Man in bathrobe attempts to shoot Quebecois Premier

[Cakebatyr]

[QUOTE=Florence;37570835]
Unfortunately, most of my sources are in French and are [B]scholarly books[/B] instead of flashy articles in a thrashy newspaper.[/QUOTE]

Cite 'em, there isn't any point to keeping them to yourself. Many of us are university students and will have access through our libraries.

And don't forget just because we are anglophones doesn't mean we can't understand French, we are a bilingual country after all.

[Will Wright]

[QUOTE=Aman VII;37571200]

Your best bet was 30 or 40 years ago.[/QUOTE]

17 years to be exact.

[Cl0cK]

As much as I disagree with Aman VII, at least he doesn't insult others like Florence.

Florence, you're making a bad names for separatists sadly.
Also, some of the things that Option Nationale said about separatism makes sense, but I'm actually legitimately and sadly too lazy to translate it.

But yeah I actually don't like the Parti Québécois as a party to be honest, they're too extreme on the language issues for me.
To be honest, I'd be more than happy to see a federalist left-winged political party.

[DaCommie1]

[QUOTE=Florence;37570835]First off, Dacommie is a lunatic. He's a crazy right-wing asshole that repeats every possible stereotype and attacks on Quebec (brats, freeloaders, racists, anti-English, tribalism, etc) and thinks Rene Levesque was a crazy dictator. I'm surprised he hasn't yet claimed that the PQ's theme is inspired by the Hitler Youth. He has never lived here and thinks of us as this place full of freeloaders and commies from his high throne over in Canadia. Read his posts and judge for yourself the tenor and mental well being of this person. He never had any interest in meaningful discussion--he came here to put me down and humiliate me because I stood up against this fucking stupid ass Quebec Bashing at the begging of this thread. He probably cheated his way through history classes because not even an ill-informed person can make the assertions he has. Though he might not admit it, deep down he would've liked it if our crazy Rhodesian bathrobe guy killed Marois to stop the "English oppression".

[b]I'm a lunatic, am I? All you've really been doing is insulting people and their counterarguments to you this whole thread, and citing French, likely separatist-sympathizing sources. I attack not Quebecois, I attack separatists, because as much as you'd like to try and disagree, Quebec is not separatism, and separatism is not Quebec. Separatists are completely unappreciative of what aide and support the rest of the country has provided to Quebec. I have not sought to humiliate you, I've sought to disprove and shatter this ridiculous separatist ideal based on fabrications, lies, and slander. I have nothing against you as a person, I just disagree wholly and completely with your political views. I'm glad you decided to argue, I enjoy it (when it's civil at least, which you are not really being), and as I said earlier, it gives everyone the opportunity to see both sides of the story. Attacking me at a personal level to attempt to discredit my argument is not arguing, it's politics.[/b]

Unfortunately, most of my sources are in French and are scholarly books instead of flashy articles in a thrashy newspaper. And since the Canadian press has an anti-Quebec slant when it comes to, well, about every issue, as we saw when it continually repeated the government side of the story during the student protests or when they continually call Marois a bigot and a racist, I can't argue back in English. I have no intention of translating these books to make my arguments on an internet forum. And again, I don't argue with hysterics who deep down just don't understand anything about Quebec and just want me to shut up and Speak White.

[b]And it seems you don't understand anything about the rest of the country, notably why there's an adversarial attitude towards your province as a whole, it's because across the rest of the country Quebec and ungrateful separatist have unfortunately become nearly synonymous and almost always interchangeable thanks to Levesque. Most people, including myself, have nothing against the province and most of its people, we have a problem with the politics and politicians in la belle province.[/b]

The Toronto Sun is a garbage publication like Sun News is a garbage TV channel. It's meant to pander to a certain audience which you are a part of. Reactionary, right-wing, and primitive. I think progressive Canadians, or progressive folks in general, can recognize this. I dare you to watch some some Sun News alongside Fox News. Same tactics, same rhetoric, but in a Canadian context. In fact, they simply use the classical Hitlerian tactic American media is so famous for: that if you repeat a big lie enough times, people will catch on. Even when a liberal watches Fox New or Sun News, a little voice in their mind is going, "Well, maybe there is some truth to it... It's not like they could be brazen enough to lie about such serious matters, right?" Federalists base their arguments on fear and deterrence rather than on positiveness, and select their sources and arrange the numbers as they please to come to the inevitable conclusion that Quebec are a bunch of undeserving welfare queens.

[b]And that same philosophy has been used be the left media for decades to try and help the "Liberal social re-engineering of Canada" a paraphrased quote from a Liberal senator after the passage of C-68 they manipulated the media to lie and slander firearms and firearms owners for the last 20 years to try and separate the traditional link between Canada and firearms. However, like I said, due to the much stricter regulations on news broadcasters in Canada, Sun News can't spout outright bullshit like Fox can, Sun has sources they have facts to base their stories and opinions on. The fact that this has to be repeated means you really don't care, and aren't open to changing your opinion in the slightest on this.

As for the "Federalist fear" thing, separatists make up issues, or create them, in an attempt to fabricate a difference between Canada and Quebec. Often they'll ask something of the government that they don't have the authority to do, and then use that to try and contrast how different we are, yet no other province can do that either, because it's outside of their jurisdiction. Separatists also base their arguments on optimism, refusing to recognize many of the logistical and economic problems that a newly founded country would create. The last attempt, with some sort of "sovereignty association" thing, was a blatant best-case, they assumed the government would allow them to share economies and trade partners, but give them more political power, something that would not happen. Federalists propose real social, economic, political, and judicial challenges the separatists attempt to ignore or suppress because they know it would be detrimental to their argument.[/b]

At their core, obscurantist Harper-voting Canadians such as yourself hate Quebecers like me because we simply tell you to fuck off with that superiority complex you've had towards us since the Conquest. The put-downs don't work on us separatists and we have no allegiance to your Canada, and you can't take it. We are everything you hate: NDP-voting, peace-loving, weed-smoking, equality-seeking Frogs in North fucking America. On te fait chier maudite pourriture!

[b]You think claiming to be a hippy is going to help your argument? And you say we have a superiority complex, you keep trying to claim your culture and supposed pacifism makes you better than us. Every province has its own culture, yours is not more special than the distinct culture of Newfoundland, and is arguably less special than the cultural identity of the Natives. Also, it's not just Conservatives that hate separatists, the vast majority of the rest of Canada hates separatists, and actually most people in Quebec hate them too, because of the bad name they give to the province.[/b]

But tell me Dacommie, with all this hate and fucking bitching about Quebec and their "welfare state", why do you even care if we leave or not? Why not kick us out if we are hogging you?

[b]My hatred is of separatists who show no appreciation for the accommodation Canada has provided, as well as the protection we've provided for you and your culture, notably from American imperialism, which would have swallowed you whole before 1900 if not for Confederation. Quebec's culture is interesting, its culture and history are what make it such a beautiful province and such a nice tourist location, I've actually wanted to visit Montreal since I got back from VQ several years ago. My problem isn't necessarily with Quebec getting this money, it's the vocal separatists being unappreciative of not just the money, but also how much the rest of the country, especially Ontario and New Brunswick, has worked to make the Quebecois feel welcome and attempted to accommodate the French language. For instance, did you know French is a mandatory course in Ontario from grade 4 until grade 9, and that they're thinking of increasing that to grade 1 until grade 9. Did you know that there are an increasing number of schools in Ontario offering French Immersion classes where half the material is taught exclusively in French, and an increasing umber of French-only schools? Did you know employers, especially in the service and retail industries, will give allophones preferential consideration for job applications because they can accommodate francophone tourists? Did you know New Brunswick is officially bilingual, and all their road signs are in both languages? Not just in terms of money have we attempted to accommodate French in this nation, a basic knowledge of French is mandated to pass high school.[/b]

Would you even recognize a majority vote for separation if another referendum took place?

[b]Yes, but I'd be very pissed that this country is being torn apart. I'm not trying to say Canada wouldn't be detrimented in separation too, just that I feel Quebec would be moreso. Yes, Ontario would have to pay tariffs to use the St. Lawrence, but most of our money is in the Pacific now, the economy is business in Ontario and resource in Alberta, the businesses in Ontario would see no change, manufacturing and shipping in Ontario might, and the resource mining in Alberta wouldn't care, their money's all in the Pacific anyways. I feel, though, that both Ontario federalists and Quebec separatists always ignore one other important part of this country, the Maritimes. I know I barely consider them, you probably don't either, but if Quebec separates, then the Marititmes become rather like Alaska. People tend to ignore their sentiment about separatism because we never hear it, but something tells me they oppose it more than anyone.[/b]

Now to lighten the mood with satire:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqz28nvzLc[/media][/QUOTE]

There are some days I wish I'd been involved in a French immersion program, or at least that I'd had time in my schedule alongside my math, science, and computers courses to take French past grade 10. I was actually greatly disappointed in myself when I was in VQ and couldn't speak sufficient French, granted I was in 8th grade at the time, to even order at a McDonald's because I couldn't understand the question the cashier asked me about my order. Because it's been so long since I've done anything related to French I probably still couldn't order at that McDonald's, again something that disappoints me, I'd prefer to at least be able to do basic crap like that in French when I visit Quebec again. And while it opens up job opportunities greatly to be an allophone in Ontario, I just can't find the time or self-motivation to learn French of my own accord.

I don't hate Quebec, I hate separatism, probably mostly because I'm a patriot. I love this country, and I hate that people wish to divide this proud nation, not just for the historical reasons, but for the economic, social, political, and cultural problems it would cause into the future.

By the way, it's not considered very respectful to attack your opponent on a personal level during arguments, I'm not more of a "lunatic" than you are simply because of my differing opinion.

[Chernarus]

If Quebec separated they would face a massive economic downturn, no English business would bother operating there and neighbouring provinces would benefit from a business and population increase. The standard of living there would drop so fucking fast its not funny. Plus Highway 1 would be cut off and it would just annoy other Canadians. Most likely English Canadians would feel discriminated against as French would become the official language for sure. And I don't want this great nation to loose a big part of our culture.

[mechanical433]

[B]Equalization allows the poorer provinces to provide all kinds of social programs they couldn’t otherwise afford – subsidised by the rich provinces.[/B]

This argument usually refers to social programs that many consider “luxuries” rather than the social programs that all provinces are constitutionally obligated to provide such as healthcare, education, welfare, etc. and the criticism is normally aimed at the province of Quebec, which offers its citizens subsidised $7/day daycare, and the lowest university tuition rates in the country, for example.
However, as explained above, equalization eligibility is based on a province falling below a national per-capita income standard based on revenue from 5 different tax sources — personal income tax, business income tax, consumption tax, property tax and natural resource revenues. The provinces that receive equalization do so not because of how much they spend (or don’t spend) on social and other programs, but because they don’t raise enough own-source revenue from those five tax bases to reach the national standard. Remember that provinces also raise funds from many other sources of revenue not included in the equalization formula. The current equalization formula only considers 5 sources of revenue (the previous formula included 33 different tax bases). Quebec would still receive the same amount of equalization it currently gets even if it didn’t offer $7/day daycare or raised tuition fees significantly. The issue isn’t really that Quebec does offer these programs to its citizens, but that richer provinces such as Alberta, which can better afford them, choose not to offer such programs to its citizens.

[B] Why does Quebec get so much equalization?[/B]

Of the six provinces receiving equalization in 2012-13, Quebec does receive the most in terms of total equalization payment, $7.9-bn. However, on a per capita basis, Quebec actually receives the second least amount of equalization. Quebec, like all recipient provinces, receives equalization based on two factors: its population, and because its fiscal capacity is below the average fiscal capacity of all provinces – known as the “10 province standard”. However, while Quebec’s fiscal capacity is below the 10 province standard, it is not that as far below the standard as some of the other recipient provinces since it has a fairly diversified and large economy, as well as being quite populous. On a per capita basis, Quebec gets only $926 per citizen from equalization. Ontario gets $243 per citizen. Ontario’s fiscal capacity is better than Quebec’s, and so it receives less equalization overall ($3.2-bn) and it has a much larger population – 13,373,000. Prince Edward Island is actually the province which benefits the most from equalization. It receives the smallest overall amount, $337-mn, but with a population of only 146,000, that works out to $2,308 per Islander. This chart shows how much equalization each province receives total, and per capita:

[table]
[tr]
[th]Province[/th]
[th]Population[/th]
[th]Total Equalization 2012-2013(m$)[/th]
[th]Equalization per capita [/th]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Quebec[/td]
[td]7,979,700[/td]
[td]$7,391[/td]
[td]$926[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Ontario[/td]
[td]13,373,000 [/td]
[td]$3,261[/td]
[td]$243[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Manitoba[/td]
[td]1,250,600[/td]
[td]$1,671[/td]
[td]$1,338[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]New Brunswick[/td]
[td]755,000[/td]
[td]$1,495[/td]
[td]$1,980[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Nova Scotia[/td]
[td]945,500[/td]
[td]$1,268[/td]
[td]$1,342[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]PEI[/td]
[td]146,000[/td]
[td]$337[/td]
[td]$2,308[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

If you want more go read : [URL="http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04/24/equalization-misconceptions/"]http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04/24/equalization-misconceptions/[/URL]

[Jo The Shmo]

woah this happened just a few blocks from me but i had no idea it happened until now!

[editline]7th September 2012[/editline]

the life of an ignorant university student...

[Cl0cK]

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37571620]I hate separatism, probably mostly because I'm a patriot. I love this country, and I hate that people wish to divide this proud nation, not just for the historical reasons, but for the economic, social, political, and cultural problems it would cause into the future.
[/QUOTE]

I respect your view and acknowledges that it wouldn't make things better in some aspects but if enough people want it (which right now is not enough but it might change who knows.)
Then you should respect that people think differently and feel differently about it.

You gotta respect that even as a patriot that there can be "Québec" patriots.
I personally am not a patriot of Québec by the way, I'd love to just see people move on from that debate so we can finally talk about real fucking political problems in our province.

Aka I love everyone except Florence because he needs to stop being so mad.

[DaCommie1]

[QUOTE=Cl0cK;37571722]I respect your view and acknowledges that it wouldn't make things better in some aspects but if enough people want it (which right now is not enough but it might change who knows.)
Then you should respect that people think differently and feel differently about it.

You gotta respect that even as a patriot that there can be "Québec" patriots.
I personally am not a patriot of Québec by the way, I'd love to just see people move on from that debate so we can finally talk about real fucking political problems in our province.[/QUOTE]

I understand and recognize that people are and can be Quebec patriots, and as I said in my block of text, while I'd be pissed off about it I would accept a decision to separate. It's just Quebec patriots conflict directly with my Canadian patriotism, which gets me agitated because their whole platform is break up Canada. It's not my place to decide what a province I don't live in does with itself. Mostly, separation to me would probably just mean I'd never visit Quebec again, and that I'd probably also never visit the Maritimes because of it. That, and the cost of Alexander Keith's would probably go up, and the cost of fish, and I like fish and Keith's is the only beer I don't hate.

[Chernarus]

Update:
[QUOTE]The alleged gunman in the Quebec election night shooting that left one man dead and another wounded during the Parti Québécois victory rally earlier this week was formally charged today with first-degree murder and 15 other offences.

Richard Henry Bain of La Conception, Que., a town about 140 kilometres northwest of Montreal, is accused of killing a stage technician just outside the concert hall where PQ Leader and Quebec premier-designate Pauline Marois was delivering her victory speech.
The other charges against Bain include:

Three counts of attempted murder.
Weapons violations.
Arson-related offences.
Aggravated assault.
The targets of the alleged attempted murders were a police officer and two civilians, one of whom was a technician who was taken to hospital with critical injuries but is now in stable condition.

In total, police seized 22 guns from the accused, authorities said Thursday.

Two were recovered from the scene, three were found in Bain's vehicle and more were found at his home. According to the list of charges, they included a Beretta 9-mm pistol, a semiautomatic .22-calibre rifle, a .357 Magnum revolver and a type of CZ-858 hunting and sport rifle.

Crown prosecutor Éliane Perreault said outside the Montreal courtroom that all the weapons except one were registered, including the one he is alleged to have used to shoot the victims. The weapons charges Bain faces relate to improperly storing them and having them in places where he wasn't authorized to.

"The use that he made of them, the ammunition, the storage — this is what gives rise to" those charges, she said.

No word if Marois was target of shooting
Bain, 61, is a businessman from the Mont Tremblant area. He was arrested at the Metropolis concert hall where Marois was midway through a jubilant victory speech when a shot rang out.

Two men were hit by the bullet, fired near the backstage door of the venue, Perreault said. The back door of the venue was then set on fire using accelerant and a flare, the prosecutor said.

Technician Denis Blanchette, 48, died at the scene. His colleague Dave Courage, 27, suffered serious injury. A third person was treated for shock.

Moments later, police on scene took a man, dressed in a bathrobe with a mask over his face, into custody.

A unidentified police official told The Associated Press the gunman's weapon jammed after the first shot was fired, suggesting the shooting could have been much worse.

Perreault would not comment when asked if Marois herself was the target.

"For now, the investigation is going on and we'll see in the future if there's any charge that has to be added to the ones already in the file."

Bain was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal on Wednesday, where he underwent what the hospital described as a medical evaluation. The hospital hasn't said if the evaluation was completed for physical or psychiatric reasons.

The suspect's legal aid lawyer, Elfride-Andrée Duclervil, said only that Bain "felt ill yesterday."

"I went to visit my client yesterday at the Royal Vic. Unfortunately, I was unable to see him. I was able to speak with him freely today, I mean for a couple of seconds, before his appearance in court."

Asked whether the defence would seek a psychiatric exam, Duclervil said: "I think everything is a bit premature right now. I'll be discussing with my client."

Bain is due back in court on Oct. 11.[/QUOTE]

Turns out that, generally speaking his firearms were registered.. contradicting the "criminals won't register their guns in the first place" argument.

[Aman VII]

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37571911]Update:

Turns out that, generally speaking his firearms were registered.. contradicting the "criminals won't register their guns in the first place" argument.[/QUOTE]

Which in turn contradicts the "GUN REGISTRY SAVES LIVES" argument.

And he wasn't a criminal before a couple days ago.

When someone says criminals won't register their guns they are usually referring to the low class gang scum type of criminals, not this guy.

These types of one off attacks from a guy who appears to have snapped is practically unpreventable.

I personally know a (pretty shady) guy who has an illegal handgun, it wasn't expensive or overly hard to get and it sure as hell isn't registered.

[Chernarus]

[QUOTE=Aman VII;37571972]Which in turn contradicts the "GUN REGISTRY SAVES LIVES" argument.

And he wasn't a criminal before a couple days ago.

When someone says criminals won't register their guns they are usually referring to the low class gang scum type of criminals, not this guy.

These types of one off attacks from a guy who appears to have snapped is practically unpreventable.

I personally know a (pretty shady) guy who has an illegal handgun, it wasn't expensive or overly hard to get and it sure as hell isn't registered.[/QUOTE]

I know, basically both sides of the argument are full of dumb fucks which was my point.

[DaCommie1]

A guy like him wants media attention, and historically those who commit crimes with legally owned, registered weapons (EP, Dawson) get more media attention. That's why he used a licensed, registered firearm, in hopes that the media would blast him, and by extension his platform, all over the place because the media usually love attacking gun owners at every opportunity when they can make them look bad. Hopefully they'll be smart and not.

[Cl0cK]

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37572244]A guy like him wants media attention, and historically those who commit crimes with legally owned, registered weapons (EP, Dawson) get more media attention. That's why he used a licensed, registered firearm, in hopes that the media would blast him, and by extension his platform, all over the place because the media usually love attacking gun owners at every opportunity when they can make them look bad. Hopefully they'll be smart and not.[/QUOTE]

Actually the media didn't really bring up the gun debate at all, which is good.

It's a pretty pointless one, it's just a crazy nut with a legally owned gun killing someone.

[Florence]

[QUOTE=Dirtydeagle;37571193]What are you doing, stop being a whiny little bitch, he debated with you and had valid points to all your arguments and now you're just making yourself look bad.[/QUOTE]
Whiny bitch? Man, fuck you . He has no valid points as he cites a showboat that only confirms his belief that Quebec guzzles off Albertan oil to have their big nanny welfare state -- those damn lazy white niggers! This is the kind of sources he cites:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-vek4Sx8wM[/media]

I don't have to recognize legitimacy in that. Sun Media has no journalistic integrity. It's Fox News. No pedagogical value whatsoever.

Let's also mention that this Erza guy Aman VII loves is someone that went on the Glenn Beck show and toured with Ann Coulter. It's on the wikipedia page if you don't believe me. Again: reactionary, demagogue, right-wing showboating. I throw them out the window for a good reason. Toronto Sun is no different; same company, same editorial line, same reactionary showboating, same shit, different asshole. These aren't valid sources.

And I'm the one who looks bad? Bitch-fucking-please.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;37571200]Also "I HAVE SOURCES THAT PROVE YOU WRONG BUT THEY ARE IN FRENCH SO I CAN'T SHOW YOU" isn't an argument. That's not how debating works. You either show the information to back up what you said, or what you are saying is pretty much moot.

It's not like you don't speak English and couldn't translate it and its not like you couldn't just give us an exact reference and we could go look and translate it or attempt to read it ourselves.

[editline]7th September 2012[/editline]

Like really, you didn't even address any of what Dacommie posted. So I guess you conceded that he's right about the equalization program? Cause you can't seem to bring up any sort of rebuttal to what he said.[/QUOTE]
First off, I'd like to address the sources and what Cakebatyr said. Really, you're this involved in this conversation that YOU are going to take the titles I say, go to your university, get the books if you can even get them, read them, check the sources, cross check with the dribble cited by Aman VII and Dacommie, come to a conclusion, THEN come back here to post a response on an internet forum for gamers? Do I like I have a handle on my back? Does it look like I have the time to go to the library, find back all my sources, re-read them to find the relevant passages regarding culture, language laws, history, economics, etc? And you want me to do this so I can argue with someone who responded to my first post in this thread with,

[QUOTE=Aman VII;37556114]I can make a simple case.

The French lost the colonial war. Great Britain took over the land.[/QUOTE]
He didn't say anything about the rest of the post. He just said that Quebec lost the war. What's the relevance? All he said is that since 300 years ago we lost a war, then we should shut the fuck up. Nice way to start a meaningful conversation.

Then his buddy Commie comes in with his spiel,

[quote=DaCommie1;37557926]Hey, I have a black friend that allows me to say bad things about black people. The PQ make it fairly obvious they hate anyone who doesn't speak French to the point of nearly prohibiting them from not speaking French. Fairly racist to me.[/quote]

[quote=DaCommie1;37557926]Militant secularist? I'm not sure that's even a term, unless she wants to violently oppress overt displays of religion. And laicism borders on oppressing religion, as it bans any outward, public display of religion, which I remind you is unconstitutional.[/quote]

[quote=DaCommie1;37557926]She supports an unsustainable system that's going to drive the economy of the province into horrid debt, and a bunch of entitles brats can't bother to get a minimum-wage job to b able to pay the minimalist price tuition would still be at. I have no sympathy for those protesters, and foresee the low tuition fees being raised eventually anyways once even the PQ realize finally that they're unsustainable.[/quote]

[quote=DaCommie1;37557926]GREATEST POLITICIAN? AHAHAHAHAHAHA, that idiot shat all over the rights and freedoms of anyone not French in that province and caused a mass exodus of businesses out of the increasingly hostile environment in Montreal and into Toronto, something that'll happen AGAIN with Marois in power, again fucking your economy over. After Levesque was dead, most of Quebec quickly realized how horrid of a tyrant he really was.[/quote]

These are heavy fucking statements unbacked by citations, yet I'M the one obligated to cite sources when THEY can go unchecked on such rash statements? Rene Levesque recognized as a tyrant in Quebec? Who are you kidding with this? Look at the posts DaCommie has made here, look at his language, look at his mentality -- all I see is someone with no intention to discuss things. He comes here and uses brittle and polemical language, so I think its reasonable that over my posts I've added venom to my words but never unfairly so with sweeping generalizations like he does. You might disagree with me and my views, but am I the one who started the insults and ad hominem attacks? I play by the rules these showboaters lowered themselves to. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mechanical43 (bless him) above pointed to the actual numbers regarding equalization, and guess what it proves? Jean-Martin Aussant was right: Aman VII and Dacommie are full of shit.

[quote=Jean-Martin Aussant, translated][...] Another argument that federalists will often use is equalization. That famous equalization. It's often times the final argument for a federalist. "You depend of equalization payments and if you seperate you will lose out." There are so many things to say about equalization payments that you could hold a 3 hour conference uniquely on that subject. Firstly, Canada doesn't have a magic recipe regarding equalization. As you know, regarding OECD countries ... most have a equalization system in place and Canada is about dead last in terms of equalization; its barely 1% of GDP unlike Japan, Norway, and even Mexico where its at about 4% of GDP. [...] Secondly, it is said that Quebec is the principal beneficiary of equalization payments. Federalists will tell you, "So many billions are given to Quebec so it depends on equalization." If we take the global number, its true that its quite high; we are 8 million Quebecers right now. If you multiply that number with the equalization-per-person, you get a big global number. However if you look at the equalization-per-person, you will notice that we get the less money per person in the whole of Canada--if we exclude Ontario which just started getting equalization payments. Out of all the other provinces, we receive the less per person, but federalists will point to the global number that makes us look like we're getting a free ride. Secondly, the reason why we have more generous social services that in the rest of North America, it's not because Canada finances them via equalization; its because we have higher taxes that elsewhere and that we collectively decided to give ourselves these services. We are paying for our services--its not Canada being charitable by giving us equalization so we can pay ourselves additional services compared to our neighbors.

Source: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsGZQpJSCYU[/url]
[/quote]

Now I find this pretty shocking. Shocking coming from someone who seems to know it all about equalization. I would find it shocking if it came out of the mouth of any serious person discussing this subject. So when I say talking to these two gibbering morons is like arguing with Holocaust Deniers or Flat-Earthers --- an impregnable intellectual brick wall -- I can safely say that below that heavy insult, I'm not that far off from the truth. Because they will deny what me and Mechanical43 just demonstrated by citing other misleading and fraudulent "evidence".

[QUOTE=Aman VII;37571200]And as stated before Quebec isn't going to separate. At this point separatism is pretty dead in the water at least in the public's eye. In [I]Quebec's[/I] public eye. You still have some down right ludicrous hard-liners (such as yourself) but you are no where near the majority.

Your best bet was 30 or 40 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Me, a hard-liner? Now that's very insightful of you. Tell me, if I'm a hardliner, doesn't that make you a hard-liner as well? I'm fine with being called a hard-liner, but using it as an argument against me when you've shown that you yourself are a hard-liner on these issues but on the federalist side is nothing short of hypocrisy.

And, you dodged my question, so I will repeat. Let's say for the sake of argument that Quebec votes to separate in another referendum 10 years down the line with a majority vote. Would you recognize the legitimacy of this action?

And I will ask another question but for Dacommie this time so he can show how much he knows about Quebec. Can you explain to me, in your own words, what is Bill 101?

[DaCommie1]

You've got such a victimization complex it's ridiculous. As for Bill 101, and this is just me trying to remember a Canadian History class I took 4 years ago without looking it up prior to writing this, but bill 101 laid out French as Quebec's only "official" language, prohibited businesses with 50 or more employees from operating in English, I've hard Marois wants to reduce that to 10 or more, prohibited Francophones, immigrants, and anyone who did not learn English in Quebec from sending their children to an English-only school for basic education, Marois wants to extend that to prohibit them from attending English CEGEPs, prohibited any English signage on business' doors and demanded that any sign on the storefront that had English have the same thing in French, but twice as large, it said that while every government document must be published in English and French, only the French version matters, the English is basically just there because the Federal government says it has to be, and doesn't have to be correct, as the French version will be cited to settle any discrepancies. It states also that any court hearing can be conducted in English, again mostly due to federal mandate.

And as to Equalization, again, each of the Atlantic provinces have less people, and indeed less economic opportunity. If Quebec had been managing itself properly and hadn't been so adversarial towards English business, it probably wouldn't be a "have-not" province. You also claimed Quebec gives double to equalization what it receives, however I showed it literally receives triple what it contributes, and yet still you're unappreciative of the contributions of Canada to Quebec society.

I notice again you ignore me saying you'd be American without Canada, given America was still fighting Spain over Mexico up until 1900 it's entirely believable, especially given their goals during the war of 1812, and the fact that halting American imperialism was one of the reasons for Confederation, it's not just a possibility, it's a very likely possibility that without Canada you'd be Louisiana North, where your "culture" is a mere novelty and French is almost never spoken.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this anymore, all you're doing is being insulting, stereotypical, derogatory, slanderous, and arrogant. Rather than providing arguments, you're simply attempting to use insults to discredit the opposing side, and in my experience that means you're out of ideas but refuse to admit fault.

As well, never did I tell or wish you to shut up, if you'll note in my first post I encouraged you to come and refute, it's you now who seems to want people to shut up and piss off, because it seems like you're getting angry to the point of ignorance and intolerance of an opposing opinion. You deny I have a legitimate platform or argument, whereas I've already said I recognize the platform of separatism, I just feel the argument is extremely short-sighted and ignores a lot of very important factors.

Now tell me, if someone were to preach the same praises to Harper, or Mulroney that you do to Levesque, would you recognize their opinion? Their arguments? Would you recognize their right to give those praises? Given what you've said so far, I doubt it, you'd avoid giving them the time of day if you could. There are people who feel the same way about Levesque, I think he was a despicable man who ruined your province, yet I don't ignore your opinion because of your accolades of him, as you do of those who are right-wing, accept the legitimacy of Sun News, and sympathize with the opinions of Harper. Yes, I've been adversarial, but not once dismissive, whereas you've been both. You've dismissed our opinions, you've dismissed our sources, and therefore you've dismissed our argument, meaning you really had no intention of arguing in the first place, you hoped to come here and lay down your side and have it immediately accepted as fact, but every argument has 2 sides. I encouraged hearing the other side, but that doesn't mean I wasn't going to refute it, you've continually discouraged and dismissed an opposing side to your argument, meaning you didn't plan on arguing, you planned simply on dictating.

It's also rather disrespectful to compare someone who accepts the legitimacy of a differing opinion news source to someone who denies one of the largest atrocities this planet has ever seen, not to mention it's ridiculous. How would you like it if I compared you to a sympathizer with the oppressive, murderous regime of Stalin simply because you both self-identify as socialist? That's the kind of insane correlation you make.

Also, typing this much on a phone is annoying.