BS: Nation with-in Nation

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 12:09 PM

Things have never been the same since watching Insomnia (the Norwegian film).

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:36 PM

Ehhhh... sleep depreviation.















Cooooool....

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:32 PM

I forgot the '6' up above.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:31 PM

Let's face it .... most of us become incoherent with the trail of these fallacious posts.

and let's face it .... we enjoy it.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:04 PM

LOL! No, Cluin. It could have been, though. I must just have been seriously overtired when I posted that, and I somehow totally missed the fact that she was talking about the west coast and over that way!

Too much f*cking around on the political threads with Teribus, Bearded Bruce, and my friend, Slag. After awhile the old brain just ceases to function coherently.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:34 PM

That too.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM

It's a damned shame there isn't an existing party looking after the interests of all regions of our country.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:14 PM

Were you trying on some irony, there, LH?

The Maritimes?

dianavan said "Alaska, B.C., Wash., Oregon, Northern Calif. and some of Alberta."


As I've said before, it's a damn shame there isn't another political party running out there besides the Reform wackos (which they still are, no matter what they call themselves today) trying to look out for the interests of the West. THEY have legitimate grievances.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:41 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:51 AM

It was bound to happen ...

why not

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: MMario
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:09 PM

Interestingly - if you go to mapquest - St. Pierre et Miquelon show until you increase the size a certain amount - then the islands disappear!!!

On google maps they don't show at all unless you call up satellite imagry.

They must be magical islands!

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:46 PM

Maybe an idependent Quebec would apply to join the European Union... After all,it's not that far to the nearest bit, just off the coast of Newfoundland, St Pierre et Miquelon.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 10:05 AM

Quebec could not survive as an exclusively french country in North America. No one but the Government of Canada would put up with this linguistic foolishness. You have to be bloody bi lingual to work in a National Park in Northern Manitoba for Gods sake.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:52 AM

Quebec would love to be a part of the U.S. economy.

At any price.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:12 PM

They do know you exist, Dianavan. ;-) A lot of people here have a great affection for the Maritimes, and I assume it is the Maritimes you are speaking of?

The thing I don't like about any part of this country separating is that the USA would probably take full advantage of the situation in ways that would prove unfortunate for Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:06 PM

"Do they even know we exist?"

Only when it comes time to fork over equalization payments.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:58 PM

I'd still like to see a Nation called Cascadia that would incorporate Alaska, B.C., Wash., Oregon, Northern Calif. and some of Alberta.

We could trade almost exclusively with Pacific Rim Countries.

At least it would be sustainable.

If Quebec wants to go it alone (and I don't believe the young people support an idea that is 30 years old) then the rest of Canada will be set free. I don't think Ontario would miss us anyway. Do they even know we exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:58 PM

there is a big difference in having countries come together in a union and a unified country breaking apart into sub-units.

True enough, and it wouldn't be easy - but it's a reality that Czechoslovakia (and earlier Denmark) managed to negotiate amicably enough, and one which the United Kingdom will probably have to deal with once again soon enough (having screwed up the first time round in relation to Ireland).

It doesn't have to mean any kind of hostility or loss of a very close relationship.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:53 PM

I agree with your post memyself.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:13 PM

In Canada, I think it's more a matter of people adjusting emotionally to the idea of the country being divided rather than considering the matter rationally. Thirty years ago, to most Canadians, the idea of Quebec separating was simply unthinkable - unbearable, really - because of a deeply-felt emotional attachment to the concept of the country as a whole. After thirty years of wrangling and arguing about Quebec and its place or lack thereof in Confederation, it is not unusual to hear comments to the effect of, "If they want to go, let them go" - not always expressed so politely. Similarly, the idea of Canada being divided into a number of smaller entities would be shocking initially, but if it was talked about and argued about long enough, people would get used to the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:09 PM

I get your point McG of H but I think there is a big difference in having countries come together in a union and a unified country breaking apart into sub-units.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:58 PM

Resources are pretty unevenly distributed in Europe, and equalizing things is one ofthe things the EU is for. Canada could probably do the job a lot better.

My point is, there are a whole lot of ways in which different nations can join together, and still be different nations. It's not all or nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:38 PM

The problem with that model in Canada is the uneven distribution of resources. One useful function of the federal government is equalizing revenue.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:33 PM

Ten separate countries in a supranational union? A lot to be said for that? All right it's a bit messy at times, and some people gripe that it's too loose and some people gripe that it's too tight, but the European Union works well enough most of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:06 PM

Canada has one of the most decentralized federations in the world, any more significant devolution of powers to the provinces and you may as well have 10 separate countries.

The best the federal government can do, in order to keep the country together, is to provide good government and make Canada the kind of country in which one would choose to live. Trying to counter demagoguery is a mug's game.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:49 PM

So maybe you set up a looser union, something in between the way it's done in the European Union and the way it's done in the United States?

Not really anything to get all upset about. It'd still be Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:28 PM

"As I see it a certain number of Quebecers want Quebec to be an independant country, and they are not about to give up on that desire no matter what, so what is there to solve."

The question of what we do about it. It would be simpler if it were just a matter of dealing with the hard-core separatists, who are a minority, but there is a sizable number of people in Quebec who are "soft on separatism" and "soft on federalism", depending which way the wind is blowing. Do we try to keep them on side so that federalism carries the day in Quebec, or do we not worry about alienating them, and let the separatists achieve a clear majority if we do alienate the fence-sitters? If we want to keep them on side, how do we do so without alienating other groups within the country? ... You don't see that as a conundrum?

"they are a dying minority" - Don't know how you can say that with such certainty. As I've pointed out before, the feelings about sovereignty in Quebec can turn 180 degress literally overnight.

"Canada as a country will survive ... why, because Canadians have the fortitude to do so" - I wouldn't be so sure about that. We've seen separatist parties in Alberta, there are many Newfoundlanders who have resented Confederation since they were brought in, there have been grumblings for over a hundred years from the Maritimes and occasional talk of forming overly-cosy-partnerships with New England, BC is always a bit of a wild card; Ontario won't back out, but everyone hates Ontario; if Alberta packed up and left, chances are Saskatchewan would go toddling after - let's face it, Friendly Manitoba is the only nice, reliable province.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:10 AM

Oooops ... that's me (Number 6) who posted above.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:09 AM

"fortunately they are a dying minority."

How do you know that??

Anyway ... if they ever do ... what is there to fear ... don't you think Canada will continue as a country? ... if you don't, then why not?

If Quebec ever does separate I am one who believes Canada as a country will survive ... why, because Canadians have the fortitude to do so.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:13 AM

Exactly, bobad.

They will fight for independence with their last dying breath and fortunately they are a dying minority.

(from a mother who sent her children to northern Alberta and Quebec to learn French from their families).

Not all French speakers are in Quebec. Most French speakers share a common heritage but that doesn't mean they want to separate from the rest of us. Its a notion that is fast dying in an increasingly mobile population of young people.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:53 AM

"solve the national unity conundrum?"

What exactly is the conundrum?

As I see it a certain number of Quebecers want Quebec to be an independant country, and they are not about to give up on that desire no matter what, so what is there to solve.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:49 AM

By the way, people, don't forget that when the army did go in in 1970, it was at the request of Drapeau (mayor of Montreal) and Bourassa ("prime minister" of Quebec). Trudeau does not appear to have been terribly keen on the idea. (There are all those "Anglo/British/Orange overlords" again!).

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:19 AM

"...and how did such a large majority favour it?

Easy, it looked like an easy way out.

Doesn't say much for our representatives, does it."

What do you expect them to do - solve the national unity conundrum? If so, how do you expect them to do that? None of our greatest parliamentarians have been able to do it yet; what would make you think that this bunch of whom you are so contemptuous could do the job? Do you want them to stop all other business of Parliament and tear the country apart with a serious debate on the issue? Should they hold a constitutional conference and hash it all out? We've seen in the past how productive that approach is ...

There's been an awful lot of criticism of Harper over this issue, but I have yet to hear anyone come up with a plausible alternative way of dealing with the situation he and his party and the country were in (sending the army into Quebec does not fall into the "plausible alternative" category"). I certainly haven't read any plausible alternative on this thread. I wish someone would come up with one; I really hate defending Harper, but as I said earlier on, I will give him credit when its due.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:59 AM

Clarify: "Garth haunting Harper."

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:56 AM

Well Harper tried to demote Garth right out the door. He has been haunting him big time ever since. Perhaps we at last have found an honest one willing to speak some truth.

http://www.garth.ca/

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:12 AM

They mostly all just go..."Baa-a-a-a-a-a...!" when the party leader says "vote", don't they? (one wouldn't want to get demoted to the lowest levels of the flock, after all...)

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:36 AM

This 'nation in a nation' is not a resolution.

Thats what I think.

Its meaningless.

...and how did such a large majority favour it?

Easy, it looked like an easy way out.

Doesn't say much for our representatives, does it.

We should write to them and ask them why they voted for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:40 PM

It does baffle me how the large majority passed this 'bill' through parliament, downright scarry in fact .... it takes a few to stand up and question this 'nation in a nation' thing ... the likes of mp's such as Kenny Dryden. But then a goalie is the guy that tries to stop the opponent's shots.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:31 PM

Like I said earlier, it's Canada's political parties playing their usual stupid games. All of them. They are playing the old divide and conquer game, but pretending to do it in order to unite everyone.

The Liberals, in particular, have been doing that for so long that they can do it automatically...like a dog scratching itself. But they all do it to some extent, whenever they figure it will advance their cause and mess up the other guy's.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:31 PM

"Is this really a priority for Canada or for Quebec?"

Yup, it certainly is a (real) Canadian issue. It will be lurking in our souls until it will be fully resolved (don't ask me how, cause I don't have an answer) ... does anyone remember those dark October days way back with the War Measures Act (whew, now that was a heavy scene in the Canadian psyche)... the kidnapping of James Cross, the murder of Pierre Laporte ... serious stuff in our history ... and as I said, the issue has never been resolved.

This 'nation in a nation' is not a resolution.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:17 PM

"This Nation within a Nation crap is just a cover for Harper's inability to do anything meaningful."

Once again, may I point out that it was not Harper that raised this issue? It was opened up by Michael Ignatieff and his supporters in the Liberal Party, then the Bloc Quebecois jumped on it. Harper had the choice of either letting the Bloc and/or the Liberals score a great propaganda coup at the expense of the Tories, or of coming up with a way of beating them both at their own game. He chose to do the latter. In the process, although the outcome remains to be seen, he may have successfully steered the country past the latest potential national-unity crisis. I think this is "meaningful", and unfortunately the Bloc and the Liberals made the whole matter a "priority".

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:34 PM

Guest, memyself - I am only pointing out that when politicians and the public become preoccupied with a vague notion, its means we are not paying attention to what really matters.

What really matters is that we maintain an identity as a Nation (as opposed to a U.S. colony) and that Harper stop trying to please Bush and stop co-operating with the U.S. in military matters. This Nation within a Nation crap is just a cover for Harper's inability to do anything meaningful.

Is this really a priority for Canada or for Quebec?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:34 PM

Nation= Canadas N word.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:14 AM

So Quebec should be like a US Indian reservation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:11 AM

All it will take is a TV camera catching some old bigot abusing the fleur-de-lys to turn the whole situation on its head ...

Which sounds like a pretty clear demonstration that the term "nation" is an appropriate one in this case. Because bigotry may inflame people in other situations, but typically it doesn't lead to calls for separatism.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 07:33 AM

Dianavan - Can you explain what this bill has to do with "sucking up to Bush"?

(Speaking of) "throwing a red-herring" - Are you yet another person opining on this matter without having followed the news closely enough or having read the thread closely enough to realize that Harper is responding to both the Bloc Quebecois and to the Liberals (specifically, Michael Ignatieff)? This must be the third time I've pointed this out here.

"He's an idiot. Worse than Blair." That may be, but I don't think this is the matter that shows it. In fact, I think he was pretty slick in this instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:54 PM

Yeah. It's a heavy thing to face, isn't it? LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:49 PM

I'm completely devastated LH.

I've lost respect with a monkey and a reform school flunky. Jeeeesh.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:35 PM

Harper should have been taking care of business instead of sucking up to Bush and throwing a red-herring to our so-called, elected representatives.

We have soldiers in big trouble in Afghanistan.

He's an idiot. Worse than Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:30 PM

The trouble is, Shane and Chongo are already under the impression that they are "history"...in the positive sense, I mean (that they have made history)...not in the sense you mean. They both figure they have achieved the ultimate coolness in their chosen fields of expertise, and I think you know what those fields are. ;-)

1. drinking
2. smoking
3. scoring with good looking women
4. being undeniably cool
5. being "Number One" in their peer group

I think the fact that you are "Number 6"....5 notches down from Number 1, you note...is causing them to lose respect for you.

On the other hand, "Number 2" doesn't sound that good either, does it?

What can we do about this?