[CanuckinOZ]

michou you are right so i'll put it on there, sorry

[Damien]

[QUOTE BY= dino] (You and your separatists friends could learn something from natives across this land.) <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Hmmm <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> <br /> Let me guess, they could teach us how to be put aside on our own land ?<br /> <br /> And as far as I remember... The Pq has the mojority of the francophones on his side, and so for a long long time.

[Dino]

It's not that big of a majority or you would have been a country back in 1980. I don't see any natives in Quebec demanding Quebec become a country. There must be something in Canada that is making them want to stay in Canada.<br /> <br /> The PQ and Bloc in my opinion are massive idiots. They keep behaving like Quebec in Canada is some living hell and anything to get out of confederation will be much better.<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> <br /> <br /> They think that breaking apart the country and regaining Quebecers taxes will make Quebec "richer" but really they never talk about the fact that your transfer payments will stop and that if you were to become a country you would receive 127 billion dollars in debt from the Canadian government on top of the 115 billion dollar debt in Quebec. Tell me, what brand new country would be able to be a country with that much debt? <br /> <br /> Quebec will never be a country. It's fitting that this is called damn separatists because you would think by now people in Quebec would become realistic about Quebec being "free." I don't know if you are a separatist but really it isn't fair that people in Quebec can vote for le bloc to "represent" them. People might elect them on the fact they believe in separation but the fact is once the bloc get elected to Ottawa all they become is a regional party. People in the rest of the country aren't that selfish to put in there own provincial party. They are the most pathetic party in parliament and everytime they speak it reminds how they just behave like 2 year olds needing attention.

[Damien]

http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol2no5/prez7.html

[michou]

[QUOTE BY= Damien] http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol2no5/prez7.html[/QUOTE]<br /> This commentary is a interesting find and point of view also on Québec's last sovereignty referendum. It was written by an American confederate secessionist and certainly worth a post of its own. <br /> <br /> Merci pour la trouvaille Damien !<br /> <br /> <b><a href="http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol2no5/prez7.html">Québec, a Nation ?</a></b><br /> <br /> In early September Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau, leader of the Parti Quebecois, fought back tears as the provincial flag was unfurled and a poet recited the preamble to a prospective declaration of independence from Anglophone Canada: <br /> <br /> <b>We, the people of Quebec, declare it our own will to be in full possession of all the powers of a state; to levy all our taxes, to vote on all our laws, to sign all our treaties and to exercise the highest power of all, conceiving, and controlling, by ourselves, our fundamental law.</b> <br /> <br /> If this sounds like glorious fiction, reality rolls around on 30 October when Quebec could choose by referendum to go its own way. Support for the separatists, according to polls, has risen recently to 50 percent, but it's a sure bet that Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien will call on his New World Order buddies from the G-7 countries to exert political and economic pressure on the new nation, should it come to be. Bill Clinton, citing NAFTA regulations, already has threatened to cut trade ties with an independent Quebec. Like the United States and other Western "democracies," Canada is firmly in the grip of a globalist oligarchy that, according to the late Christopher Lasch, "see themselves as world citizens" at war with nationalists and regionalists of every stripe. <br /> <br /> Those who mold public opinion in Toronto and Ottawa have mounted a fear-mongering campaign designed to undermine support among Quebec's moderate nationalists. Even in Montreal itself a cabal of anti-secessionist scholars (undoubtedly beneficiaries of Canada's liberal welfare program for academics) warned in La Presse: "We should face the fact that the Canadian community is much more real than a lot of sovereigntists (separatists) actually believe. Many Quebecers do not feel sufficiently different from other Canadians to demand with both force and enthusiasm a country all of their own." Former provincial Premier Daniel Johnson, leader of the unionist party in Quebec, accused the Parti Quebecois of engaging in "confusion and obfuscation" to trick Quebecers into a "yes" vote. For his part, Chretien simply refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a separatist victory in October. <br /> <br /> But Monique Simard, a high-ranking organiser of the separatist campaign, brushed aside such criticism and declared: "For the first time, English-speaking Canada is realising the "yes" side could win." Simard went on to say that "without sovereignty, we're doomed to be an eternal minority or to disappear." After years of wrangling over the issue of Quebec's sovereignty, many Canadians are growing tired of Francophone agitation. Some undoubtedly would like to see the province's seven million inhabitants secede tomorrow. <br /> <br /> But like the Scots National Party in Scotland, the Parti Quebecois and its supporters have been snared in the web of the welfare state. Writing in the September issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, paleo-conservative Paul Gottfried notes that Canadians, both Anglo- and Franco-phone, have come to "accept their [socialist] rulers . . . and lack the emotional and moral resources to oppose . . . [them] effectively." Thus, it all boils down to the question: Do Quebecers really have the guts to form their own independent nation, cutting all ties with the Ottawa regime, or are they simply attempting to blackmail Chretien's government into making concessions? <br /> <br /> In 1980 separatists voted for a watered-down version of independence based on something called "sovereignty association." Had the referendum passed, it would have allowed Quebec to exercise a degree of "home rule" while the province still maintained certain formal ties (e.g. use of the national postal services) to the Canadian state. It appears that fifteen years later the separatists are again backing off from an advocacy of complete independence. In June Parizeau hinted that the Parti Quebecois would be satisfied with something less than an independent Quebec. The possibility of a "soft" referendum in October likely stems from the Harvard-educated Parizeau's tenuous commitment to a truly radical, populist solution and to the influence of his moderate allies, the Bloc Quebecois, which hold several opposition seats in the Canadian House of Commons, and the nascent Parti Action Democratique. But the Parti Quebecois may benefit from Prime Minister Chretien's hard-line stance on the issue of provincial "home rule." Chretien, taking his cue from an increasingly vocal Anglophone majority, refuses to promise special treatment to Quebecers as an inducement to keep them in the Canadian union. This time around, then, we can only hope that the majority of Quebecers will see secession as the only means of protecting their culture from a hostile majority. <br /> <br /> It is clear that French Canadians, like Anglo-Celtic American Southerners, could, if they were determined, establish a "nation" in the real sense of the word. Organic nationalism, intuitively grounded in common language, poetry, literature, folkways, and religious beliefs, is the opposite of state-based civic nationalism in which people are "educated" to be cogs in a rationalist, technocratic, imperial machine. As the global elites push the world's nation-states toward interdependence, devolutionary forces are beginning to pull toward local rule and the break-up of nation-states cum empires. Thus the nation-state is caught in the middle. While Establishment elites seek their New World Order, we witness movements for autonomy or outright independence not only in Quebec but also in Canada's western provinces, Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Lombardy, Catalonia, the Balkans, and other "ethno-regions." <br /> <br /> We of the Southern League hope that the Quebecers are indeed serious about complete independence from Canada. However, considering the vacillating tendencies of the Parti Quebecois over the past 15 years, it seems unlikely that it will go beyond its tepid "sovereignty association" demands. If, as expected, Parizeau and his followers forge to the brink and then pull away, it should not dishearten Southern nationalists. Rather, we ought to learn an important lesson from Canadian antics: faux populist movements manipulated from above by Establishmentarians are slender reeds upon which to lean. So long as the chimerical allurements of socialism and its attendant welfare-state mentality rule the passions of a people, they will lack the willingness to sacrifice the comfortable life for the rigors of independence. If there is to be a new Southern nation, then we must begin by preparing ourselves to endure the common sufferings, so familiar to our Confederate ancestors, that weld a people into a nation. Unfortunately, Quebecers, lacking our historical experience, have yet to exhibit these hard tendencies. <br />

[Dino]

Michou,what you have posted proves my point. No one really knows what a "oui" vote would mean for Quebec and the ROC.<br /> <br /> Americans would never break apart there country. They are the most nationalistic country on the earth. What would be the purpose for people in the south to break apart America? To take it even further to the right? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> <br /> <br /> That fact that the website has the confederate flag on the bottom of the screen makes me not take what he has to say too seriously about there being some movement for separation.

[sebastien]

[QUOTE BY= dino] <br /> If Quebec were a country before the invasion of the British then fleur-de-lys you would have a point for independence. In 1812 if the americans had won the war we today would be americans and wouldn't be talking about how we could have been something more if it wasn't for the united states. If in 1812 Canada was a country and the United States launched a war and won we could be talking to today about independence because we would have proof that we were a country.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Who protected Canada in 1812 and 1813 ? <br /> A lot of Canadiens Français at that time...<br /> Strange that Canada History don't talk much about it ???<br /> Don't you think ???<br /> Would Canada History be biased ???<br /> Hmmm... I am probably paranoid...<br /> <br /> 300 Canadiens Français contre 3000 Americans, you imagine ??? General Salaberry an hero...<br /> Bataille de Châteauguay.<br /> We don't talk too much about that don't we.<br /> <br /> http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/qc/chateauguay/natcul/natcul1c_F.asp#dix

[sebastien]

[QUOTE BY= Macdonald/Borden]<br /> <br /> Yet you seperatists seem to cast the province of Quebec in the role of an "oppresed and downtrotted nation", even though most Quebeckers do not think of themselves in that way. Why? Because you're language and culture have been protected and supported by the government since 1867? Is that it, or is it because since the 1970s Canadians have provided you're community with completely bilingual signs and services in every province and territory, which you're government shall not do to accomidate non-French speaking Canadians. <br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I don't feel oppressed MacDonald !!! Do you ??? By those DAMN SEPARATISTS... well it looks like.<br /> <br /> Québec nation is not oppressed you are right. BUT WHY DON'T YOU GIVE US THAT F. FISCAL IMBALANCE. IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.<br /> <br /> My friend the FEDERAL keeps all the money for itself to play that GREAT GOVERNMENT AT RESCUE in Québec when there is needs. <br /> <br /> WHY ANYONE FIX THAT FISCAL IMBALANCE ??? WHY THE FEDERAL KEEPS ALL THE MONEY FOR HIMSELF ???<br /> <br /> YOU WANT TO SAVE YOUR COUNTRY AGAIN, fix that fiscal imbalance first... geee, you are not politised !!!<br /> <br /> Oh.. and by the way should I thank to let me speak french in CAnada ??? Is that want to are saying MacDonald... PATHETIC... really pathetic... You are saying that the federal has protected that french language ??? Instead of making it disappear ??? I don't get it... Do you speak french my friend ??? If french still exists today, it's because we continue to speak it and wanted so. End of the story. You want me to thank you for letting us still speak french today ??? Pathetic my friend...<br /> <br /> Franchement, c'est pas sérieux ton truc mon ami. <br /> Vous auriez dû tous nous exterminer en 1759. Nous étions seulement 70 000 colons. C'est moins que les millions de Juifs lors de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale. C'est moins que le génocide rwandais.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= sebastien] [QUOTE BY= dino] <br /> If Quebec were a country before the invasion of the British then fleur-de-lys you would have a point for independence. In 1812 if the americans had won the war we today would be americans and wouldn't be talking about how we could have been something more if it wasn't for the united states. If in 1812 Canada was a country and the United States launched a war and won we could be talking to today about independence because we would have proof that we were a country.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Who protected Canada in 1812 and 1813 ? <br /> A lot of Canadiens Français at that time...<br /> Strange that Canada History don't talk much about it ???<br /> Don't you think ???<br /> Would Canada History be biased ???<br /> Hmmm... I am probably paranoid...<br /> <br /> 300 Canadiens Français contre 3000 Americans, you imagine ??? General Salaberry an hero...<br /> Bataille de Châteauguay.<br /> We don't talk too much about that don't we.<br /> <br /> http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/qc/chateauguay/natcul/natcul1c_F.asp#dix[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Many anglophones acknowledge the role of the French in defending British and French North America and CREATING Canada later on.<br /> <br /> I think separatists should remember the biggest threat to thr French (and English) cultures in Canada--a negative birth rate. <br /> <br /> Go have kids with other French Canadians if you want French Canada to survive. There is no other way.<br />

[Dino]

[QUOTE BY= sebastien]<br /> I don't feel oppressed MacDonald !!! Do you ??? By those DAMN SEPARATISTS... well it looks like.<br /> <br /> Québec nation is not oppressed you are right. BUT WHY DON'T YOU GIVE US THAT F. FISCAL IMBALANCE. IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.<br /> <br /> My friend the FEDERAL keeps all the money for itself to play that GREAT GOVERNMENT AT RESCUE in Québec when there is needs. <br /> <br /> WHY ANYONE FIX THAT FISCAL IMBALANCE ??? WHY THE FEDERAL KEEPS ALL THE MONEY FOR HIMSELF ???<br /> <br /> YOU WANT TO SAVE YOUR COUNTRY AGAIN, fix that fiscal imbalance first... geee, you are not politised !!!<br /> <br /> Oh.. and by the way should I thank to let me speak french in CAnada ??? Is that want to are saying MacDonald... PATHETIC... really pathetic... You are saying that the federal has protected that french language ??? Instead of making it disappear ??? I don't get it... Do you speak french my friend ??? If french still exists today, it's because we continue to speak it and wanted so. End of the story. You want me to thank you for letting us still speak french today ??? Pathetic my friend...<br /> <br /> Franchement, c'est pas sérieux ton truc mon ami. <br /> Vous auriez dû tous nous exterminer en 1759. Nous étions seulement 70 000 colons. C'est moins que les millions de Juifs lors de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale. C'est moins que le génocide rwandais.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Fiscal imbalance has nothing to do with federalism. If you want to continue voting for le Bloc Quebecois then I suggest you stop complaining about fiscal imbalance and unemployment insurance.

[sebastien]

[QUOTE BY= dino] <br /> <br /> Fiscal imbalance has nothing to do with federalism. If you want to continue voting for le Bloc Quebecois then I suggest you stop complaining about fiscal imbalance and unemployment insurance.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Are you sure fiscal imbalance has nothing to do with federalism ??? Who knows... if Canada was correcting the fiscal imbalance and was giving the political powers Québec revendicate maybe that sovereignist threat would stop ??? But my understanding of the political situation is THAT THE FEDERAL DOESN'T WANT THAT AND WANT TO KEEP MONEY AT OTTAWA... SO WE'LL KEEP ON WHINING... AND YOU'LL KEEP ON GETTING BORED OF SOVEREIGNISTS... AND FROM TIME TO TIME YOU WILL GET AFRAID OF SEEING THE COUNTRY BROKEN. <br /> <br /> What a beautiful country we have! What a beautiful canadian paradox ! What a beautiful deal between its two people who founded it ! Pathetic... and Québécois are not too blame my friends... The initial Confederation was betrayed. The ROC tricked us...<br /> <br /> Get imaginative and creative like was saying the article Dino !!! Geee... come on, get your a. off your seat.

[cmab]

Radio-Canada : Comment l'argent d'Ottawa est-il redistribué aux provinces ?<br /> <br /> Yvon Cyrenne : Le transfert aux provinces se fait principalement par un système de péréquation pour rééquilibrer les champs fiscaux entre les provinces riches et les autres. Les provinces riches sont essentiellement l'Ontario, l'Alberta et la Colombie-Britannique. On choisit 36 champs d'impôt (...) et on regarde la capacité de chaque province de percevoir ces taxes ou ces impôts avec la population qu'elle a et autres données de ce type; après une analyse de ces 36 champs d'impôt, on fait un rééquilibrage, on transfère aux provinces plus pauvres des sommes d'argent très importantes.<br /> <br /> Ce système fonctionnait assez bien jusqu'à 1994, époque à laquelle le gouvernement fédéral a décidé de s'attaquer au déficit. À partir de ce moment-là, il a décidé de réduire substantiellement les transferts, surtout dans le secteur de la santé, où on avait besoin d'argent, et dans le secteur de l'éducation. Donc, après avoir fait ce travail avec la péréquation, il y a, en deuxième lieu, ce qu'on appelle les transferts sociaux, et c'est dans ces transferts que le gouvernement fédéral a beaucoup coupé. Le résultat de ces coupures a été que toutes les provinces ont connu des difficultés financières parce qu'elles n'anticipaient pas de réductions aussi substantielles des transferts fédéraux.<br /> <br /> http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/dossiers/fiscal/

[Dino]

[QUOTE BY= sebastien] <br /> Are you sure fiscal imbalance has nothing to do with federalism ??? Who knows... if Canada was correcting the fiscal imbalance and was giving the political powers Québec revendicate maybe that sovereignist threat would stop ??? But my understanding of the political situation is THAT THE FEDERAL DOESN'T WANT THAT AND WANT TO KEEP MONEY AT OTTAWA... SO WE'LL KEEP ON WHINING... AND YOU'LL KEEP ON GETTING BORED OF SOVEREIGNISTS... AND FROM TIME TO TIME YOU WILL GET AFRAID OF SEEING THE COUNTRY BROKEN. <br /> <br /> What a beautiful country we have! What a beautiful canadian paradox ! What a beautiful deal between its two people who founded it ! Pathetic... and Québécois are not too blame my friends... The initial Confederation was betrayed. The ROC tricked us...<br /> <br /> Get imaginative and creative like was saying the article Dino !!! Geee... come on, get your a. off your seat.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Sebastien, do you really think that if the NDP or conservatives were in power there would be a fiscal imbalance? Was there ever a fiscal imbalance when Mulroney was in power? No. He may of been a bad Prime Minister but there wasn't a fiscal imbalance. Fiscal imbalance has to do with the Liberal party not FEDERALISM!!

[sebastien]

[QUOTE BY= cmab] Radio-Canada : Comment l'argent d'Ottawa est-il redistribué aux provinces ?<br /> <br /> Yvon Cyrenne : Le transfert aux provinces se fait principalement par un système de péréquation pour rééquilibrer les champs fiscaux entre les provinces riches et les autres. Les provinces riches sont essentiellement l'Ontario, l'Alberta et la Colombie-Britannique. On choisit 36 champs d'impôt (...) et on regarde la capacité de chaque province de percevoir ces taxes ou ces impôts avec la population qu'elle a et autres données de ce type; après une analyse de ces 36 champs d'impôt, on fait un rééquilibrage, on transfère aux provinces plus pauvres des sommes d'argent très importantes.<br /> <br /> Ce système fonctionnait assez bien jusqu'à 1994, époque à laquelle le gouvernement fédéral a décidé de s'attaquer au déficit. À partir de ce moment-là, il a décidé de réduire substantiellement les transferts, surtout dans le secteur de la santé, où on avait besoin d'argent, et dans le secteur de l'éducation. Donc, après avoir fait ce travail avec la péréquation, il y a, en deuxième lieu, ce qu'on appelle les transferts sociaux, et c'est dans ces transferts que le gouvernement fédéral a beaucoup coupé. Le résultat de ces coupures a été que toutes les provinces ont connu des difficultés financières parce qu'elles n'anticipaient pas de réductions aussi substantielles des transferts fédéraux.<br /> <br /> http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/dossiers/fiscal/[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Bel effor cmab !<br /> <br /> Try again...<br /> Tu connais le mot "dignité" cmab ? Moi, oui. Je connais ces transferts de péréquation cmab. Une bonne façon d'acheter le Québec. Que le Canada continue comme ça ! Bien qu'il songe maintenant à acheter un par un tous les Québécois afin qu'ils demeurent au Canada...<br /> <br /> Tu veux continuer à licher le c. de certains "amis" à Ottawa, correct pour toi, moi ça fait ! Tu veux continuer à être "redevable" aux autres provinces riches du CAnada, correct pour toi, moi je pense que le Québec a tout intérêt à décider de son propre avenir, peut très bien s'occuper de ses finances 'tu seul' comme un grand.<br /> <br /> Continuons ensemble ce beau taponnage canadien jusqu'à temps que nos amis canadians en aient assez de nous pis qu'ils nous demandent gentiment de prendre la porte !!! Tu connais le mot "dignité" cmab ??? Moi, oui...<br /> <br /> <br /> « Les Québécoises et Québécois savent maintenant que si les petits États comme le Vatican ou Monaco ont leur place au soleil, les États moyens comme le Québec, les États scandinaves ou des États sud-américains, sont parfaitement viables dans le monde actuel à la condition d’être actifs dans les instances décisionnelles internationales. » (…)

[cmab]

[QUOTE BY= sebastien] [QUOTE BY= cmab] Radio-Canada : Comment l'argent d'Ottawa est-il redistribué aux provinces ?<br /> <br /> Yvon Cyrenne : Le transfert aux provinces se fait principalement par un système de péréquation pour rééquilibrer les champs fiscaux entre les provinces riches et les autres. Les provinces riches sont essentiellement l'Ontario, l'Alberta et la Colombie-Britannique. On choisit 36 champs d'impôt (...) et on regarde la capacité de chaque province de percevoir ces taxes ou ces impôts avec la population qu'elle a et autres données de ce type; après une analyse de ces 36 champs d'impôt, on fait un rééquilibrage, on transfère aux provinces plus pauvres des sommes d'argent très importantes.<br /> <br /> Ce système fonctionnait assez bien jusqu'à 1994, époque à laquelle le gouvernement fédéral a décidé de s'attaquer au déficit. À partir de ce moment-là, il a décidé de réduire substantiellement les transferts, surtout dans le secteur de la santé, où on avait besoin d'argent, et dans le secteur de l'éducation. Donc, après avoir fait ce travail avec la péréquation, il y a, en deuxième lieu, ce qu'on appelle les transferts sociaux, et c'est dans ces transferts que le gouvernement fédéral a beaucoup coupé. Le résultat de ces coupures a été que toutes les provinces ont connu des difficultés financières parce qu'elles n'anticipaient pas de réductions aussi substantielles des transferts fédéraux.<br /> <br /> http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/dossiers/fiscal/[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Bel effor cmab !<br /> <br /> Try again...<br /> Tu connais le mot "dignité" cmab ? Moi, oui. Je connais ces transferts de péréquation cmab. Une bonne façon d'acheter le Québec. Que le Canada continue comme ça ! Bien qu'il songe maintenant à acheter un par un tous les Québécois afin qu'ils demeurent au Canada...<br /> <br /> Tu veux continuer à licher le c. de certains "amis" à Ottawa, correct pour toi, moi ça fait ! Tu veux continuer à être "redevable" aux autres provinces riches du CAnada, correct pour toi, moi je pense que le Québec a tout intérêt à décider de son propre avenir, peut très bien s'occuper de ses finances 'tu seul' comme un grand.<br /> <br /> Continuons ensemble ce beau taponnage canadien jusqu'à temps que nos amis canadians en aient assez de nous pis qu'ils nous demandent gentiment de prendre la porte !!! Tu connais le mot "dignité" cmab ??? Moi, oui...<br /> <br /> <br /> « Les Québécoises et Québécois savent maintenant que si les petits États comme le Vatican ou Monaco ont leur place au soleil, les États moyens comme le Québec, les États scandinaves ou des États sud-américains, sont parfaitement viables dans le monde actuel à la condition d’être actifs dans les instances décisionnelles internationales. » (…) [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Pour toi, tout ce qui est argument de fédéralistes c'est faux, c'est à tort, c'est à chier, c'est merdique,... etc. À force de te voire chier sur les argument des autres, tu fais plus dure. T'es pas capable d'accepter l'argument d'autrui.<br /> <br /> Ah oui, tu connais mieux tout hein? Tu connais mieux la péréquation que tout le monde, tu connais ben plus l'hisoitre Canadienne-Québecoise que tous, hahah vrai tapette si c'est vrai. Dis moi, tout tes renseignment du les prends d'ou ? De livres de souvranites? De Red Neck Indépendentistes sudistes ? Dis ? Au lieu de chier sur tout les fédéralistes acceptent criss de cave.