|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 23, 2005 8:12:55 GMT -5
The way I see it, federal property would still belong to the Canadian government, but would politically be part of Quebec. Kind of like if Canada went out and bought some land in the US - it's Canadian in ownership, but politically American. Hmmm, I don't think the two examples are strictly analogous. In the case of of Canada buying property in the US the former would be purchasing from a country that has been well-established over time. In the case of Québec Canada would be buying back from a country wherein the property had been established while that country was still a part of Canada. I can't see an independent Québec having any claim at all to this property. The property remains Canada's. A deal satisfactory to both sides can be worked out while the property sits vacant. No question re debts and assets. Again, not so sure about the buildings. Who paid for their construction and their upkeep? The main question surrounding property is who holds the deeds. Is it the government of Canada? Is it the province of Québec? It certainly cannot be the newly independent Québec, since the buildings were in existence before the country. The costs of demolition can run quite high.  Again, there being value inherent in territory I would not count on an automatic transfer. Federal land was established within the boundaries of the province of Québec, not within an independent Québec. Small or great there will be a price tag of some kind attached. Perhaps a swap of properties. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 23, 2005 9:36:34 GMT -5
In the case of Québec Canada would be buying back from a country wherein the property had been established while that country was still a part of Canada. I can't see an independent Québec having any claim at all to this property. The property remains Canada's. A deal satisfactory to both sides can be worked out while the property sits vacant. Well, roughly 25% of what was Canada's would then be Quebec's, from a property point of view. Once you accept that, everything else is pretty much as I described, only the federal parks are not clearly assets or debts. 25% or so of everything that was paid was paid by Quebec. Let's not forget that Canada is just a combination of provinces, if they all seceded one after another and took their part of assets and debts, the last province left should essentially have only assets and debts proportionnal to its size left over. Well, there are two issues here. If the land is in Quebec, then automatically it's part of the country of Quebec. Who it belongs to means little to that, whether the deed is in my name or in the federal government's, it changes nothing to that. Remember that our form of government is based on people and their votes, not landowners and their votes. Quebec could become independant even if the federal government had bought up every single property in the province. We'd be in a new country, and paying our rent to the government of Canada. Strange, but possible. If Canada wants to hurt itself to hurt Quebec in the process, we can all suffer quite a bit. But what's the point ? Huh ? The "value" of Quebec belongs to the people of Quebec and to the new country. Federal parks are the only issue I think is anything more than a plain old separation of assets. I don't know if Parks count as "property", given that they can't be developped on. But hey, if the government of Canada wants to keep ownership over the Parks under the same conditions as we have now, we won't have much of a problem with that. But I wonder why Parks Canada would want to keep on administrating Parks in a neighbouring state. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 23, 2005 9:36:50 GMT -5
Simon Fraser's student newspaper is a privately-owned think tank? OK, I hadn't realised it was their student paper. But I tend to ignore everything out of Simon Frasier - it's usually: -highly quotable -highly biased. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 23, 2005 9:37:25 GMT -5
From what I've read and seen from mid 1980s on, the federalists tried the positive approach; then in the 1990s when Quebec sovereignty was promoted as some sort of Utopia, a negative reactionary attitude took hold. Well, the constitutionnal saga of 1980 was pretty much a slap in the face of Quebec. Trudeau brought the provinces into the repatriation of the constitution, then went forward without Quebec. Meech Lake was a turning point for many of us as well. While undoubtedly imperfect, it gave Quebec the tools to feel that its proper place in Canada was recognized - as equal but different to the other provinces, with distinct needs and requirements. Well, it was badly needed. Francophones had taken a beating before modern times arrived. All over the West, especially in Manitoba, francophones were pretty much wiped out. But maybe that's not something that you're aware of - this isn't a slight towards you, but rather a comment on education in this country. History is taught very differently depending on where you live. For example, Prime Minister MacDonald is generally seen as a strong, positive figure in the ROC, yet as a Quebec student, I remember learning that he's the guy who had Louis Riel executed. We now have a country with Louis Riel and John MacDonald schools side by side, but it all seems to point to a malaise in the country, that our histories are so different. My point is that while ROC feels it's trying and trying over and over, nothing gets accomplished; on both sides much goodwill has been used up on the 1980 accord, Meech Lake, etc., yet none of these deals has worked out in the long term. Agreed on both counts. To me that's the essence of a secure state - one that can discuss its own future frankly. I know that if I were Quebec's premier after a succesful referendum for independance, my victory speech would include a big thanks to Canadian democracy, which allowed us to get to this point without any major disturbances. I'd hope you'd look at option #1, since I think for daily life and independant Quebec would be much like current-day Quebec, I guess #2 has to be an option (it was going to be mine in 1995 - I was going to move back to Quebec) but keep #3 for when you're 80 or so :-) |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 26, 2005 13:32:13 GMT -5
*sigh*. When I see that all that federalists can do to promote Canada is to try to scare people into staying, it tells me that there's not much to stay for, after all. *sigh* Holding a mirror to your own argument is trying to 'scare people into staying'. That's interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 26, 2005 16:23:03 GMT -5
Alfonso Gigliano had some harsh words for his former employer. A ploy to take some of the attention off himself perhaps? Not going to happen. Seems the Liberals don't even have a strong lobby any longer.
The timing for these comments couldn't have been worse for the Liberals (or better depending on what side of the fence you're on).
Gagliano accuses Martin of destroying Canada
Last Updated Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:34:53 EDT
CBC News
MONTREAL - Former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano has accused Prime Minister Paul Martin of wrecking the country and the Liberal party.
'The separation of Quebec from Canada is not stoppable,' Alfonso Gagliano told Radio-Canada. (CP file photo)
"He's going to destroy the party and break up the country," Gagliano said during a television interview with the CBC's French-language network.
Gagliano was Canada's ambassador to Denmark until Martin fired him over allegations of impropriety under the sponsorship program, which was his responsibility as public works minister.
Gagliano told Radio-Canada on Monday that the revelations at the sponsorship inquiry – called by Martin – will inevitably lead the country to break up.
Polls suggest that testimony at the inquiry has turned Canadians against the ruling minority Liberals.
The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois seem sure to try to bring them down with a confidence vote, which, if successful, could prompt an election as early as June.
If that happens, Gagliano predicted, the Bloc will increase its number of seats. Then the Parti Québécois will sweep the province and demand Quebec sovereignty, he said.
"Of course, if [Quebec Liberal Premier Jean] Charest makes a miracle and forms a second government, it could possibly be put off," he told the broadcaster.
"But I think that at this stage, the separation of Quebec from Canada is not stoppable. It's a question of time. It's going to happen."
The inquiry, led by Justice John Gomery, has heard that much of the sponsorship money went to Liberal-friendly ad firms in Quebec, who made large contributions to the provincial Liberals.
In a televised address to the nation on April 21, Martin acknowledged things went very wrong at the sponsorship program. But he also reminded viewers that it was he who cancelled the program and immediately called for an inquiry once he became prime minister.
He took credit for firing Gagliano from his appointment to Denmark, and bringing in whistle-blower legislation.
Last year, Gagliano launched a $4.5-million suit against the federal government and Martin over the Liberal government's handling of the sponsorship scandal. He's suing for wrongful dismissal, personal damages and lost wages
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 26, 2005 16:36:49 GMT -5
A crook suing a crook. "Your Honour, he done me wrong."
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 28, 2005 16:39:09 GMT -5
An interesting U S perspective, though you'll have to scroll down a bit to the Austin Bay: Will Canada Be The Next Failed State? blog. Includes One of the bitter ironies of the Canadian Adscam scandal involves the status of Quebec. Originally, the government launched the Sponsorship Program as a public-relations effort to convince Quebeckers that they are a vital part of the Canadian federation, hoping to combat the separatists that had gained enough political power to force a referendum on independence -- which lost, but only narrowly, a few years ago. After seeing $250 million of Canadian tax money disappear into the pockets of Liberal Party activists and the party coffers, however, the momentum away from separatism has been reversed. Now 54% of Quebec favors separation from Canada in some form: |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 28, 2005 17:19:52 GMT -5
Alfonso Gigliano had some harsh words for his former employer. A ploy to take some of the attention off himself perhaps? Not going to happen. Actually, I think he's going back to the root of the whole scandal - that *anything* is justified to keep the country together. Hence, the various contracts, while not entirely kosher, were required, and given the ultimate goal, were really justified. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 28, 2005 17:35:48 GMT -5
Actually, I think he's going back to the root of the whole scandal - that *anything* is justified to keep the country together. Hence, the various contracts, while not entirely kosher, were required, and given the ultimate goal, were really justified. Enough pussyfooting. The tail has wagged the dog long enough. The ROC should hold a referendum. The question would be simple and unequivocable: "Québec - In, or Out." Finally there would be a majority vote on the situation. Terms of the divorce settlement will be made public, and again voted on by the population at large. Democracy in action, and stalement dissolved. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 28, 2005 19:51:36 GMT -5
Actually, I think he's going back to the root of the whole scandal - that *anything* is justified to keep the country together. Hence, the various contracts, while not entirely kosher, were required, and given the ultimate goal, were really justified. I think you're right. I really believe it was mostly about Canada and some private greed. I believe the pluspart was about Canada. It woud indeed be a tragic irony if this leads to the dismemberment of Canada. Canada will not survive the loss of Quebec. I have some significant objections to a few planks in the federal Liberal platform, but in general economic terms, and social to a degree, I support them. I am not particulary moved beyond a somewhat skeptical shrug at the mess. An event like this shoud never decide a voter's prefference. There are just too many important things to decide and act upon. While I obviously agree with the so-called "social" tendancies of this Reform party in drag, I believe them to be mostly moralistic, not moral. That said, North Americans have never been so isolated and unfulfilled. This from the evil empire of Tolkien's tale, Ontario the land of relentless, joyless work. If the new Reform party tries, and I fear it will to topple the Liberals when the likely result will be call and vote for separation, then they are worthy of the worst condemnation imaginable. That they could even contemplate it in the face of a temporarily inflamed Quebec population should be seen properly as treasonous. Quebecers should not decide irrevocable issues when they are rightly piffed off at some localized ugly bits of behaviour. That few percentage points of the precipitous is a very dangerous weapon to turn upon themselves and Canada. I suspect that Quebec with its wonderful people would do better than the ROC if they did separate, with the possible exception of their being subsumed in all but name by Les Etats Unis. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 28, 2005 20:30:44 GMT -5
Quebecers should not decide irrevocable issues when they are rightly piffed off at some localized ugly bits of behaviour. That few percentage points of the precipitous is a very dangerous weapon to turn upon themselves and Canada. I suspect that Quebec with its wonderful people would do better than the ROC if they did separate, with the possible exception of their being subsumed in all but name by Les Etats Unis. This sort of piffle-paffle will not solve anything. There is ignorance on both sides. In true democratic fashion the greater ignorance should prevail. Québécois are no more universally "wonderful" than people any where else on this globe. Separation may benefit them, or it may not. The gamble is there to be taken. Separation will mean leaving a lot behind, and not just memories. The biggest investor retains the largest share. The paramour of confederation should be seen as wearing last year's lingerie. No matter how seductive she may seem there is the governance of a country to be attended to. Rule with reason, not with sentimentality, or passion, for therein lies danger of the worst kind (is History such a weak subject for politicians?).. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 30, 2005 1:14:47 GMT -5
This sort of piffle-paffle will not solve anything. There is ignorance on both sides. In true democratic fashion the greater ignorance should prevail. Québécois are no more universally "wonderful" than people any where else on this globe. Separation may benefit them, or it may not. The gamble is there to be taken. Separation will mean leaving a lot behind, and not just memories. The biggest investor retains the largest share. The paramour of confederation should be seen as wearing last year's lingerie. No matter how seductive she may seem there is the governance of a country to be attended to. Rule with reason, not with sentimentality, or passion, for therein lies danger of the worst kind (is History such a weak subject for politicians?).. I was walking down Hastings Street in Vancouver a few years ago. Another guy was coming the other way towards me, whistling and cheerfully bouncing along. "What part of Quebec are you from I asked" when we were even with each other. "Montreal" he said with a slight inflection. When I lived in BC for a few years, Quebecers stood out a bit. I'm only half kidding, but the incident is true. Quebecers are more tolerant, rather, more accepting of others who are different from them, than the rest of Canada (MacLeans annual national pole). Quebecers put human rights first on the list of priorites of Governments. Human rights came sxth in BC as I recall. I don't even want to know about Alberta! I think Quebecers are what have given us Liberal and occasionally somewhat compassionate governments fro most of Canadian history. They're wonderful. I agree with your Trudeauism, reason over passion. Losing Quebec woud go a long way towards dehumansizing Canada. If Harper pulls the plug with Doucette in this scenario, he should be tried for treason. |
|
|
|
Post by HardCap on Apr 30, 2005 1:25:20 GMT -5
I was walking down Hastings Street in Vancouver a few years ago. Another guy was coming the other way towards me, whistling and cheerfully bouncing along. "What part of Quebec are you from I asked" when we were even with each other. "Montreal" he said with a slight inflection. When I lived in BC for a few years, Quebecers stood out a bit. I'm only half kidding, but the incident is true. Quebecers are more tolerant, rather, more accepting of others who are different from them, than the rest of Canada (MacLeans annual national pole). Quebecers put human rights first on the list of priorites of Governments. Human rights came sxth in BC as I recall. I don't even want to know about Alberta! I think Quebecers are what have given us Liberal and occasionally somewhat compassionate governments fro most of Canadian history. They're wonderful. I agree with your Trudeauism, reason over passion. Losing Quebec woud go a long way towards dehumansizing Canada. If Harper pulls the plug with Doucette in this scenario, he should be tried for treason. Pope Gaglianno...Liberals as infallible as the Pope...forget ethics and morals...just being a Liberal allows one to plunder and steal from the Canadian taxpayer....your logic escapes me? Where is your moral compass? The ends justify the means? What about the temple? Did Jesus not throw out the greedy? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 30, 2005 7:14:21 GMT -5
Quebecers are more tolerant, rather, more accepting of others who are different from them, than the rest of Canada (MacLeans annual national pole). Nonsense. I was born in Québec and spent the first 30 years of my life there. In this regard, you have a romantic view. What does differentiate Québécois from the ROC is that they are more open in expressing their bigotry and/or xenophobia. A Guyanese woman, with whom I had a long-term relationship, put it this way: "In Toronto racism is masked with politeness, in Québec it's in your face, and because of that it's easier to deal with." As an allophone growing up in Montréal I can tell you that there was little difference between the English and the French in terms of acceptance and tolerance. Bien que, si j'étais identifié pour ne pas être « un maudit tête carré » , les attitudes aient fait occasionnellement améliorez. Most people on both sides were/are OK. Life is lived on the street, not in Maclean's Magazine polls, and, as always, mileage varies. The emphasis on the needs and good of the collective over those of the individual is a major difference - and from time to time leads to misunderstanding between Québec and the ROC. In Québec one is expected to assimilate into the collective (and take whatever lumps come along the way), not to "ghetto-ize" oneself and one's group, otherwise you will have distinguished yourself by being one of les autres. Ah, who could forget the Duplessis years. *sigh* Québécois have by necessity had to be savvy politicians in order to survive. Québec elections and referenda draw the highest percentage of eligible voters to the polls of all elections in all the states and provinces in North America. Talk of politics among citizens is as natural and passionate as that of the Habs, potholes, or the new boîte that just opened up the street. Some indeed are wonderful. Given the low degree of actual interaction and understanding of each other by the peoples of Québec and the ROC, I doubt that there would be much of a sense of loss. After all, it wouldn't be as if Québec, due to separation, would anchor itself in the mid-Atlantic. One would still to be free not to visit it, just as before. Separation, IMO, would merely be the political recognition of reality, and both sides would ultimately be the better off for it. What concerns me is who gets the furniture and the appliances. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2005 10:57:42 GMT -5
One of the things we are always sold on in Canada is that the richer provinces/people should share their good fortune with the poorer. I can buy that as the "big picture" of Canada.
However....
If Quebec separates because it suits "them" economically (highly doubtful)and it becomes a country of every province for itself then I fear the taxpayers who pay the most taxes will do the same. 10% of the population pays 80% of the taxes. You wont need polls to tell you that a lot of that 10% pay and grumble and pay some more. As long as there is a vision of CANADA then it wont me much more then a grumble. BUT once you take that vision of a "greater good" to a "that's yours, it's mine", then SCREW that! Every man for himself.
Sadly, I see not a shred of "greater good" thinking coming out of separatist Quebecers. I only see a permeating and irreconcilable "us" mentality. I don't think it's the nature of the people but rather the nature of the separatist politics and the politicians. In order to get a larger and lager piece of the pie, Quebec separatist politicians have always portrayed the province as a victim. The NEVER give even the slightest nod to what has been achieved within Canada but rather what is the latest thing missing from the diet of fears.
Sure, Quebec has control over it's cultural, medical and school system but NOW it's "a new Canadian government can take that away". How? No reality check is really necessary, just a planted fear that ONLY separation can cure.
What happened economically to Quebec in the early seventies is now brushed under a wave of economic self confidence. The hundreds of BILLIONS poured into the Quebec economy is brushed aside under "Autopac and Hybernia". Both of those are red herrings of explanation to the reality of the economic benefit Quebec has from Canada. Ontario is the de facto economic engine of Canada and any federal aid it is getting is far less then the proportion of taxes the province pays. In FACT it pays 25 BILLION yearly MORE in taxes then it gets back. Same thing for Alberta. In FACT, the Autopac has generated FAR MORE in tax dollars through exported product then any aid it receives. On the other hand, just flailing Bombardier has sucked up a BILLION federal dollars and it will STILL collapse without aid. A grand "make work" project that flies an illustrious but phony "aerospace industry" flag.
There is even separatist inspired threats that if Canada does not cooperate economically with a separate Quebec, then they will not accept their share of the deficit. A quick reality check is that if Canada creates an ROC dollar, the Quebec economy is demolished. But wait, that is unCanadian...or is it?
My fear......
I fear that separation will not be as sweet and as civil as Quebec separatist and ROC-collaborators portray it. I fear that there will be hardening of the economic and cooperative arteries, just like EVERY OTHER divorce. I fear that there will be a sea change of "look out for number one" that will tear this country apart and make us the laughing stock of the world.
The spin of Quebec separatist ROC-collaborators that a country in pieces are better then the whole is nothing more then delusion. As imperfect and as my Canada, OUR Canada is, I rather we keep and keep working at it then face the precipice.
Signed
Mr. Canuck
(working for unity and cooperation)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2005 11:25:54 GMT -5
One more thing. The example of Sweden and Finland separating? Ever heard of Finlandization? Finland was so fearful of mother bear Russia that it would not do ANYTHING that would even remotely upset Russia. With 50% of Quebec products going south, the USA will not be someone Quebec wants to piss off. Not even a little. And who is doing better since that separation? Finland? Nope, it's Sweden. As for Czech and Slovakia breaking up? Anybody want to ask Slovakia about it's unemployment? It's 16% to 20%. That is DEPRESSION like numbers. How about it's inflation rate? 10% good enough? How about spikes to 15%? Now that Slovakian neighbors are getting on their feet, the Slovakian hammering will be devastating. Quebec has a much worse problem. It's neighboring provinces and states have much larger brothers to help them out and help them compete or subsidized against Quebec manufacturing DIRECTLY. You want reality? Nobody needs Quebec factories. It can be done cheaper elsewhere.  Facts...... Quebec on it's own will have to face manufacturing competition backed/subsidized by the US or ROC economies. The rest of the world does not need Quebec manufacturing. Quebec will no longer be part of a larger collective to insulate it from the tides of the world economic vacillations. The 'spend now" mentality IS heading us into economic breakwaters and oil, the economic blood of the world IS going to dry up. Recessions and depressions are NOT pretty sights and going at it alone is worse. No amount of glossing over or creative lying will cover that up. That is how I see it from INSIDE the world of manufacturing. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 30, 2005 11:46:26 GMT -5
Yeah those ignorant and obtuse leetches from Quebec that can do nothing but pump Ontarians money and not even bow and kiss their feet for such generous, altruist actions better beware of the great consequences that Canada will inflict on them for their sins towards the Great Red Leaf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2005 11:53:46 GMT -5
Yeah those ignorant and obtuse leetches from Quebec that can do nothing but pump Ontarians money and not even bow and kiss their feet for such generous, altruist actions better beware of the great consequences that Canada will inflict on them for their sins towards the Great Red Leaf. Anybody say leetches? However, blind self interest does not wear pretty on ROC or Quebec. As far as consequences? There seems to be a glossing over that hides an uglier side of human nature and economic reality. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 30, 2005 11:56:33 GMT -5
One more thing. The example of Sweden and Finland separating? Ever heard of Finlandization? Finland was so fearful of mother bear Russia that it would not do ANYTHING that would even remotely upset Russia. With 50% of Quebec products going south, the USA will not be someone Quebec wants to piss off. Not even a little. And who is doing better since that seperation? Finland? Nope, it's Sweden. Yes, but Finland has its independence. ...For hundreds of years, Finland's Swedish-speaking minority had directed the country's affairs. The Finnish-speaking majority, settled mostly in the interior regions, was involved only marginally in the social and the commercial developments along the coast. Finnish-speakers wishing to rise in society learned Swedish. Few schools used Finnish as a means of instruction: higher education was conducted entirely in Swedish, and books in Finnish were usually on religious subjects....
...Several generations of struggle were needed before the Finnish nationalist movement realized its objectives. Numerous members of the Swedish-speaking community entered the campaign, adopting Finnish as their language and exchanging their Swedish family names for Finnish ones. Finnish journals were founded, and Finnish became an official language in 1863. By the end of the century, there was a slight majority of Finnish-speaking students at the University of Helsinki, and Finnish-speakers made up sizable portions of the professions.
Finland's first political parties grew out of the language struggle. Those advocating full rights for Finnish-speakers formed the so-called Fennoman group that by the 1890s had split into the Old Finns and the Young Finns, the former mainly concerned with the language question, the latter urging the introduction of political liberalism. The Swedish-speaking community formed a short-lived Liberal Party....- www.country-studies.com/finland/history.html...The most significant impact of adopting the communist constitution was that it featured the sweeping minority veto. This veto banned majority voting for extraordinary as well as a broad range of ordinary legislation. This made it impossible for the majority Czech representatives to override the votes of their Slovak counterparts, even though Slovaks constituted only 1/3 of the population of Czechoslovakia.
Furthermore, this veto gave exceptional powers to the Slovak nationalist parties. Although these parties obtained less the 15% of the votes in the elections, the veto cultivated a gridlock in any attempts to negotiate the Czech-Slovak relationship.
While tensions increased in Slovakia, Czechs continued to focus on the economic and democratic transition rather then the Czech-Slovak relationship. The inability on the part of many Czechs to recognise Slovak grievances within the common state further led to the split.
Here we can see that there were a number of factors which contributed to the demise of Czechoslovakia. The lack of cross cultural political parties, the adoption of the communist constitution, and the power of the minority veto all compounded to frustrate the negotiation process. It would seem that the only thing that could be agreed on during the negotiation process was the split of Czechoslovakia. - www.radio.cz/en/article/35754No pain, no gain. Should be interesting to see what independence is worth. Sometimes considerations other than the size of one's wallet assume greater importance. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2005 12:03:49 GMT -5
No pain, no gain. Should be interesting to see what independence is worth. Sometimes considerations other than the size of one's wallet assume greater importance. Absolutely! My argument is AGAINST those gloss'overians who say that separation will be pretty and sexy and wonderful and the other side holds economic wonders. My argument is FOR understanding, conciliation and cooperation.  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 30, 2005 12:11:43 GMT -5
Absolutely! My argument is AGAINST those who say that separation will be pretty and sexy and wonderful and the other side holds economic wonders. Yes, as mundane as it is, bills must be paid, accounts balanced, property rights settled, etc. Reminds me that I have to write a couple of Czechs cheques. My argument is, "If you love someone, set them free." |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 30, 2005 12:13:36 GMT -5
My argument is FOR understanding, conciliation and cooperation. ...as long as its done within your own vision of Canadian unity above all. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2005 12:19:23 GMT -5
...as long as its done within your own vision of Canadian unity above all. My vision of Canada includes Quebec and I am willingness to conciliate and cooperate. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 30, 2005 12:20:24 GMT -5
You portrait Quebec as a province that takes out more than it gives to the Federation in order to maintain irrelevant industries with close to 50% (roughly 4 million people) of its population being self centered and either ignorant or liars. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2005 12:22:29 GMT -5
My argument is, "If you love someone, set them free." If I love someone, I want to hear what they say and work out the problems between us. Yeah, I know.......sappy....  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2005 12:30:30 GMT -5
You portrait Quebec as a province that takes out more than it gives to the Federation in order to maintain irrelevant industries with close to 50% (roughly 4 million people) of its population being self centered and either ignorant or liars. Actually.... It is a response to the separatist view that Quebec is now completely self sufficient economically and it's just a walk in the economic park to hope over to separation. Why is it an "insult" to bring out economic realities? Why do separatist always rely on emotional responses to gloss over or bury economic realities? Here is a question that I am very familiar with and hits to the very heart of economic reality. Give me an example of ONE industry the world needs from Quebec? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 30, 2005 12:35:24 GMT -5
If I love someone, I want to hear what they say and work out the problems between us. Yeah, I know.......sappy.... I used to be a romantic too, but now I'm, uh, cranky. There is a time for talk, and then there is a time for action. I think it's best to let her leave if that's what she truly wants, rather than chaining her to her chair while you talk to her. Let her take her necessities with her, and soon after divide up the goods and properties (this is where a prenuptial agreement really helps). The key is respect, it may not make things any cosier, but it likely will save what's left of the relationship from going to Hell in a hand-basket. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2005 12:40:14 GMT -5
PLEASE NOTE:
GROUPACTIONS IS PAYING ME BY THE WORD TO PRESENT TO YOU THIS VISION OF CANADA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2005 12:49:02 GMT -5
I used to be a romantic too, but now I'm, uh, cranky. There is a time for talk, and then there is a time for action. I think it's best to let her leave if that's what she truly wants, rather than chaining her to her chair while you talk to her. Let her take her necessities with her, and soon after divide up the goods and properties (this is where a prenuptial agreement really helps). The key is respect, it may not make things any cosier, but it likely will save what's left of the relationship from going to Hell in a hand-basket. My argument is that we are willingly bringing it to hell in a hand basket. Some want to take what the rest of the world ENVIES and trying to throw it over the abyss. |
|
