to share that with the eastern provinces, but then the stuck oil Beverly hillbillies style.
Quote
Giant Viper post
I agree with you on lots of points. Our bureaucracy needs to be reduce signafically but the answer isn't thru privatization of those instutions. It's thru fireing lots of union workers. I am not anti-union like you are but everyone can see they hold too much power.
The FTQ might be a mafia driven institutions but that has more to do with being in the Construction industry where cash money is easily avalaible then being a union.
Stop buying the lie of private enterprise creates wealth. In Quebec, private enterprises only wait out to be bought out by America or ROC interests.
Legault wants the kids to work more & study more. Fuck him! I ain't going to work harder for someone's else interest.
Edit : Too much mangle English : DR I have crazy ideas and/or a retard.
Quote from: HVC on August 30, 2012, 10:12:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 10:04:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Who knows? No one ever quote figures how much goes to the federal government from taxes collected in Quebec.
Surely that is not secret information :hmm:
Quebec has the fun distinction of being the only province to get equalization payments every year since its inception. They used to share that with the eastern provinces, but then the stuck oil Beverly hillbillies style.
That's because the transfer include money from agreements made from having instituions that the fed gov provides in other provinces.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 10:04:24 AM
Surely that is not secret information :hmm:
Not secret, just incomplete.
We know how much goes to the Federal government in income tax and sales tax, from Quebec. We don't know all other sources of revenues from the Federal government, where it comes from. I agree we know most of it, but not all.
We have a basic idea of Federal expenses by provinces, but it does not cover everything. Again, it covers most of it, not all.
It's not a secret, it's just nobody has ever bothered to check it carefully. The PQ has done their own studies, but they ain't worth much. They usually assume there would be no change in Quebec's economy after independance and we would even have a superior growth rate to what we're experiencing now. They also assume we won't need an army, hence 0$ in military spending. Wich is silly, as even without an army, you'd still need armored vehicles and transport helicopters for a super equipped police force. And we would need warships to protect our fishing zones. It's not like the Canadian&American&European fishermans are going to respect our fishing zone if we can't enforce them. And we need submarines to spy on drug traffickers using the St-lawrence to reach Montreal; they have subs&ships of their own too. We will also need aircrafts to watch over northern Quebec. There will be adverse effect in leaving NATO, as our military corporations will probably chose to move toward Ontario or New England if there's no army to give contracts and test products.
Quote from: HVC on August 30, 2012, 10:12:40 AM
Quebec has the fun distinction of being the only province to get equalization payments every year since its inception.
False. Equalization payments were instituted around the 30s, Quebec has always received less until we created our own taxation system in the 50s. Then things started to change.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 09:56:56 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 09:50:00 AM
they didn't reduce expenses and concentrated on their social agenda rather than the economic one.
Really? Man, total fail. It is like they are taking a page out of the 'how to suck' playbook the Republicans are writing.
To be fair, the general impression is just the opposite - that the federal Conservatives only pay lip service to their social agenda, and are more focused on management. I dunno how, objectively speaking, they are doing in terms of economics - the fact that Canada is doing reasonably well may have nothing whatsoever to do with them - but they are claiming they can balance the budget by 2015.
This article deals with how Republicans see Canada and it is pretty funny:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/for-republicans-canada-is-a-convenient-truth/article4500210/
QuoteGuess what? Canada is completely different from just two years ago.
As recently as 2010, this country was a socialist gulag where death panels decided who lived and who died. Today, we are a model of low taxes, balanced budgets and responsible energy development.
What happened? Nothing, of course. The country hasn't changed at all. What has changed are conservative talking points in the United States.
Then, they needed Canada to be a model of failure. Now, they need Canada to be a model of success.
It isn't rational, but then we are talking about the Republican Party.
Weather permitting, the GOP will formally choose Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as presidential and vice-presidential candidates in Tampa this week.
The example of Canada will be invoked at this convention, just as it was four years ago in Minneapolis. Keith Banting, a political scientist at Queen's University, insightfully observed at a conference last week that the party has pivoted 180 degrees in how it views its northern neighbour.
In 2008, Barack Obama's plan to reform health care had Republican candidate John McCain warning of socialized medicine.
"If you like that, go to Canada and go to England and see what kind of health-care system they have," he warned.
After Mr. Obama became President and the Democrats introduced their health-care legislation, things became ridiculous.
Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin warned that Obamacare would lead to "death panels" that would decide whether elderly patients received care or were just left to die.
Shona Holmes, who claimed she had to travel to the United States for surgery to remove a brain tumour after being refused care in Canada, appeared in a television ad claiming: "If I'd relied on my government for health care, I'd be dead."
It turned out she had a non-life-threatening cyst, but conservatives leapt on her tale just the same.
Health care is also an issue this year. But the Republicans are focusing primarily on the troubled American economy. And in that narrative, Soviet Canuckistan, as American conservatives once liked to call us, is a huge success story.
"How does a steel manufacturer in Pittsburgh compete with Canadians who are taxed at less than half the tax rate?" Mr. Ryan lamented last week.
The Republicans point with envy to the Conservative government's plans to balance the budget by 2015. And Mr. Romney has vowed to reverse Mr. Obama's decision not to approve the the Keystone XL pipeline.
It's not just the politicians. Neil Cavuto, a commentator on Fox News, recently bemoaned that "the average Canadian household [is] now worth more than the average American household. ... This is awful. Our neighbours to the north are showing us up."
Much of this is, of course, wild exaggeration. While Canadian federal corporate taxes are lower than in the United States, personal taxes south of the border are generally lower, especially for upper-income earners. There is also no federal sales tax.
While Mr. Romney is trying to turn the Keystone pipeline into a wedge issue, informed opinion expects Mr. Obama will approve the pipeline after the election.
And of course, the public health-care system in Canada is not nearly as bad as American critics make it out to be, nor nearly as good as its champions contend.
Overall, both countries muddle along. But in an election season, such bland realities don't matter. Two years ago, as far as American conservatives were concerned, Canada was a Marxist wasteland. Today, it's a paradise.
Go figure.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 10:28:56 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 30, 2012, 10:12:40 AM
Quebec has the fun distinction of being the only province to get equalization payments every year since its inception.
False. Equalization payments were instituted around the 30s, Quebec has always received less until we created our own taxation system in the 50s. Then things started to change.
I'll have to take your word in regards the the pre-50's version, since i don't know about it. I only know that since 1957 when the formal equalization program started quebec has recieved every year. So in closing, give me back my money! :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 09:50:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2012, 05:01:40 PM
What did the Federal Conservatives do that was such a bad example?
they didn't reduce expenses and concentrated on their social agenda rather than the economic one.
I am interested to hear that this is how they are percieved in Quebec. I daresay that the perception is the opposite in the rest of the Country. At worst the allegation is that they make noises that appeal to whatever small percentage of social conservatives there might be in this country but are not doing anything about it.
On the "reduce expenses" part of the ledger they are reducing spending and particularly reducing the size of the public service. There has been a bit of grumbling from the public service because of that but on the whole it has been well managed and so it has not become a large issue.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 09:56:56 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 09:50:00 AM
they didn't reduce expenses and concentrated on their social agenda rather than the economic one.
Really? Man, total fail. It is like they are taking a page out of the 'how to suck' playbook the Republicans are writing.
Viper might be overstating matters. He's just pissy that the Tories didn't declare a republic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 10:55:11 AM
On the "reduce expenses" part of the ledger they are reducing spending and particularly reducing the size of the public service. There has been a bit of grumbling from the public service because of that but on the whole it has been well managed and so it has not become a large issue.
2006 is the year they took power for the first time.
2011 is the year they announced cuts for the first time. So far, nothing has happenned.
However, we have more expenses than ever for 1812 propaganda and for various monarchist activities.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
However, we have more expenses than ever for 1812 propaganda and for various monarchist activities.
Ah, your real issue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 02:32:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
However, we have more expenses than ever for 1812 propaganda and for various monarchist activities.
Ah, your real issue.
You knew it was coming. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 02:32:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
However, we have more expenses than ever for 1812 propaganda and for various monarchist activities.
Ah, your real issue.
is this a decrease in spending? So far, the budget is planning on economic growth to balance itself, not a cut in spending, not a careful re-evalutation of each program that should have been done since 2006.
Hard to convince people a right wing party is good for the country when all they do is the same as the Liberal Party.
I'll give you that though: we were not flooded with Canadian flags for the 1st of July. But the historical revisionism comming from Ottawa is... appaling, to say the least.
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
However, we have more expenses than ever for 1812 propaganda and for various monarchist activities.
How much are we talking about here?
And I am glad you feel the need to stop the anti-Americanism in Canada.
QuoteSo far, the budget is planning on economic growth to balance itself, not a cut in spending, not a careful re-evalutation of each program that should have been done since 2006.
Heck even not increasing spending seems like it is a revolutionary and draconian right wing step in the First World these days.
Just for Viper, I'm gonna wear a tie with a crown on it. :P
Speaking of 1812, you guys will be amused to know that Glenn Beck advertises a commemorative 1812 gold coin on his radio show, as if it were a patriotic product. But if you listen really close at the end of the commercial, the coin is made by the Royal Canadian Mint :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 10:55:11 AM
On the "reduce expenses" part of the ledger they are reducing spending and particularly reducing the size of the public service. There has been a bit of grumbling from the public service because of that but on the whole it has been well managed and so it has not become a large issue.
2006 is the year they took power for the first time.
2011 is the year they announced cuts for the first time. So far, nothing has happenned.
However, we have more expenses than ever for 1812 propaganda and for various monarchist activities.
to be fair, the worst time to dcrease spending is during a recession.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 04:08:50 PM
Speaking of 1812, you guys will be amused to know that Glenn Beck advertises a commemorative 1812 gold coin on his radio show, as if it were a patriotic product. But if you listen really close at the end of the commercial, the coin is made by the Royal Canadian Mint :lol:
You're right - I am amused. :D
On the front:
>a beaver<
1812: WE HELPED!
On the back:
>More Beaver<
JETS SUCK
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 04:08:50 PM
Speaking of 1812, you guys will be amused to know that Glenn Beck advertises a commemorative 1812 gold coin on his radio show, as if it were a patriotic product. But if you listen really close at the end of the commercial, the coin is made by the Royal Canadian Mint :lol:
:lol:
Yes, you are right. That is funny.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 04:08:50 PM
Speaking of 1812, you guys will be amused to know that Glenn Beck advertises a commemorative 1812 gold coin on his radio show, as if it were a patriotic product. But if you listen really close at the end of the commercial, the coin is made by the Royal Canadian Mint :lol:
:lol:
To be fair though, the only 1812 coin I could find is reasonably non-partisan - it's a heraldic device that celebrates the impact on the UK, the US and Canada. I can see a Yank liking it (Queen on the reverse aside).
http://www.mint.ca/store/coin/fine-gold-10-coin-war-of-1812-mintage-2000-2012-prod1300006
The description:
QuoteThe eagle, representing American forces, stands powerfully opposed to the lion, who symbolizes the British forces. Between them stretches the shield of military conflict upon which is emblazoned the maple leaf, signifying the shared resolve of the English- and French-speaking Canadian volunteers and First Nations warriors who worked together to bravely defend their land and ways of life.
No mention that the natives got screwed. :D
I'll hold out for a Battle of New Orleans coin myself :P
That is one ugly eagle.
I assume a new one will have Abby Wambach's boot squishing a beaver.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 04:39:59 PM
I'll hold out for a Battle of New Orleans coin myself :P
... but you'll have to settle for a "burning of Washington" one. :D
I like the 1kg King George one. That will make for fine trade goods when the SHTF.
Its also overpriced by around 15000 CAN Dollars.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 04:39:59 PM
I'll hold out for a Battle of New Orleans coin myself :P
We lost and the British made us take Louisiana :weep:
You guys should watch "Explosion 1812". This is very nice piece of propaganda. The intro gives it all: 1812, the explosion that changed the world.
Quote from: viper37 on September 01, 2012, 11:41:31 AM
You guys should watch "Explosion 1812". This is very nice piece of propaganda. The intro gives it all: 1812, the explosion that changed the world.
Well it did kinda. At least NOrth America. But I will check it out.
I guess I find the whole idea of insidious War of 1812 propaganda so ridiculous to be sorta humorous but who knows.
Tomorrow, we vote.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 01, 2012, 11:41:31 AM
You guys should watch "Explosion 1812". This is very nice piece of propaganda. The intro gives it all: 1812, the explosion that changed the world.
Well it did kinda. At least NOrth America. But I will check it out.
I guess I find the whole idea of insidious War of 1812 propaganda so ridiculous to be sorta humorous but who knows.
Did it really? A US conquest of Canada would have disasterous effects on the people living there, but I always felt that the conquest of the central part of North America was pretty much inevitable. Who was going to stand up to a power as strong and aggressive as the US?
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 07:17:54 PM
Did it really? A US conquest of Canada would have disasterous effects on the people living there, but I always felt that the conquest of the central part of North America was pretty much inevitable. Who was going to stand up to a power as strong and aggressive as the US?
It may or may not have been inevitable but the War of 1812 is when it happened. Alot of Indian Nations went down in that war and it ended forever the dream of booting the Brits out of Canada.
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2012, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 07:17:54 PM
Did it really? A US conquest of Canada would have disasterous effects on the people living there, but I always felt that the conquest of the central part of North America was pretty much inevitable. Who was going to stand up to a power as strong and aggressive as the US?
It may or may not have been inevitable but the War of 1812 is when it happened. Alot of Indian Nations went down in that war and it ended forever the dream of booting the Brits out of Canada.
How could it be anything but inevitable? The US had a huge, growing population whose ideology required free land, which could legitimately be taken from inferior races?
Man, talking about the old US sure makes it sound bad. :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 03, 2012, 07:03:39 PM
Tomorrow, we vote.
Yes let`s remember that, rather than derailing this thread with pointless debates about forgotten wars.
As things stands the PQ will win and quite possibly with a majority.
All hail the 1st female Prime Minister in our history!
G.
QuoteAll hail the 1st female Prime Minister in our history!
My condolences.
Quote from: Grallon on September 04, 2012, 08:09:48 AM
Yes let`s remember that, rather than derailing this thread with pointless debates about forgotten wars.
As things stands the PQ will win and quite possibly with a majority.
All hail the 1st female Prime Minister in our history!
But..but...this is Languish forgotten wars is mostly what we talk about :(
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 01, 2012, 11:41:31 AM
You guys should watch "Explosion 1812". This is very nice piece of propaganda. The intro gives it all: 1812, the explosion that changed the world.
Well it did kinda. At least NOrth America. But I will check it out.
I guess I find the whole idea of insidious War of 1812 propaganda so ridiculous to be sorta humorous but who knows.
The war changed North America, no doubt. A single accidental explosion in York did not change the face of the world. And I disagree with their assessment that America served a sucker punch to Great Britain while they were fighting for their survival against the relentless assaults of Napoleon.
Quote from: Grallon on September 04, 2012, 08:09:48 AM
All hail the 1st female Prime Minister in our history!
G.
What's your opinion on Margaret Thatcher?
Sweet, another Kim Campbell wannabee.
I suspect we will have another "Alberta scenario" : far more people will be willing to vote Liberal in the booth than they'd said in the polls. It's gonna be one messed up election.
Quote from: viper37 on September 04, 2012, 09:50:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 01, 2012, 11:41:31 AM
You guys should watch "Explosion 1812". This is very nice piece of propaganda. The intro gives it all: 1812, the explosion that changed the world.
Well it did kinda. At least NOrth America. But I will check it out.
I guess I find the whole idea of insidious War of 1812 propaganda so ridiculous to be sorta humorous but who knows.
The war changed North America, no doubt. A single accidental explosion in York did not change the face of the world. And I disagree with their assessment that America served a sucker punch to Great Britain while they were fighting for their survival against the relentless assaults of Napoleon.
Though I haven't seen the movie, I think a reasonably good case can be made for the significance of the destruction of the York powder magazine.
The significance lies in the reaction of the US soldiers, who in retaliation for what they saw as a war crime (the explosion killed 250 of them), went on to burn & pillage York. This changed the nature of the war. Prior to that, there was some justified hope of the Americans rallying the local population (many of whom were in fact recent immigrants from America) to their support. The pillaging of York, and the retailation for it (famously, burning down Washington) made that much less likely. The Americans were now popularly portrayed as invaders not liberators, which made success that much less likely.
We get our First Female Prime Minister.
The first Harper-Marois meeting will be fun with her not understanding anything he says, in both languages.
My condolences. Women in power. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2012, 08:21:20 PM
My condolences. Women in power. :rolleyes:
It's Quebec. It would be terribly hard to make it worse.
Mind you, Allison Redford has totally fucked Alberta up.
It's a wonderfull place to live, it's just more expensive, tax wise.
I'll pray for both of you.
PQ elected as minority government... with a mere 33% of the electorate. This is disappointing. Despite everything, despite all the corruption the fucking Liberals are 2nd - SECOND!
The only good news is the CAQ is much weaker than expected.
Still I despair of Quebecers <_<
G.
It's the Pauline Marois's effect. The Baby boomers, they can't stand her.
Parti Québécois 32,1% des voix - 55 députés
Parti Libéral du Québec 31% - 49 députés
Coallition Avenir Québec 27,1% - 19 députés
Québec Solidaire 6,0% - 2 députés
Députés = member of parliament (MP) or whatever is used for the provincial legislative assembly.
Former Premier Jean Charest has not been re-elected in his riding. PQ leader Marois has been elected. CAQ leader Legault is leading but not confirmed. My own riding, merged for this election with part of another riding very strongly pro-Liberal is now represented by a Liberal MP instead of a PQ MP. Big fucking change.
I'm glad Marois is not in a majority government. Her populist and xenophobic stance, I can't abide. Fuck her and her morons. She and her husband are as corrupt as any Liberal can be, but her supporters are willing to excuse that, since she a leftist and a separatist. This is what happens when people can't control their emotions. We now got French immigrants as better candidates than Chinese because they live in French at home. I can't imagine the storm had a CAQ candidate said something like this... But it's the PQ, so I guess it's ok to be a moron nowadays. Lévesque or Bouchard would never have tolerated such idiots. No wonder Lisée never kept a job.
Hopefully, the PQ will make some compromises with the CAQ when comes budget time. We might not see those drastic tax hikes she promised.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 04, 2012, 09:12:23 PM
It's the Pauline Marois's effect. The Baby boomers, they can't stand her.
did we get how many people got to vote? (taux de participation)
What seems to be a frustrated anglo has tried to kill the Premier tonight. 2 people injured, a small fire has been controled. A man has been arrested with what seems to be a rifle.
French link:
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/elections-quebec-2012/201209/05/01-4571093-attentat-pendant-le-discours-de-marois.php
You petty rhetoric is disgraceful Viper. Morons day is it? Jesus shame on you!
And Charest was *not* elected in his riding!
As for the turnover - 71% - much higher than last time (58%).
G.
Gral, did you read what you wrote?
Let me quote it:
" This is disappointing. Despite everything, despite all the corruption the fucking Liberals are 2nd - SECOND!
The only good news is the CAQ is much weaker than expected.
Still I despair of Quebecers <_< "
You despair of Quebecers because they did not vote for your corrupt leader. But I am not allowed the same? You chose to vote for a party wich had no problem with illegal financing. You vote for a leader who gave a generous golden parachute to her husband while she was Minister of Finance, knowing the PQ would probably not be re-elected. You vote for your fearless leader wich has used illicit means to acquire government property on which her manor is built.
And you blame Quebecers for voting Liberals? Between Marois and the PLQ remnant, I believe they are the lesser of two evils.
Once the PQ has a non moronic leader, maybe I'll vote for them. But for now, all they want to do is blame specific groups for our problems. One day, it's all the anglos fault. Another, it's the non French immigrant's fault. The week before, it was the filthy rich: those making 130k$ a year. So, what's next: forced nationalisation like in Bolivia and Venezuela? Seize Couche-Tard and operate it in the People's name?
Marois is ready for anything to regain the leftist vote. And that scares me. Such a corrupt power hungry leader bodes nothing well for our future.
One dead confirmed, one injured.
What's this gun?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/272545_405936232804635_855197043_o.jpg)
Upside down.
Looks like a goold old AK-47.
It's a AK-47 allright.
One dead, a technician working at the Metropolis, one critically injured, allegedly a driver driving one of the bus with Marois and the media crew. Allegedly he succeeded entering in the Metropolis by behind and was as close as 20-25 feet behind the veil separating the hall and the stage (behind Marois) when he started shooting.
Also, La Presse announces that a truck full of firearms was found in vicinity of the crime scene.
When arrested, the guy was clearly speaking with an Anglo-Quebecer accent while speaking French, and yelled "Les Anglais se réveillent. Les Anglais se réveillent". (The Anglos are rising, twice) before a cop shut him up by sliding his hood over his mouth. Thank God he didn't succeed, because Marois, her family, and many elected PQ candidates were among that crowd. The shock of it would have been like the Meech Accord in 1990, but ten times worse.
I watched the CBC Newsworld coverage just as it was confirmed that the first victim had died, and you could clearly see that the fact that the guy was an Anglo-Quebecer attempting to assassinate a PQ elected Premier was causing a lot of unease so much that they thoroughly attempted to hide the fact that the guy said that "the Anglos were rising". The elephant in the room being of course that it wasn't just an homicide, but an attempted political assassination.
You guys know there are dozens of AK derivatives, many which look very similar?
Quote from: Drakken on September 04, 2012, 10:00:41 AM
Sweet, another Kim Campbell wannabee.
I suspect we will have another "Alberta scenario" : far more people will be willing to vote Liberal in the booth than they'd said in the polls. It's gonna be one messed up election.
Hate to say I told you so, but... I told you so.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 01:16:47 AM
You guys know there are dozens of AK derivatives, many which look very similar?
Well, it looks indeed like an AK-47.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaarmory.com%2Fimages%2Fcategories%2Fak-47.jpg&hash=0ae2d26278075f36f6c068323a599e934581912d)
I was wrong. Unofficial reports reports the gun is a CZ 858. Not in the prohibited class of weapon in Canada and thus easier to smuggle as it is a semi-automatic rifle. Indeed modeled over the AK-47.
Quote from: Malthus on September 04, 2012, 10:01:19 AM
Though I haven't seen the movie, I think a reasonably good case can be made for the significance of the destruction of the York powder magazine.
The significance lies in the reaction of the US soldiers, who in retaliation for what they saw as a war crime (the explosion killed 250 of them), went on to burn & pillage York. This changed the nature of the war. Prior to that, there was some justified hope of the Americans rallying the local population (many of whom were in fact recent immigrants from America) to their support. The pillaging of York, and the retailation for it (famously, burning down Washington) made that much less likely. The Americans were now popularly portrayed as invaders not liberators, which made success that much less likely.
Interesting, I did not know that. :hmm:
God damn motherfucking Baby boomers, ever since the first batch turned 50 they have been fucking up everything. :ultra:
Quote from: Drakken on September 05, 2012, 02:07:50 AM
I was wrong. Unofficial reports reports the gun is a CZ 858. Not in the prohibited class of weapon in Canada and thus easier to smuggle as it is a semi-automatic rifle. Indeed modeled over the AK-47.
I thought the Butt Stock looked weird.
Quote from: Grallon on September 04, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
And Charest was *not* elected in his riding!
Which is fine, since he was going to have to resign anyways.
The best news is that the PQ was far enough away from a majority that QS wasn't able to bridge the gap.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 01:16:47 AM
You guys know there are dozens of AK derivatives, many which look very similar?
wich is why I asked, 'cause other people with more knowledge than me were saying it looked like a .22 caliber.
Quote from: viper37 on September 05, 2012, 08:42:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 01:16:47 AM
You guys know there are dozens of AK derivatives, many which look very similar?
wich is why I asked, 'cause other people with more knowledge than me were saying it looked like a .22 caliber.
Not impossible.
Quote from: viper37 on September 04, 2012, 11:17:38 PM
Parti Québécois 32,1% des voix - 55 députés
Parti Libéral du Québec 31% - 49 députés
Coallition Avenir Québec 27,1% - 19 députés
Québec Solidaire 6,0% - 2 députés
CAQ with 27.1% and the Liberals with 31% I guess means the people of Quebec have spoken out pretty decisively against a referendum, that's good and wise. Heh sort of funny the ruling party did not even come in the top 4.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2012, 09:14:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 04, 2012, 11:17:38 PM
Parti Québécois 32,1% des voix - 55 députés
Parti Libéral du Québec 31% - 49 députés
Coallition Avenir Québec 27,1% - 19 députés
Québec Solidaire 6,0% - 2 députés
CAQ with 27.1% and the Liberals with 31% I guess means the people of Quebec have spoken out pretty decisively against a referendum, that's good and wise. Heh sort of funny the ruling party did not even come in the top 4.
:huh:
The liberals finished in 2nd. There is no provincial Conservative party.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2012, 02:24:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 04, 2012, 10:01:19 AM
Though I haven't seen the movie, I think a reasonably good case can be made for the significance of the destruction of the York powder magazine.
The significance lies in the reaction of the US soldiers, who in retaliation for what they saw as a war crime (the explosion killed 250 of them), went on to burn & pillage York. This changed the nature of the war. Prior to that, there was some justified hope of the Americans rallying the local population (many of whom were in fact recent immigrants from America) to their support. The pillaging of York, and the retailation for it (famously, burning down Washington) made that much less likely. The Americans were now popularly portrayed as invaders not liberators, which made success that much less likely.
Interesting, I did not know that. :hmm:
The alternative theory is that this was only one such incident and that others (like the burning of Niagra-on-the-Lake) were just as significant if not moreso.
Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 09:19:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2012, 09:14:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 04, 2012, 11:17:38 PM
Parti Québécois 32,1% des voix - 55 députés
Parti Libéral du Québec 31% - 49 députés
Coallition Avenir Québec 27,1% - 19 députés
Québec Solidaire 6,0% - 2 députés
CAQ with 27.1% and the Liberals with 31% I guess means the people of Quebec have spoken out pretty decisively against a referendum, that's good and wise. Heh sort of funny the ruling party did not even come in the top 4.
:huh:
The liberals finished in 2nd. There is no provincial Conservative party.
No, there's one. It's lead by Luc Harvey, he was a Federal PC member back in '08.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 09:22:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 09:19:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2012, 09:14:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 04, 2012, 11:17:38 PM
Parti Québécois 32,1% des voix - 55 députés
Parti Libéral du Québec 31% - 49 députés
Coallition Avenir Québec 27,1% - 19 députés
Québec Solidaire 6,0% - 2 députés
CAQ with 27.1% and the Liberals with 31% I guess means the people of Quebec have spoken out pretty decisively against a referendum, that's good and wise. Heh sort of funny the ruling party did not even come in the top 4.
:huh:
The liberals finished in 2nd. There is no provincial Conservative party.
No, there's one. It's lead by Luc Harvey, he was a Federal PC member back in '08.
Well it's not affiliated with the federal party. No provincial party is.
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 09:19:48 AM
:huh:
The liberals finished in 2nd. There is no provincial Conservative party.
Really? Is that the Conservative spirit? Just give up and let the Commies take over? Bah.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
The alternative theory is that this was only one such incident and that others (like the burning of Niagra-on-the-Lake) were just as significant if not moreso.
Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.
You have to remember our army consisted almost entirely of untrained militia men. One of my wife's ancestors was in the Kentucky militia that fought in the Battle of the Thames and they came home crowing about having killed many 'Tories, Frenchmen, and Indians' so if the plan was to treat the Canadians as countrymen and get them to rise up against the British they clearly forgot to tell the troops. As far as these guys were concerned the Canadians were foreigners and/or traitors.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2012, 09:24:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 09:19:48 AM
:huh:
The liberals finished in 2nd. There is no provincial Conservative party.
Really? Is that the Conservative spirit? Just give up and let the Commies take over? Bah.
You have to remember the fairly tortured recent history of the federal Conservative Party, which formed from the uneasy merger of the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform) parties. It was just easier to not try and go around forming provincial wings, since there were all-ready pre-existing successful provincial Progressive Conservative parties, or other parties covered the field for right-wing politics (BC Liberals, Saskatchewan Party).
The last Alberta election was fought between two parties that both could have arguably been the provincial wing of the federal Conservative Party. So it's just easier to keep the politics separate.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2012, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
The alternative theory is that this was only one such incident and that others (like the burning of Niagra-on-the-Lake) were just as significant if not moreso.
Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.
You have to remember our army consisted almost entirely of untrained militia men. One of my wife's ancestors was in the Kentucky militia that fought in the Battle of the Thames and they came home crowing about having killed many 'Tories, Frenchmen, and Indians' so if the plan was to treat the Canadians as countrymen and get them to rise up against the British they clearly forgot to tell the troops. As far as these guys were concerned the Canadians were foreigners and/or traitors.
I dunno if that was the plan, but it certainly was the fear on the part of the British authorities, as many in the Anglo population were recent immigrants from the US looking for cheap land (the actual Tories were a minority of those), and in some other cases an influx of US immigrants was a sign of trouble for the local authorities. See, for example, Texas.
Many in the local population were distrustful of the British authorities and sympathetic to republican ideals, and so it was reasonable to expect that they would side with the Yank invaders. Unfortunately, as you say, the actual experience of being invaded soon put paid to that!
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.
check the link I posted. It's the general tone of the documentary that I disagree with. It's such a minor event in the war, and it's interpretation is dubious. The British regularly burnt houses&stables on conquered territory (1759 and 1839 in Canada, even burning people in a church, and many such incidents happenned during the American Revolution IIRC (no burning churches though). The Americans were no more savages than the British were. During the war of 1812, the British didn't burn civilians houses because they mostly stayed away from "civilized" area. Afaik, they intended to burn other buildings but they were forced to retreat by heavy rain and an hurricane.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2012, 02:24:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 04, 2012, 10:01:19 AM
Though I haven't seen the movie, I think a reasonably good case can be made for the significance of the destruction of the York powder magazine.
The significance lies in the reaction of the US soldiers, who in retaliation for what they saw as a war crime (the explosion killed 250 of them), went on to burn & pillage York. This changed the nature of the war. Prior to that, there was some justified hope of the Americans rallying the local population (many of whom were in fact recent immigrants from America) to their support. The pillaging of York, and the retailation for it (famously, burning down Washington) made that much less likely. The Americans were now popularly portrayed as invaders not liberators, which made success that much less likely.
Interesting, I did not know that. :hmm:
Yeah, Malthus did a good job summing up the prevailing historical view. Canada was there for the taking if the Americans hadnt treated the locals so poorly. If you are into podcasts there is a great show on this topic on CBCradio.ca Ideas which interviewed American and Canadian historians on the subject.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 09:35:33 AM
I dunno if that was the plan, but it certainly was the fear on the part of the British authorities, as many in the Anglo population were recent immigrants from the US looking for cheap land (the actual Tories were a minority of those), and in some other cases an influx of US immigrants was a sign of trouble for the local authorities. See, for example, Texas.
So the British were concerned by the precendent established by things that happened 20+ years into the future? Anyway if the British had denied the locals local rule and tried to overturn the Constitution like the Mexicans did indeed things might have gone that way.
Quote from: viper37 on September 05, 2012, 10:34:56 AM
The Americans were no more savages than the British were.
At least they had a proper congressional vote on burning down the Capitol. No move to burn down York was not made, seconded, or carried :angry:
Quote from: viper37 on September 05, 2012, 10:34:56 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
Nonetheless, I am unsure as to what specifically about this interpretation has aroused Viper's ire.
check the link I posted. It's the general tone of the documentary that I disagree with. It's such a minor event in the war, and it's interpretation is dubious. The British regularly burnt houses&stables on conquered territory (1759 and 1839 in Canada, even burning people in a church, and many such incidents happenned during the American Revolution IIRC (no burning churches though). The Americans were no more savages than the British were. During the war of 1812, the British didn't burn civilians houses because they mostly stayed away from "civilized" area. Afaik, they intended to burn other buildings but they were forced to retreat by heavy rain and an hurricane.
I tried, and your links did not work. :(
Anyway, if I understand the precis of the documentary, the interpretation is only dubious in this respect - that it, as it were, blows that specific event ( :D) out of proportion; that rather it was the cumulation of several such events that turned the tide of opinion against the Yanks.
It is quite irrelevant whether or not the Brits behaved equally badly (they did - for example, they famously burned down Washington - though question whether 'they started it' is a good excuse). The reason it is irrelevant is that the Brits had no serious intention of conquest in the US dependant on obtaining Yank goodwill against their own governement - while the Yanks were attempting the conquest of Canada, and local goodwill was possible for them to obtain.
In other words, arousing local hostility was a loss of an opportunity for the Yanks that did not exist for the Brits.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2012, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 09:35:33 AM
I dunno if that was the plan, but it certainly was the fear on the part of the British authorities, as many in the Anglo population were recent immigrants from the US looking for cheap land (the actual Tories were a minority of those), and in some other cases an influx of US immigrants was a sign of trouble for the local authorities. See, for example, Texas.
So the British were concerned by the precendent established by things that happened 20+ years into the future? Anyway if the British had denied the locals local rule and tried to overturn the Constitution like the Mexicans did indeed things might have gone that way.
No, events 20 years in the future demonstrated that
contemporary British concerns
at the time were not without foundation.
This is more of a side comment, but I think part of the problem was that many Americans didn't see themselves as trying to "conquer" Canada. After the Revolution, the American mindset naturally shifted toward viewing the British as horrible tyrants (especially with loyalist migration to places such as Canada). There was a mentality that it would be easy to take Canada over because there woudl be lots of local support. For those with that mentality that ended up encountering loyal Canadians, a combination of anger, fustration, and perhaps viewing them as a sort of traitor to their country conspired to less than ideal outcomes.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2012, 12:00:32 PM
For those with that mentality that ended up encountering loyal Canadians, a combination of anger, fustration, and perhaps viewing them as a sort of traitor to their country conspired to less than ideal outcomes.
Except that theory does not hold with what actually happened. The local population started out being, on the whole pro American because, as Malthus already pointed out, the population had a large percentage of Americans and there was a very small percentage of Tories within that group. The Americans crossed the border not as liberators but as conquerors. If they had come as liberators the war would have gone very differently in Canada.
I wonder if this result is finally going to kill the separatist movement. Going against a government that as weighed down by allegations of corruption and vote spliting the Separatists did suprisingly poorly. Granted Drakken was right about the polling but still if these were not "favourable conditions" for a Separatist majority I am not sure what would be.
I guess everyone who was saying that time was against the Separatist cause was right and now that Quebec no longer controls who forms a majority Federal government the Separatists will show just how impotent their demands really are.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 12:48:57 PM
I wonder if this result is finally going to kill the separatist movement. Going against a government that as weighed down by allegations of corruption and vote spliting the Separatists did suprisingly poorly. Granted Drakken was right about the polling but still if these were not "favourable conditions" for a Separatist majority I am not sure what would be.
I guess everyone who was saying that time was against the Separatist cause was right and now that Quebec no longer controls who forms a majority Federal government the Separatists will show just how impotent their demands really are.
Nah. separatism has become a permanent and chronic problem in Canadian politics. It will not go away. Polls have consistently shown for over a generation now that approximately one third of Quebecers want independence. It's a large enough number that it won't go away, but small enough that it won't happen.
I dont know BB, in 95 there was 49% support for separation. I think time has taken its toll on the movement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 01:06:15 PM
I dont know BB, in 95 there was 49% support for separation. I think time has taken its toll on the movement.
That was an absolute high-water mark. If you'll recall in the early campaign separation was lagging badly in the polls. It was only when Bouchard stepped in to take charge that separation surged ahead to 49.5%. Also remember that Bouchard had enormous public sympathy at the time as he had lost his leg to flesh-eating disease in December '94 (I'll admit - I had to look up the date).
It's not impossible that a majority of Quebecers might vote in favour of separation some day, but the polls for the last 40 years have been in the 30-40% range.
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
:huh:
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
:huh:
73 conversative mps? That's crazy!
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
Meh, you just started getting treated like everyone else. The days of Quebec demanding special treatment because it held one of the keys necessary for power are likely over. And the threat of separation isnt such a big deal for two reasons:
1) the rest of us dont much care whether you stay or go.
2) the threat of you going is low in any event.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:24:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
:huh:
73 conversative mps? That's crazy!
Hardly. I see no reason why the Conservatives shouldn't win every seat in a province. :)
I think it's better for Canada & Quebec that the ROC has stop caring wether we stay or go. The Liberals were always too vested in that.
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:24:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
:huh:
73 conversative mps? That's crazy!
Hardly. I see no reason why the Conservatives shouldn't win every seat in a province. :)
There is already such a place, usually refered to the United States of America. They even have no federal GST.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:27:57 PM
I think it's better for Canada & Quebec that the ROC has stop caring wether we stay or go. The Liberals were always too vested in that.
They were vested because they needed Quebec seats to maintain their majority and Quebec played that card for all it was worth.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:24:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
:huh:
73 conversative mps? That's crazy!
Hardly. I see no reason why the Conservatives shouldn't win every seat in a province. :)
There is already such a place, usually refered to the United States of America. They even have no federal GST.
I was making an Alberta joke. :secret:
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:24:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
:huh:
73 conversative mps? That's crazy!
Hardly. I see no reason why the Conservatives shouldn't win every seat in a province. :)
There is already such a place, usually refered to the United States of America. They even have no federal GST.
Bah, There isnt a US politician alive who knows how to balance the books.
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 01:31:23 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:24:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
:huh:
73 conversative mps? That's crazy!
Hardly. I see no reason why the Conservatives shouldn't win every seat in a province. :)
There is already such a place, usually refered to the United States of America. They even have no federal GST.
I was making an Alberta joke. :secret:
Ah. It flew over head.
But don't you have a NDP mp in South Eastern Edmonton?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 01:32:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:24:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
We've only stop controlling it because the Ontarians have gone crazy. Quebec votes for a federalist party & they all turn their back on us.
:huh:
73 conversative mps? That's crazy!
Hardly. I see no reason why the Conservatives shouldn't win every seat in a province. :)
There is already such a place, usually refered to the United States of America. They even have no federal GST.
Bah, There isnt a US politician alive who knows how to balance the books.
5% federal VAT, is all they need.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 05, 2012, 01:35:13 PM
But don't you have a NDP mp in South Eastern Edmonton?
It is Edmonton, so normally it can be safely ignored for all purposes. However, in this case we can blame Neil and so you make a very good point.
Does Neil vote? He probably doesn't.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 12:12:33 PM
Except that theory does not hold with what actually happened. The local population started out being, on the whole pro American because, as Malthus already pointed out, the population had a large percentage of Americans and there was a very small percentage of Tories within that group. The Americans crossed the border not as liberators but as conquerors. If they had come as liberators the war would have gone very differently in Canada.
Poorly trained Napoleonic era armies rough with the locals when campaigning in a foreign country? I think that was inevitable. Hell, armies of that era were perfectly capable of alienating their own people when stationed among them.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2012, 01:42:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 12:12:33 PM
Except that theory does not hold with what actually happened. The local population started out being, on the whole pro American because, as Malthus already pointed out, the population had a large percentage of Americans and there was a very small percentage of Tories within that group. The Americans crossed the border not as liberators but as conquerors. If they had come as liberators the war would have gone very differently in Canada.
Poorly trained Napoleonic era armies rough with the locals when campaigning in a foreign country? I think that was inevitable. Hell, armies of that era were perfectly capable of alienating their own people when stationed among them.
They could generally be relied on not to burn down their own cities though. ;) It was the arson - at York and what became Niagra on the lake (then known as Newark) - that really annoyed people. The latter in particular was allegedly carried out on direct orders, not by ill-disciplined troops (unlike the burning of York).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Fort_Niagara#Burning_of_Newark
QuoteEarlier in the year, the United States Secretary of War, John Armstrong, had given permission to destroy the nearby village of Newark if it became necessary to prevent British troops finding cover close to Fort George. The inhabitants were to be given several days' notice, and care was to be taken that they were not to be left destitute.[5] As the Americans abandoned Fort George, the order was unaccountably given to burn down the village without warning, leaving the inhabitants without shelter or possessions in the depths of winter. Part of the village of Queenston was also torched. It was alleged that the pro-American Canadian Volunteers performed most of the destruction.
This action was undoubtedly contrary to the conventions which governed warfare at the time, although several similar acts had already been committed by both sides during the war. The burning of Newark was to be the pretext for the British to carry out several outrages later.
One detail I found amusing was that the burning of York was allegedly partly inspired by the discovery of a "scalp" in the Legislative Assembly by American troops (proving British barbarism - presumably, the legislators had obtained it by enouraging their native allies in scalping Yanks).
Only problem: the "scalp" was the Speaker's official Wig! :lol:
Shit happens. I doubt the Americans during 1812/1813 were harsher on Canada than the Russians on their own citizens during the same time period.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2012, 02:13:22 PM
Shit happens. I doubt the Americans during 1812/1813 were harsher on Canada than the Russians on their own citizens during the same time period.
Sure, but giving civilians the good old 19th century Cossack treatment isn't the best possible way to convince them of your republican goodness, and convince them to side with you. :lol:
This would not be an issue, were it not for the fact that pro-American sentiments were in fact widespread in Canada prior to the war. Not so much after. Which is why the war is significant for Canadians - once they *did* in effect achieve local autonomy, there was little sentiment to join the US as states. Had the war not occured, this would presumably have been a stronger possibility.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 02:18:32 PM
Sure, but giving civilians the good old 19th century Cossack treatment isn't the best possible way to convince them of your republican goodness, and convince them to side with you. :lol:
This would not be an issue, were it not for the fact that pro-American sentiments were in fact widespread in Canada prior to the war. Not so much after. Which is why the war is significant for Canadians - once they *did* in effect achieve local autonomy, there was little sentiment to join the US as states. Had the war not occured, this would presumably have been a stronger possibility.
It wasn't just the Cossack treatment--my understanding is that the French army was also quite hard on its own citizens when the fighting got there.
What I am trying to get at is that is the American army/militias of the time period could only aspire to have the discipline of their European counterparts. Unless you
really like the cause they were fighting for, you were going to be alienated when an early 19th century army strolled into town. The problem wasn't the conduct of the Americans in Canada so much--they were doing what armies do for the most part--it was the Canadians didn't sufficiently hate British tyranny to overlook their abuses.
Quote from: viper37 on September 05, 2012, 12:04:17 AM
One dead confirmed, one injured.
You people are crazy up there.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2012, 02:27:15 PM
It wasn't just the Cossack treatment--my understanding is that the French army was also quite hard on its own citizens when the fighting got there.
What I am trying to get at is that is the American army/militias of the time period could only aspire to have the discipline of their European counterparts. Unless you really like the cause they were fighting for, you were going to be alienated when an early 19th century army strolled into town. The problem wasn't the conduct of the Americans in Canada so much--they were doing what armies do for the most part--it was the Canadians didn't sufficiently hate British tyranny to overlook their abuses.
I don't think the history supports this interpretation. Neither of the two outrages in issue were the result of typical troop ill-discipline.
In the case of York, a popular general and 250 of his men had just been blown up by a ruse, so the troops getting out of hand was more understandable - they had just suffered what they considered a war crime. In the case of Newark, the place was
deliberately burned down
on orders.
The Newark case was pure official stupidity. The York case was an example of a commanding general unable to control his troops after suffering a disaster.
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 02:46:07 PM
I don't think the history supports this interpretation. Neither of the two outrages in issue were the result of typical troop ill-discipline.
In the case of York, a popular general and 250 of his men had just been blown up by a ruse, so the troops getting out of hand was more understandable - they had just suffered what they considered a war crime. In the case of Newark, the place was deliberately burned down on orders.
The Newark case was pure official stupidity. The York case was an example of a commanding general unable to control his troops after suffering a disaster.
I think we have to agree to disagree. Any single incident can be explained as a one off, but in th era we are talking about it seems more likely than not that an offensive into Canada would have a few unsavory incidents.
Man Charest looks beat up. I dont know why anyone would pick politician as a vocation.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 05, 2012, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 02:46:07 PM
I don't think the history supports this interpretation. Neither of the two outrages in issue were the result of typical troop ill-discipline.
In the case of York, a popular general and 250 of his men had just been blown up by a ruse, so the troops getting out of hand was more understandable - they had just suffered what they considered a war crime. In the case of Newark, the place was deliberately burned down on orders.
The Newark case was pure official stupidity. The York case was an example of a commanding general unable to control his troops after suffering a disaster.
I think we have to agree to disagree. Any single incident can be explained as a one off, but in th era we are talking about it seems more likely than not that an offensive into Canada would have a few unsavory incidents.
You might have a listen to this at about 18:50-20:45. It is an historians description of how the Americans' practice of burning farms building and fields turned the recent American immigrants in Southern Ontario - who outnumbered the Tory loyalists 6-1 - from friend to foe.
These activities were not a one off. If they were then there would be no nation in North America about to balance their budget. :P
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2247181474
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 05:30:53 PM
Man Charest looks beat up. I dont know why anyone would pick politician as a vocation.
Maybe his mob buddies beat him up for real for failing them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 01:24:11 PM
Meh, you just started getting treated like everyone else.
if this happen, it would be a big improvement already.
But, please. Do tell me. When was the last time Quebec specifically asked for something that no other province could have?
Quote from: viper37 on September 06, 2012, 07:01:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 01:24:11 PM
Meh, you just started getting treated like everyone else.
if this happen, it would be a big improvement already.
But, please. Do tell me. When was the last time Quebec specifically asked for something that no other province could have?
language cops :P If anglo-canada had people going around making sure english was bigger then french you guys would freak.
Quote from: HVC on September 06, 2012, 07:11:01 PM
language cops :P If anglo-canada had people going around making sure english was bigger then french you guys would freak.
1) It's a provincial matter. Nothing prevents you from that. What you can't do, but still did for 100 years is prevent French kids from attending French schools by various ways. You can still close the only French hospital in a province under the guise of "budget management" or start a lynch mob because a new hospital director was once a PQ member in 1970.
2) There are no language cops. There are language laws and bureaucrats charged to enforce them. Like labour laws, like commerce laws, like any kind of laws. When people form a majority, they usually don't need that kind of laws, but as it happens, we are not a majority in Canada and we don't have 100% control over what goes on in our province. Unfortunately for us, it seems other provinces not only do not want more power than they have, but they absolutely do not want anyone else having more power. It's kinda silly when you think about it.
Quote from: viper37 on September 06, 2012, 07:01:10 PM
if this happen, it would be a big improvement already.
But, please. Do tell me. When was the last time Quebec specifically asked for something that no other province could have?
Well you did get a thread on Languish for your provincial election. I do not see one for Manitoba.
I would think the Conservatives would be in favor of more Provincial autonomy. Have they failed you yet again?
Quote from: viper37 on September 06, 2012, 07:01:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 05, 2012, 01:24:11 PM
Meh, you just started getting treated like everyone else.
if this happen, it would be a big improvement already.
But, please. Do tell me. When was the last time Quebec specifically asked for something that no other province could have?
:lol:
When have they not?
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2012, 03:17:29 PM
Well you did get a thread on Languish for your provincial election. I do not see one for Manitoba.
Do we have anyone living in Manitoba? There was one for the Albertan election, IIRC.
Quote
I would think the Conservatives would be in favor of more Provincial autonomy. Have they failed you yet again?
The problem is, it will be mightily difficult to make any permanent change without amending the constitution, and that, Harper has said no since day 1.
Bilateral agreement are all well and good, but at the end of the day, all it takes is a new government that decides things should not work this way.
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 03:27:56 PM
:lol:
When have they not?
Asking for more power, yes.
Asking for more power exclusively to us, I don't think so.
If other provinces don't want more autonomy, it's their choice, not ours. We don't have to live by it.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2012, 09:42:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 03:27:56 PM
:lol:
When have they not?
Asking for more power, yes.
Asking for more power exclusively to us, I don't think so.
If other provinces don't want more autonomy, it's their choice, not ours. We don't have to live by it.
But that's exactly it. Quebec consistently and constantly wants more powers, and says "we don't care what the rest of you do".
...and? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2012, 09:42:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 03:27:56 PM
:lol:
When have they not?
Asking for more power, yes.
Asking for more power exclusively to us, I don't think so.
If other provinces don't want more autonomy, it's their choice, not ours. We don't have to live by it.
But that's exactly it. Quebec consistently and constantly wants more powers, and says "we don't care what the rest of you do".
We all fail to see how is that a problem?
If Alberta wants to join in on the fun, they can start by asking the Feds for stuff we already got. Like the ability to collecter their own taxes(Income & HST).
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 11:16:51 PM
But that's exactly it. Quebec consistently and constantly wants more powers, and says "we don't care what the rest of you do".
You deny us powers because you don't want to exercise it... it's kinda left-wing to the extreme, don't you think?
Quebec can't start making demands in the name of Alberta or Manitoba either. That's kinda illogical.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2012, 01:56:46 PM
We all fail to see how is that a problem?
If Alberta wants to join in on the fun, they can start by asking the Feds for stuff we already got. Like the ability to collecter their own taxes(Income & HST).
They don't need to. Whenever a provinces starts thinking about it, the Feds change the transfer payments and equalization formula to give them more money then ever.
And we're the spoiled ones! ;)
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2012, 05:51:07 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2012, 01:56:46 PM
We all fail to see how is that a problem?
If Alberta wants to join in on the fun, they can start by asking the Feds for stuff we already got. Like the ability to collecter their own taxes(Income & HST).
They don't need to. Whenever a provinces starts thinking about it, the Feds change the transfer payments and equalization formula to give them more money then ever.
And we're the spoiled ones! ;)
:huh:
Alberta is a net contributor to equalization, by a lot.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2012, 06:42:02 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2012, 05:51:07 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2012, 01:56:46 PM
We all fail to see how is that a problem?
If Alberta wants to join in on the fun, they can start by asking the Feds for stuff we already got. Like the ability to collecter their own taxes(Income & HST).
They don't need to. Whenever a provinces starts thinking about it, the Feds change the transfer payments and equalization formula to give them more money then ever.
And we're the spoiled ones! ;)
:huh:
Alberta is a net contributor to equalization, by a lot.
I was thinking of Ontario wich came close to establishing its own tax collection system under Mike Harris and Newfoundland who whined about natural resources. Alberta is still contributing, but less so than under the ancient formula.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2012, 05:49:30 PMSo, how's the election going? :)
It's over. The NDP won.
Isnt the game plan of the Separatists to ask the Feds for whatever and if they get it great and if they dont then they can say thats why they need to be their own country.
Try naming one other Province that acts that way. ;) Lets stop the silliness of trying to pretend Quebec acts like every other province in confederation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2012, 12:29:58 PM
Isnt the game plan of the Separatists to ask the Feds for whatever and if they get it great and if they dont then they can say thats why they need to be their own country.
That is the current game plan of the Parti Québécois, yes. It has not always been so.
Quote
Try naming one other Province that acts that way. ;) Lets stop the silliness of trying to pretend Quebec acts like every other province in confederation.
There are no provinces with a seperatist party in power. There are no provinces other than Quebec who were excluded from last minute negotiations with the Federal government to change the Constitutional draft to something unacceptable.
And Quebec does not act like other provinces, Quebec does all the ground work for you. It seems most provinces would be happy with a big bloated Federal government managing everything in their life and provincial government with just about as much power as a big city.
That ain't my vision of Canada. This is Trudeau's vision, a Castro admirer, and I totally reject it.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 12:14:17 AM
There are no provinces with a seperatist party in power. There are no provinces other than Quebec who were excluded from last minute negotiations with the Federal government to change the Constitutional draft to something unacceptable.
:bleeding:
Please tell me what is so unacceptable about the current constitution. Specifics, please.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 12:15:30 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 12:14:17 AM
There are no provinces with a seperatist party in power. There are no provinces other than Quebec who were excluded from last minute negotiations with the Federal government to change the Constitutional draft to something unacceptable.
:bleeding:
Please tell me what is so unacceptable about the current constitution. Specifics, please.
No veto right, complicated measures to ammend the constitution, the Senate is solely chosen by the Feds, no compensation right for Federal programs, Supreme court judges solely nominated by the Feds.
Basically, what's missing is the Lake Meech accord wich would have improved it a lot.
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/Proposals/MeechLake.html
We did get the immigration part though. But some other things could be added. I ain't again the principle of an elected senate, or an Elected head of State. I'd prefer to cut all ties with the British monarchy, but I'm willing to let go of it since it seems to... despair our Canadian friends to think of a life with her Majesty ;)
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 12:23:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 12:15:30 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 12:14:17 AM
There are no provinces with a seperatist party in power. There are no provinces other than Quebec who were excluded from last minute negotiations with the Federal government to change the Constitutional draft to something unacceptable.
:bleeding:
Please tell me what is so unacceptable about the current constitution. Specifics, please.
No veto right, complicated measures to ammend the constitution, the Senate is solely chosen by the Feds, no compensation right for Federal programs, Supreme court judges solely nominated by the Feds.
Basically, what's missing is the Lake Meech accord wich would have improved it a lot.
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/Proposals/MeechLake.html
We did get the immigration part though. But some other things could be added. I ain't again the principle of an elected senate, or an Elected head of State. I'd prefer to cut all ties with the British monarchy, but I'm willing to let go of it since it seems to... despair our Canadian friends to think of a life with her Majesty ;)
All of which existed pre-1982. Maybe Quebec wants a veto on Constitutional change, but since there has been precisely zero constitutional change since 1982 it's hard to argue you've been screwed over.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 12:14:17 AM
There are no provinces with a seperatist party in power.
Bingo.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 12:27:45 AM
All of which existed pre-1982. Maybe Quebec wants a veto on Constitutional change, but since there has been precisely zero constitutional change since 1982 it's hard to argue you've been screwed over.
But it doesn't exist now, and there's a Constitution, wich we did not sign, and wich applies to us still.
It's like saying a contract you never signed is still valid for you.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 12:36:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 12:27:45 AM
All of which existed pre-1982. Maybe Quebec wants a veto on Constitutional change, but since there has been precisely zero constitutional change since 1982 it's hard to argue you've been screwed over.
But it doesn't exist now, and there's a Constitution, wich we did not sign, and wich applies to us still.
It's like saying a contract you never signed is still valid for you.
Well no, since constitutions vary from written contracts in quite a few ways.
Thats like saying your new PQ government isn't valid if you didn't vote for them. Of course it does.
I'll repeat my point - all of the things you objected to were things that existed since 1867. Hard to argue Quebec was "stabbed in the back" merely because they didn't get the concessions they wanted, and thus didn't vote to ratify the 1982 Constitution.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 11:51:17 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 12:14:17 AM
There are no provinces with a seperatist party in power.
Bingo.
You're still not independant from the British Empire, you can't really be independant from a subsection of it.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 02:26:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 11:51:17 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 12:14:17 AM
There are no provinces with a seperatist party in power.
Bingo.
You're still not independant from the British Empire, you can't really be independant from a subsection of it.
I dont understand your point other than you appear to be making a passive aggressive anti monarchy post.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
Well no, since constitutions vary from written contracts in quite a few ways.
yes, but the principle still stands. We have a Constitution that we did not approve.
Quote
I'll repeat my point - all of the things you objected to were things that existed since 1867. Hard to argue Quebec was "stabbed in the back" merely because they didn't get the concessions they wanted, and thus didn't vote to ratify the 1982 Constitution.
what you guys called the Kitchen Meeting. Quebec wasn't there, and no effort were made to reach the Quebec reprensentatives.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 02:28:50 PM
I dont understand your point other than you appear to be making a passive aggressive anti monarchy post.
given the behavior of our government, and the support it seems to receive in Canada, it would appear Canadians still do not feel as Canadians (except when we win the hockey gold medal), but British subjects. There is not even a Canadian nationalism, so it's hard to conceive that there could be a really provincial nationalism, outside of Quebec.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 02:36:34 PM
Quebec wasn't there, and no effort were made to reach the Quebec reprensentatives.
Now that is a very selective reading of history. But then this "insult" allows has been.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 02:38:25 PM
given the behavior of our government, and the support it seems to receive in Canada, it would appear Canadians still do not feel as Canadians (except when we win the hockey gold medal), but British subjects.
This is absolute bullshit so I am not sure why you keep obsessing over it. No more than Australians think of themselves as British subjects.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 02:38:25 PM
given the behavior of our government, and the support it seems to receive in Canada, it would appear Canadians still do not feel as Canadians (except when we win the hockey gold medal), but British subjects. There is not even a Canadian nationalism, so it's hard to conceive that there could be a really provincial nationalism, outside of Quebec.
Still trying Viper? *shakes head* I've given up on these people a long time ago.
I'll tell you what the Canadian 'identity' is made of: the refusal to be American on one side and the denial of Quebecers' collective identity on the other. It's pathetic really. That's why we should separate; not for monetary reasons but to avoid losing our identity and become as amorphous and colorless as they are.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2012, 04:13:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2012, 02:38:25 PM
given the behavior of our government, and the support it seems to receive in Canada, it would appear Canadians still do not feel as Canadians (except when we win the hockey gold medal), but British subjects. There is not even a Canadian nationalism, so it's hard to conceive that there could be a really provincial nationalism, outside of Quebec.
Still trying Viper? *shakes head* I've given up on these people a long time ago.
I'll tell you what the Canadian 'identity' is made of: the refusal to be American on one side and the denial of Quebecers' collective identity on the other. It's pathetic really. That's why we should separate; not for monetary reasons but to avoid losing our identity and become as amorphous and colorless as they are.
G.
If you despise us, we must be doing *something* right. :P
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2012, 04:13:37 PM
Still trying Viper? *shakes head* I've given up on these people a long time ago.
I guess I feel unconvinced by things that are obviously false.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 04:32:49 PM
I guess I feel unconvinced by things that are obviously false.
It's not so much the details of the arguments as the narrative itself. If it isn't a deaf dialogue when it comes to this topic I don't know what is. Witness the smugness of Malthus above!
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2012, 05:19:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2012, 04:32:49 PM
I guess I feel unconvinced by things that are obviously false.
It's not so much the details of the arguments as the narrative itself. If it isn't a deaf dialogue when it comes to this topic I don't know what is. Witness the smugness of Malthus above!
G.
Dude. My smugness is aimed squarely at your over-the-top hysterically dramatic insults.
Of course, what else could you expect from us "amorphous and colorless" folks? :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 02:39:58 PM
Now that is a very selective reading of history.
Ok. Where was Quebec? How come they didn't send anyone knocking on their hotel door, yet they managed to reach Saskatchewan's Premier?
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2012, 04:13:37 PM
That's why we should separate; not for monetary reasons but to avoid losing our identity and become as amorphous and colorless as they are.
G.
we don't need to seperate for that. We can become amorphous and colorless just as well in an independant country. In fact, I'm seeing this trend with the montrealization of our medias. Barely nothing comes from the regions anymore, everything is done in Montreal, and the few things not done there are shunned. We even blame non Montreal media for last week's shooting. So, colorless, we are becoming.
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 08:25:41 AM
Of course, what else could you expect from us "amorphous and colorless" folks? :lol:
it fits the stereotype of the American loud mouth and the über polite Canadian. It's nothing new or even contained to Grallon, you know. I remember
Due South, it played kinda heavily on those stereotypes, and it was a Canadian show, IIRC.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 10:15:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 02:39:58 PM
Now that is a very selective reading of history.
Ok. Where was Quebec? How come they didn't send anyone knocking on their hotel door, yet they managed to reach Saskatchewan's Premier?
But that's process, and it's stuff that happened 30 years ago. You still haven't convinced me that anything actually contained in the 1982 Constitution was in any way contrary to Quebec's interests.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 08:25:41 AM
Of course, what else could you expect from us "amorphous and colorless" folks? :lol:
it fits the stereotype of the American loud mouth and the über polite Canadian. It's nothing new or even contained to Grallon, you know. I remember Due South, it played kinda heavily on those stereotypes, and it was a Canadian show, IIRC.
It's very silly to tell people to their face that you actually take absurd stereotypes seriously - much less that you are basing your whole political world-view on it. :lol:
[sarcasm] But then, it is of course well known that all Quebec people are by nature incapable of logical reasoning. After all, Don Cherry-one of those uber-polite Canadians- said so, so it must be true. [/sarcasm]
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 10:15:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2012, 02:39:58 PM
Now that is a very selective reading of history.
Ok. Where was Quebec? How come they didn't send anyone knocking on their hotel door, yet they managed to reach Saskatchewan's Premier?
Quebec and Canada made a side deal to repatriate the constitution as is and put the contentious bits to a referendum, effectively undercutting the position of the other premiers. Why Levesque agreed to such a thing is a bit of a mystery. But having stabbed the other provinces in the back (to use the terminology popular in Quebec) Levesque retired to his hotel.
The agreement the other provinces finally cobbled together in his absence was largely the same that NFLD had brought to the conference. No real surprises there. Levesque couldnt be reached (or did not want to be reached after what he had done...) but was told the first thing the next morning. He then stormed out.
One reasonable inference to draw is that he had a couple motivations for doing so. One he realized he was not going to get his way and that it was much more politically advantageous for him to play the victim then to further negotiate - which could easily have been done. Another possible motivation is that he realized his "stab in the back" had not worked and he needed to save face. Probably a combination of the two.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2012, 10:22:54 AM
But that's process, and it's stuff that happened 30 years ago. You still haven't convinced me that anything actually contained in the 1982 Constitution was in any way contrary to Quebec's interests.
We lose stuff we already had while the provinces negotiate a seperate agreement with the Feds instead of sticking to the current deal, but that's not enough for you. I'm sorry, but nothing I can say will change your mind on this. You think you have enough power as it is, we don't. If it was just that, it would be all and well. But unfortunately, the other provinces will do their best to prevent Quebec from gaining more autonomy just because they don't want any.
Fortunatley, even Tom Flanagan agrees that some powers should be left to the provincial authority, namely unemployement insurance in this case.
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 10:37:19 AM
It's very silly to tell people to their face that you actually take absurd stereotypes seriously - much less that you are basing your whole political world-view on it. :lol:
Well, it's Grallon's point of view. It's not like he's the only one with a stereotyped view. We may all be guilty, if only a little of that.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 12:38:48 PM
We lose stuff we already had while the provinces negotiate a seperate agreement with the Feds instead of sticking to the current deal, but that's not enough for you.
What stuff did you lose that you already had?
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 12:40:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 10:37:19 AM
It's very silly to tell people to their face that you actually take absurd stereotypes seriously - much less that you are basing your whole political world-view on it. :lol:
Well, it's Grallon's point of view. It's not like he's the only one with a stereotyped view. We may all be guilty, if only a little of that.
Well, lets put it this way - everyone is to an extent guilty of believing in stupid stereotypes. Not everyone proudly announces the fact that they believe such stuff to be true, however; and it takes a special kind of stupid to proudly announce they believe such stuff to be true right in the faces of the people he's stereotyping.
Of course, this being Languish, that type of stupid is par for the course. Just to fit in, from now on I'm basing by stereotyped view of people from Quebec on - Grallon. :D
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2012, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 12:38:48 PM
We lose stuff we already had while the provinces negotiate a seperate agreement with the Feds instead of sticking to the current deal, but that's not enough for you.
What stuff did you lose that you already had?
veto right, as indicated by you... though it was denied by the Supreme Court, since it was not written. Tradition can only get you so far, I guess.
As federalism moves on, it is clear that it moves in a way to favor the central government, not the provinces. This is the biggest problem with Canada, it is way too centralised.
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 12:51:22 PM
Of course, this being Languish, that type of stupid is par for the course. Just to fit in, from now on I'm basing by stereotyped view of people from Quebec on - Grallon. :D
but we're not all gay! :cry:
btw, I don't dislike Don Cherry. He's a loud mouth, he's... eccentric to say the least, but most of the bad stuff about him is overblown. He just happens to like hockey fight and think it should be part of the game. I actually respect that, even if I disagree. What I don't respect is Quebec's journalist saying they hate this, that it only brings dangerous hit, while at the same time cheering for fights and pressuring the Canadiens' coach to get an "enforcer" (aka goon). I can't stand hypocrisy.
Also, I never understoond why I'm supposed to agree with 100% of whatever a TV/radio hosts says when I listen to him. It seems impossible for many for just enjoy the good moments, apparently.
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 12:51:22 PM
...
Of course, this being Languish, that type of stupid is par for the course. Just to fit in, from now on I'm basing by stereotyped view of people from Quebec on - Grallon. :D
Need I remind you that Oex left this place in part because of this... chronic display of bad faith when it comes to the subject of Quebec's nationalism? Or perhaps you count him among the stupid too? :rolleyes:
G.
Oex left? Just like a quebecer, throwing a hissy fit and seperating :rolleyes:
seriously though, he left? i like Oex :(
I've seen Oex poke his head up in a thread here and there, but he has stopped posting for the most part. And I think Grallon is generally right about the immediate reason for that.
Fuck Quebec. If they wanted to run their own affairs as they wished using the money of more successful peoples, they should have won the war.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 12, 2012, 10:41:27 PM
I've seen Oex poke his head up in a thread here and there, but he has stopped posting for the most part. And I think Grallon is generally right about the immediate reason for that.
If he has left, it was due to frustration with debates held around here, but not specifically surrounding Quebec.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2012, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 12, 2012, 10:41:27 PM
I've seen Oex poke his head up in a thread here and there, but he has stopped posting for the most part. And I think Grallon is generally right about the immediate reason for that.
If he has left, it was due to frustration with debates held around here, but not specifically surrounding Quebec.
My recollection is that the proximate cause was a debate about Quebec, but I may be mistaken.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2012, 02:45:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 12:51:22 PM
Of course, this being Languish, that type of stupid is par for the course. Just to fit in, from now on I'm basing by stereotyped view of people from Quebec on - Grallon. :D
but we're not all gay! :cry:
btw, I don't dislike Don Cherry. He's a loud mouth, he's... eccentric to say the least, but most of the bad stuff about him is overblown. He just happens to like hockey fight and think it should be part of the game. I actually respect that, even if I disagree. What I don't respect is Quebec's journalist saying they hate this, that it only brings dangerous hit, while at the same time cheering for fights and pressuring the Canadiens' coach to get an "enforcer" (aka goon). I can't stand hypocrisy.
Also, I never understoond why I'm supposed to agree with 100% of whatever a TV/radio hosts says when I listen to him. It seems impossible for many for just enjoy the good moments, apparently.
He's a god damn senile idiot but not because on his opinions on Hockey. It's the other stuff that takes the cake.
Seriously, the metric system is "commie stuff"?
yes.
Quote from: Grallon on September 12, 2012, 09:56:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 12:51:22 PM
...
Of course, this being Languish, that type of stupid is par for the course. Just to fit in, from now on I'm basing by stereotyped view of people from Quebec on - Grallon. :D
Need I remind you that Oex left this place in part because of this... chronic display of bad faith when it comes to the subject of Quebec's nationalism? Or perhaps you count him among the stupid too? :rolleyes:
G.
Nah, just you. On the subject of English Canada. :P I mean seriously, you insult the whole rest of the country in your post and now *you* are the victim? Get real.
I like Oex, but he was perhaps too sensitive for this place. And anyway, last time I had a multi-post battle with him it was about native Canadians, not Quebec nationalism.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 07:08:38 AM
He's a god damn senile idiot but not because on his opinions on Hockey. It's the other stuff that takes the cake.
Seriously, the metric system is "commie stuff"?
Anyone who dresses like he does should be shunned on principle. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
yes.
You remember you bought a propriety in the country that invented the thing?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
yes.
You remember you bought a propriety in the country that invented the thing?
Not to mention the US military uses it. The English system is for morons and civilians. The metric system is the epitome of civilization and it is among the many glorious fruits of La Révolution française!!11
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 07:08:38 AM
He's a god damn senile idiot but not because on his opinions on Hockey. It's the other stuff that takes the cake.
He's not as anti-french/Quebec as our media let him be. Much of it is simply bad faith by our journalists.
Quote
Seriously, the metric system is "commie stuff"?
Did he say that? I missed that one :D
Yeah, sometimes, he's a fucking senile idiot. Well, often, when he doesn't talk about hockey.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2012, 08:41:26 AM
Anyone who dresses like he does should be shunned on principle. :P
Imagine the American who's never been to Canada, watching a hockey game for the first time during his team playoffs against a Canadian team, and he sees Don Cherry in one of his... colorful suits. What kind of statement does that make for Canada? :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 09:16:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
yes.
You remember you bought a propriety in the country that invented the thing?
Not to mention the US military uses it. The English system is for morons and civilians. The metric system is the epitome of civilization and it is among the many glorious fruits of La Révolution française!!11
Dans mes bras mon frère!!! :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 09:16:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
yes.
You remember you bought a propriety in the country that invented the thing?
Not to mention the US military uses it. The English system is for morons and civilians. The metric system is the epitome of civilization and it is among the many glorious fruits of La Révolution française!!11
I gotta admit, I still use the English system for carpentry. :Embarrass: It just feels more intuitive.
Quote from: viper37 on September 13, 2012, 09:16:35 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 07:08:38 AM
He's a god damn senile idiot but not because on his opinions on Hockey. It's the other stuff that takes the cake.
He's not as anti-french/Quebec as our media let him be. Much of it is simply bad faith by our journalists.
Quote
Seriously, the metric system is "commie stuff"?
Did he say that? I missed that one :D
Yeah, sometimes, he's a fucking senile idiot. Well, often, when he doesn't talk about hockey.
He did, it was funny as hell. Ron McClean's head almost exploded.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FJUBCyoS6bKfSakowOuQ_FQ--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen%2Fblogs%2Fsptusnhlexperts%2FAvAFwlkCMAEPyV0.jpg-large.jpeg&hash=d9b10814ddc202cb8d41280e6a562b3807ca41e0)
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2012, 09:20:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 09:16:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
yes.
You remember you bought a propriety in the country that invented the thing?
Not to mention the US military uses it. The English system is for morons and civilians. The metric system is the epitome of civilization and it is among the many glorious fruits of La Révolution française!!11
I gotta admit, I still use the English system for carpentry. :Embarrass: It just feels more intuitive.
Don't we all. 2x4.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
yes.
You remember you bought a propriety in the country that invented the thing?
So? I'm a tolerant guy.
:lmfao: Of what?
Blacks, chinks, gays, Frogs and socialists.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
yes.
You remember you bought a propriety in the country that invented the thing?
So? I'm a tolerant guy.
:lmfao: Of what?
Blacks, chinks, gays, Frogs and socialists.
You use "chinks" and "frogs", but not "niggers" and "fags". :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2012, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 13, 2012, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
yes.
You remember you bought a propriety in the country that invented the thing?
So? I'm a tolerant guy.
:lmfao: Of what?
Blacks, chinks, gays, Frogs and socialists.
You use "chinks" and "frogs", but not "niggers" and "fags". :hmm:
I'm a tolerant guy.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2012, 09:20:08 AM
I gotta admit, I still use the English system for carpentry. :Embarrass: It just feels more intuitive.
given that wood pieces measurements are given in imperial (2x4x8), I suppose it's easier for many people to calcultate that in imperial.
I, however, always convert lenghts in metric before doing any calculations, be it concrete, steel rebars or wood, it's much easier like that. Especially with Excel, it's a pain in the ass to calculate fractions.
2x4x96!
Joe Pistone was scheduled to appear to day in front of the Inquiry board on construction.
I was surprised to hear his name in the media, hear when and where he was scheduled to appear. I mean, not the brightest move to insure the security of a dude wanted by the mafia, when the links between Montreal and New York are so close.
Turns out it was a 'leak', not an official statement. The judge presiding the Inquiry board made it clear she was not pleased and such announcement jeopardized future testimony and the security of witnesses.
It now appears as though he won't make an appearance, or maybe just delay it. Personally, I don't understand why they haven't simply done a closed interview with the man, in a seperate room in front of the commissionners only. Otherwise, you might as well paint a sign on the guy "I'm wanted, shoot me to get rich".
He's 73 year old, do we really want to talk to a senile old man?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2012, 10:37:59 AM
He's 73 year old, do we really want to talk to a senile old man?
He's not senile. 73 isn't that old by today's standard when you have access to decent healthcare.
I question the relevance of his testimony. He knows the mafia from the 70s-80s. The procedures are the same, but the names have changed.
I suppose it is informative for the board and the commissionners, not that much for those who read his books or saw the movie & the tv show.
I think the commission is trying to get back memories of SECO.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2012, 10:46:49 AM
I think the commission is trying to get back memories of SECO.
It looks that way. So long as the PQ and their FTQ ally are blamed, I'll be happy ;)
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2012, 04:01:53 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2012, 10:46:49 AM
I think the commission is trying to get back memories of SECO.
It looks that way. So long as the PQ and their FTQ ally are blamed, I'll be happy ;)
What about the Libs & their FTQ ally?
Strike the center and the wings will collapse. Once the FTQ is gone, so will the mafia and the PLQ.