Voting conservative is necessary if you love your wallet.
And even then, they've never delivered.
And even then, they've never delivered.
The Coalition Strikes!!!
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
It's easy to guage that too. Compare the prices of raw materials from the time they came into office to date.
Compare wage increases to the prices of raw materials and finished goods.
Have imports of finished goods risen or declined over the past 5 years?
.
You are fooling your self if you don't think that separation is the Bloq's end-game. Just because they are not promoting a referendum at the moment, doesn't not make them any less separatist.
From the horses mouth:
"Québec will only truly be free once it has decided to create a sovereign nation"
http://www.blocquebecois.org/dossiers/campagne-2011/documents/EnoncePolitique-Anglais.pdf
And in the short term, they attempt and often succeed at extorting the most possible money out of Ottawa. Just look at the transfer payments they receive every year.
Yea, nationalism is what we're trying to get rid of here, because it's being used as an advertising tactic to reel in the stupid people.
"Be a real Canadian. Vote for us."
Don't be duped so easily. You don't need nationalism to satisfy sovereignty.
Sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know what Colpy's been smoking, but our sovereignty is pretty clear cut.
Well, for once you are correct.
You don't need a Canadian nationalism to satisfy sovereignty, if you are speaking of Quebec sovereignty.....
You need a Canadian pride in their nation to defeat sovereignty.
And Ignatieff doesn't have it. He has been everything but Canadian in his adult life, voting in Great Britain, involved in US politics, a self-confessed post modern "citizen of the world". T
You are being duped if you believe that Ignatieff will live up to the spirit of his "no coalition" pledge.
Want to talk about anti-democratic?
Ignatieff made that promise because he knows that the inevitability of a Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition would mean the Liberals would be completely shattered on the rock of outrage in the RoC..........and Harper would have a solid majority.
So he made his moment "No Coalition" at the same time promising NOT to pass the budget, and hedging the promise even more in the French language debates.
So, completely adopting the Liberal Scum tradition set by Pierre Trudeau in 1974, Ignatieff has promised one thing to the electorate with absolutely no intention of fulfilling that promise. He knows that the issue is central to the opinion of many Canadians, and he knows if he told the truth he would lose the election.....badly. Within weeks of the election he will break that promise.
To the detriment of the nation.
It looks like the PQ will take the Quebec election.
I ask you, and all other voters, to once again consider the perfect storm......
The Bloc Quebecois the secondary power in a three party Canadian government.
The Parti Quebecois in power in Quebec.
Count Ignatieff in the PM's seat.
That screams "Give Harper a majority"
Or at least put Dion back in Liberal leadership.
I didn't read your usual tripe after responding to my post, but the point is that - if Quebec wants to be sovereign, and has enough democratic sway to become sovereign - then they've earned it.
And that's the bottom line, brah.
And that's the bottom line, brah.
Which is brain-dead.
The Quebecois may have the right to a democratic resolution of their nationalist aspirations.......but we are under no bloody obligation to help them along by handing them the reins of Canadian gov't! GEEZUS!!!!!
Nor would division of the nation be easy:
Because not all of Quebec would vote for sovereignty. If Canada is divisible, so is Quebec, especially considering they only got Ungava back in the 1920s........that is NOT the way Quebecois see it.
Because there is no legal, constitutional roadmap for secession.
Because there would be no agreement on monies owed, property transfers
Because it would divide the Canadian nation physically.
Because there are Canadian military bases on Quebec territory.
Because we have a responsibility to native peoples that would not want to be a part of a new Quebec.
Because Quebec secession would push us to the very brink of civil war. The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. you like the idea of civil war?
THINK about it.....Quebecois vote YES in a referendum, and the next day proclaim themselves a nation.
As that stupid dick Parizeau planned to do in 1995.
Suddenly there are clashes on any number of issues related to what I pointed out above. They would escalate. People would die.
It is not that easy.
NAME me a nation that has torn itself asunder without violence..........there is one, where both sides amicably agreed to separate.....but they had been forced together by treaty, and clearly understood their respective borders etc, and they BOTH voted to part.
625,000 dead in our southern neighbor. And that was 150 years ago.
You need to read some history.
I hadn't read this.
Man, you can't be that stupid.
From your own source;
'The United Nations currently only requires that a sovereign state has an effective and independent government within a defined territory"
Quebec does not have a defined territory. Ungava was added in the 1920s, and many Quebecois consider Labrador their territory, and (of course) those areas that vote NOT to secede from Canada must have their own democratic aspiration realized....correct?
The government of no province is independent, as the national government is superior in all ways, including the constitutional ability to "disallow" any legislation passed by the province.....in fact, no provincial legislation becomes law without the federal stamp.
The above renders the provincial gov't ineffective the minute they come in conflict with the Feds.
So, out of the three minimal conditions for sovereignty laid out by the United Nations,Quebec scores exactly NOTHING.
Read some history, and some political science.
Oh sorry, you've made up the tiny thing you so loosely call a mind, and don't wish to be confused by the "tripe" of facts.
Insert rolled eyes here.
Colpy...
Listen to what Harper says...
He's a regular Janus.
YouTube - Stephen Harper: HEY CANADA "Its a Loss of Sovereignty"
"I Know some people don't like it. It's a loss of national sovereignty but it is a simple reality."
Stephen Harper
Listen to what Harper says...
He's a regular Janus.
YouTube - Stephen Harper: HEY CANADA "Its a Loss of Sovereignty"
"I Know some people don't like it. It's a loss of national sovereignty but it is a simple reality."
Stephen Harper
My point is this:
1.) Canada has not lost any of its sovereignty
2.) If there is a Quebec referendum - and there are more "yes" than "no", and then federal as well as provincial governments agree that Quebec sovereignty is earned, then what more is there to do?
Whining about Ignatieff's demeanor will have no effect on the above. If the will of the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada can democratically allow Quebec to separate, then you have to comply with democracy.
That's all I'm saying.
There's the whole 'clarity act' , which sets out all sorts of conditions other then a simple 51-49% yes vote in order for negotiations to take place on possible separation.
Sure. And that makes perfect sense.
It further reinforces that we don't need aggressive nationalism to enforce our sovereignty and stop the big bad Quebec causing a ruckus.
Lets stop dancing here, what is really going on is the Conservatives are a little scared.
Harper went to Government House and set the date for the election. Should there be a
minority, and the opposition chooses to do so, they can go to Government House and in
fact make to request to form a coalition government and that would leave little Stevie
out in the cold of the political wilderness.
It could happen, some indications in some polls are the the NDP is now only a few points
back of the Liberals for second, I heard this, this morning on our local station. Iggy is in
as much trouble as Harper, however there is a long way to go and still time for someone
to implode on the main stage we have seen this before in Canadian Politics.
Can you imagine what would happen if the NDP ended up the Official Opposition by one
seat and the Tories were about six short of a majority? Not that I am predicting it but I think
it would serve them all right.
I reality I still think we will have a minority government with Harper as PM and some new faces
as I think the NDP will make a couple of gains in Quebec and one or two seats in BC.
On the west coast if the NDP wins more seats its at the expense of the Tories and if the
Conservatives win it goes against the NDP. One seat that could fall is Lund on the Island
Green Leader May will split the vote and New Democrats could come up the middle in that one.
As for coalition? Yes it is possible, officially or other wise, and personally I think it would be
good to do so, as I am opposed to Social Conservatism, known as the Harper variety.
Harper went to Government House and set the date for the election. Should there be a
minority, and the opposition chooses to do so, they can go to Government House and in
fact make to request to form a coalition government and that would leave little Stevie
out in the cold of the political wilderness.
It could happen, some indications in some polls are the the NDP is now only a few points
back of the Liberals for second, I heard this, this morning on our local station. Iggy is in
as much trouble as Harper, however there is a long way to go and still time for someone
to implode on the main stage we have seen this before in Canadian Politics.
Can you imagine what would happen if the NDP ended up the Official Opposition by one
seat and the Tories were about six short of a majority? Not that I am predicting it but I think
it would serve them all right.
I reality I still think we will have a minority government with Harper as PM and some new faces
as I think the NDP will make a couple of gains in Quebec and one or two seats in BC.
On the west coast if the NDP wins more seats its at the expense of the Tories and if the
Conservatives win it goes against the NDP. One seat that could fall is Lund on the Island
Green Leader May will split the vote and New Democrats could come up the middle in that one.
As for coalition? Yes it is possible, officially or other wise, and personally I think it would be
good to do so, as I am opposed to Social Conservatism, known as the Harper variety.
OMG!!!!!!
Only one small, little, unfortunate problem with that.....
QUEBEC DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE CLARITY ACT!
Geezus!
The Clarity Act sets out a number of conditions and requires negotiation.
The entire point is that the separatists have no intention of negotiation, Parizeau said it himself....Quebec is (in their eyes) indivisible, and a unilateral declaration of independence would have been made within a few days of a YES vote.
THINK for God's sake!
A unilateral declaration of independence, the BQ go home from Ottawa, instant Conservative majority.......the population outraged......
I don't think the Count would fight a civil war.....I just think he'll take us to the point one is inevitable.
Damn right I'm frightened.
I am frightened for the nation.
I mean, I lived through decades of Liberal and Blue-Liberal (Mulrooney's PCs) government that made me ill. But I can stand that again, no big deal.
What I can't stand is watching people drive the nation off a cliff.........
We need a majority, and as I've said over and over and over and over A liberal NDP coalition for majority gov't is PERFECTLY okay with me. Not my preference, but dammit, I could live with it.
What Canadians should NOT stand for is the inclusion of the BQ.
And yes, that frightens me.
So, what you're saying then is..
You are strongly against a Liberal leader, who, in the unlikeliest scenario of choosing between fighting a civil war or giving up Quebec - would ultimately choose the latter. In fact, despite the lack of evidence confirming that this leader would even make the clearly irrational choice that you've predicated, let alone the slightest indication that this hypothetical scenario could even take place any time soon or at all for that matter, that this supposed hypothetical is one of your most feverishly sought over campaigning decisions come this election.
And we give people like you guns.
You are strongly against a Liberal leader, who, in the unlikeliest scenario of choosing between fighting a civil war or giving up Quebec - would ultimately choose the latter. In fact, despite the lack of evidence confirming that this leader would even make the clearly irrational choice that you've predicated, let alone the slightest indication that this hypothetical scenario could even take place any time soon or at all for that matter, that this supposed hypothetical is one of your most feverishly sought over campaigning decisions come this election.
And we give people like you guns.
You are a complete ****ing idiot.
Try to go back and read through the scenario I set up. It is meant as a WORST CASE scenario. But it is based completely on the recent history of events, and the attitudes of the people involved, as well as their clearly stated intentions.
Now, so far, I don't think Quebec would vote to separate....I think the descent of Canada into dissolution would be a long, slow process. And I think the inclusion of the BQ in gov't hastens that procedure immensel., and I think to reverse that procedure we need to convince the people of Quebec to turn away from the Bloc.......
AND INSERTING THE BLOC INTO FEDERAL GOV'T IS EXACTLY THE WRONG WAY TO DO THAT.
