 | | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: I don't hate canadians. I am just not one. I don't have any prejudices against them, I am just not one. I'm not black either. Call me a racist because I say so. If you define identity, I mean the one (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
|
(...) Trivia as to Quebec history aside (I bet I know more about Winona history than you do by the simple fact that I live there), the facts haven't been refuted--every single time your little separatist movement starts talking, your, and the ROC, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: ROFLMAO!!! You don't know squat about my province, your whole post was a big confused mess. First, we were forced in the Constitution in 1867. I presume your Anglo-Canadian don't tell you these facts (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | La belle province
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper writes: <snip> I dunno, Quebec doesn't seem all that oppressed to me, but I only have an outside view. Consider yourself lucky you're "stuck" with a country that would probably at least let you secede (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
|
(...) I was hopeing that you'd catch me on the Upper and Lower Canada in 1867--then I could go into why I love Winona's history. So the simple idea that you missed the historical fact that Upper and Lower Canada ceased to exist at the beginning of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) I noticed the examples you gave were from nations where democracy was inexistent at the time of the breakup. So I ask: is a democratic nation immune to separatism? I mean, not the sociological phenomena in itself, rather the effective (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Doesn't Texas every once in a while talk about being 'separate' or is that just a figment of my imagination... Just wondering... Dave K (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Not sure what you mean by immune in this context. Some democratic nations have resisted mightily. The US Civil War was at least partly about separatism. Other democratic nations have not resisted (Czechoslovakia seems to have peacefully (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Nope. They're the only (?? (1) ) state that joined by treaty after being an independent republic rather than being an original founder (that ratified the constitution as the means of joining) or a state formed from unorganised territory that (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) K, my misremembery--I thought I read somewhere about a decade ago that there were some Texans talking about forming a 'separatist' movement... (...) That is, until, as some Canadians talk about, Canada becomes the 51st state. Is Puerto Rico (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Whoops! I meant "nope" as in "nope, you're not misremembering", sorry about that. Texans talk about separatism more often than most, for sure. (...) More like 51st through 64th or whatever, one state for each province/territory I would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) True, but the US was hardly even partly democratic at the time (except on paper)! Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Less democratic, yes. Less free (at least in the free states anyway)? Arguable. (Free society == democratic society) == false (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Sure the free states were more free, if you were a white male (and a landowner, IIRC). But in terms of restrictive laws, I suppose you're correct. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Sure the free states were more free, if you were a white male (and a landowner, IIRC). But in terms of personally restrictive laws, I suppose you're correct. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: Whoops! That's the one I meant to delete. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Puerto Rico occasionally holds referendums to decide whether to remain a territory (technically a commonwealth) or become a state. I found this on the web as an example: (URL) fairly sure PR would benefit greatly from becoming a state. In the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Well, in a democracy the people get to self-determine already - so one can argue about the use of having two states in similar circumstances taking similar decisions, when this only works to double institutions. The more states there are, the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) No oppressed socially, but politically. Our rights as humans are well respected, if that's what you mean. No problem there. (...) Yep, that's 100% true. We don't consider ourselves as martyrs. We are pretty happy about our situation, even if (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
Where to begin... (...) K, let's start here--Every elected PM in my lifetime (and most PM's before that) came from *one* province--guess which one. Political oppression? Where? (...) You consider yourselves 'speaking for Quebec' and at the same time (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Ya, I was wondering about that myself. Why is it that in all the other provinces, signs are in two languages but in (at least in some parts of) Quebec, they're only in one (french). I'm not talking about shop signs and suchlike, I'm talking (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Actually I've never seen an English road sign in Quebec, but then again, I haven't been looking for one. (...) Like a woman, we're a mystery. (...) It means that, for most, you think a little harder before you hop in a car and drive to (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
