It was far more than the Brits had ever done for a conquered people.
It's what is commonly referred to as a "back handed compliment".
Quebec Election Outcome............
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
It was far more than the Brits had ever done for a conquered people.
It's what is commonly referred to as a "back handed compliment".
Ah the ''spoiled brat'' insult. It always works wonders when all else fails.
Exactly. You know what the Brits were capable of with conquered people and yes French Canadians were quite lucky in that regard. But it sure wasn't out of kindness of the soul that they let our ancestors keep their religion and civil laws. It was by pure calculated self-interest.
You're always the first to resort to crude and vulgar attacks and I was merely expressing how I was hoping you'd keep going as you started in that first post.
They remind me more of government union workers with their high pay, low productivity and whining about how hard they have it while living off those that have less.
Even as a nation within a nation, it is bound by Federal law, and is a part of Canada.
And should act as such.
Ireland too. I couldn't understand a lick of it.
That said, England is a predominantly English State. Quebec is not a State. It's a province that enjoys a distinct status at the pleasure of the Crown.
England and Quebec are not even remotely comparable.
Yep, equally across the country.
But it isn't, so your point is moot.
When it is, have at her.
Tough sh!t.
Until you're a nation, you abide by the countries rules.
Quebec isn't a sovereign nation.
Let me know when it is, and you'll have a point.
Bound by federal law ''because Canada says so''?... Canada has authority over Quebec and you must accept it as such?!!... I'd love to see your reaction if I'd use the same type of talk towards First Nations. You sound a lot like Europeans as they first discovered America, planting christian crosses here and there, pompously declaring this land as belonging to an inbred freak king living across the ocean.
AT THE PLEASURE OF THE CROWN?!!! You've got to be kidding me! Even if you tried, I don't think you could find a more non-effective argument against me. Using monarchical argumentation with me is the equivalent of trying to feed a lion with salad. Perhaps you've been brainwashed into British monarchical rhetoric. I haven't.
So are we abiding to the country's rules? If we are, then what are we arguing about? If we aren't, then it seems Canada's authority over Quebec isn't worth that much...
We don't need to wait for any form of political sovereignty to act according to what we consider our best interests. We're already doing that.
Yes. Quebec is a province in Canada.
Until it becomes a sovereign nation, whether Canada or other nations accept that, it can act any way it wants and accept the consequences of those actions.
So long as it wants to enjoy the benefits thereof, yes.
The Six Nations are already a sovereign nation.
No I don't.
Nope, Quebec was given the status at the pleasure of the Crown.
It's not an argument, it's a fact.
You aren't a lion.
Nope, I just now how it came to be.
Haven't what? Made an argument out of a fact?
Not really.
Squeaky bitches get lots of goodies. Works for handout Injins too.
You do if those acts are contrary to the law, or infringe on the rights guaranteed by the Charter.
Like I said, squeaky bitches.
no
my dad always called me 'le petit christ '
probably because i could swim back then
hahahaha oh you liked that on eh?
He calls me his Pittbull now .
Due to the way I deal with 4 wheeler problems we have here... last time i was taking on 8 of them . saying like Gandalf 'you shall not pass'
True. But the fact that Canada has authority over Quebec remains debatable. There's no denying Canada does have a certain authority over Quebec. But to what extent? The concept of authority is not fixed in any form of quantifiable way and it's prone to be reinforced or weakened by the current of history. And we all know the concept is malleable by individual and collective perceptions. Does a teacher have authority over his students? I'm sure we can both agree that this is how it ought to be. But you know very well that's not always the case. The authority can be there only in principle while in fact it can be weak or even non-existent.
In the case of Quebec, as I said, Canada does have some authority over Quebec but when it comes to language, I think it's clear that Quebecers feel entitled to overrule that authority.
I agree. But if Quebec were to separate from Canada after a clear mandate to do so by the population (which I am far from convinced will ever happen), we wouldn't need Canada's approval to do so. We don't need your permission to become a country should we decide that is what we want. Does one need permission to put an end to a love relationship? No, that is part of one's right and capacity to self-determination. But that doesn't mean there are no consequences to deal with. As you folks rightfully like to remind us so often, we'd need to leave with our share of the national debt and there would be the inevitable question of territorial disputes.
Again I mostly agree. But we're still talking about sometimes questionable authority and I won't repeat what I just said at the top of this post.
Is that a fact? Do the Six Nations have a country? Do nations need a country of their own to be considered sovereign? Does a nation need the recognition of other nations to be sovereign? What if these other nations disagree among themselves? Who's ''authority'' prevails? All these questions emphasize the fact that sovereignty is a fluid concept and as it relates to the ever shifting reality of human political power struggles, it ought to be viewed with an open and cautious mind. All provinces in Canada are already sovereign to a certain extent, at least when it comes to provincial responsibilities.
To me you do. I don't see much difference with you telling me how the Crown has authority over my people and Europeans telling American natives the Crown had authority over them a few centuries ago.
And the Crown's authority can be mocked at our pleasure.
The sun is a big ball of burning gas. That's a fact. It tends to be colder significantly colder in winter. That's a fact. Authority can always disputed.
Now THAT'S a fact.
All that says is you accept the authority of the Crown. Good for you.
I meant, I haven't been brainwashed into monarchical rhetoric. I fully understand the political system status of Canada as a constitutional monarchy. And of course, I accept the facts of how the system is defined from a neutral point of view. That doesn't mean I agree nor accept the Crown's authority over my nation.
So if we're not quite following the rules, that means Canada's (or the Crown's) authority over Quebec is not quite respected.
Again. It seems this country does have authority problems.
And you guys are big bossypants!!! (I can resort to juvenile insults too)
Last edited:
I know.
Good.
Almost good.
Yes.
That's because you've lost track of what was said.
So can Quebec, not that I was speaking of the Crown's authority.
True, but not in respect to why or how I brought the Crown into the discussion.
No it doesn't.
Maybe.
"Squeaky bitches" isn't an insult, it's a factual description of most separatists.