Subject:
|
Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:20:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2719 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper writes:
> 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 and teach you the fable about 2
> founding nations? Bullsh*t.
>
> The reason why we never signed the Constitution since 1982 is because we
> know, even the federal parties in Quebec, that we're being screwed by
> federal laws. But then again, your teachers probably tell you a whole other
> stupid story.
>
> But when I see the age-old argument of money, man, I can't resist, it's just
> too funny. Quebec is 1/4 of the population of Canada and 1/3 of Canada's
> ressources and money. For every dollar we give the federal govt, we get
> 0.75$ bck, the other 0.25$ going to poor provinces like the Maritimes. We
> don't need to pay for them, they are not our responsability. We, as a
> French people trying to survive in a English 300Billion people continent,
> need to put our money in our economy, not in yours. Ontario and BC are the
> only 2 other provinces that are financially not dependant of the others,
> Ontario being by far the richest. So your economic reason are totally
> biased by your hatred of the Soverainist movement.
>
> Then you go on about the Army. Wake up, buddy. We would not be paying any
> taxes to Canada and our soldiers wouldn't be part of your army. 1+1=?
> That's it, we could afford our own army, Canada being too poor without the
> second richest province gone to afford an army. You need us, we don't need
> you. That's why we were forced in the constitution as a conquered land in
> 1867, a few decades after France lost us to GB. Money. We have more of it
> per habitant that the rest of Canada. We would be richest thasn you.
>
> As for your political ties with the federal govt, that's exactly what we
> want to cut. And the economy? Do you know about the Euro? Talks are
> already started on the adhesion of Quebec in the european union. France is
> already pushing on other countries to help us be recognized as a sovereign
> country the day after we win the referendum. Latest informations leaking
> from France says we will not encounter any resistance, except, of course,
> from US, GB and Canada. Big surprise!
>
> It's obvious you know nothing about the history of Quebec. Stop arguing
> about it then and accept the fact that I'm not Canadian but Québécois.
>
> I am patriotic. At the Olympics, I root for Québécois athletes. Canadians?
> I don't root for other countries, would it be Canada, US, Litchtenstein or
> Lituania. But as I said, I don't hate them. I'm just not attached to them
> in any way.
>
> About the "separatist" movement, we are at least a strong 30% of hard
> soverainist. By hard, I mean that we would rather separate and suffer
> terrible consequences (which won't happen since it's a good move to
> separate) than to pledge alliegence to your Country.
>
> Vive le Québec Libre! Someday, our group that got 49% in 1995 will have
> 60%+ and Canada will regret not having treated us fairly over the past 2
> centuries.
>
> It is inevitable. And the best part? You don't get to say a word about it
> because we will choose for ourselves, Canada won't decide for us.
>
> Terry
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 the 18 hundreds... (1830...ish :) )
Compounded with the venom you so blatantly show to all things not *you*. I
dislike separatists because they want to destroy, not help fix.
I seem to recall (rubs chin like Letterman) that the last time this
referendum thing came up, France explicitly stated that they wanted nothing
to do with a 'sovereign' Quebec. So please, Terry, understand that your,
and the other 'hard' separatist hatred isn't going to work.
Were forced to sign in 1867? By whom? Who put a gun to your head? All
thru this whole movement the separatists act like a spoiled brat who's not
getting what he wants and throws a tantrum and jumps up and down screaming,
"All about me! Me! Me! Me!" without listening to their own countrymen.
Lets take one small example--in the last referendum the question came up,
"What if the native Americans living up in the northern part of Quebec
wanted to hold their own referendum and stay with Canada?"
But no, the separatists said "We can separate from Canada but you can't
separate from us" even though in the northern part of your province, they
hold the majority of the population.
Consistency please.
Sto acting like the spoiled child. "Don't want to support *those* provinces
to the east." Why? Don't you think you should support your fellow
countryman in their time of need? Oh wait, obviously those easterners
aren't your fellow countrymen--they don't deserve to be helped by the likes
of you. I don't even know what to say besides "that's a rather bigoted idea."
Keep up the hatred and animosity, Terry. Without *any* work from my part,
your separatist party will keep losing elections.
Or a better idea, help fix todays problems instead of dwelling on a
perceived sleight years, and sometimes centuries, ago.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
