[samuel]

They should also monitor political activism in old age homes and kindergartens. After Gomery, people can no longer turn a blind eye to the fear mongering misdeads of federalist extremists.

[Marcarc]

'Fear mongering' to some may be just common sense to another. In a global economy there are very justifiable reasons for 'fear', take a look at Argentina to see the ramifications of international financial regress, and they had a stable government.

[Dr Caleb]

I should imagine that Landry would fear people being educated about the facts. That could only lead to informed decisions, and informed voters are the most dangerous kind. <br /> <br /> Voters incited and riled up by hate and fear are far more easy to predict and control. As soon as they get the facts, they realize the truth, and 'the party' is no longer their friend.<br /> <br /> <br />

[samuel]

Just like stealing tax payer money, scaring grandmas and kids with threats of war is not information, it's unjustified fear mongering that has no virtue in any country. Or is it that federalists have no morals when it comes to setting their agenda?

[Marcarc]

There is a distinction there, I have no doubts about the morality of the federal government. There also are big mouth people on blogs, and of course the people in the press are often idiots.<br /> <br /> That doesn't represent canada though, as I said before, those who went to the pre-referendum 'love in' genuinely love the country and want it to work. No doubt such people would likely support Quebec however it could, but bad mouthing from both sides doesn't help and of course in Canada there is nothing we can do. <br /> <br /> When I talk about fear mongering I'm certainly not talking about war, and no reasonable person has, at least to my knowledge-even wingnuts like Diane Francis. However, I have no doubt that separatist parties would take outragious comments from retarded canadians just as the reverse is true and try to play them as 'the common view'. This is serious business though and nobody should take it lightly. After the referendum Chretien made three fairly serious concessions to Quebec, I sometimes wonder how much those are discussed in Quebec. There's no doubt that there are hard line separatists that simply want their own country no matter what Canada does, that's their right, but that still is not a majority, and even those who vote for separation will not have all the same reasons for doing so.<br /> <br /> I have heard about immigration here, and that's a valid point when (and if?) Quebec can't go to french speaking countries and do their own immigration. I know that most other provinces have their own immigration programs, so I don't see why Quebec would be different. In short, I'm still not sure what the specifics are about Quebec sovereignty. If the answer is simply 'we are different and want our own country', that's fine, but the majority don't feel that way. Perhaps the REAL complaints in Quebec are EXACTLY the same as the rest of canadians have in regards to the federal government, something which no doubt separatists wouldn't want advertised. The poor, the natives, the underemployed, under-paid, environmentalists, unionists, may have far more in common with other canadians than the others.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Samuel]Or is it that federalists have no morals when it comes to setting their agenda?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I think your error is in equating corrupt politicians to federalists. The two can be mutually inclusive and mutually exclusive. There can be, and are, corrupt serparatists, as well as honest federalists.<br />

[samuel]

Not at all DC, my comments arise from your (and others) being apologetic (not apologising) for what happened during the last referendum. Including attempts at downplaying criminal activity as being somewhat acceptable given the agenda of national unity. Don't even think of denying it, I can find plenty of quotes.<br /> <br /> Marcarc, prior to the last referendum, federalists became the subjects of an investigation for visiting old age homes instilling fear of war. This is just one example of a great many travesties that occured, you really had to live through it to understand.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] Not at all DC, my comments arise from your (and others) being apologetic (not apologising) for what happened during the last referendum.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Here's one for you: "The good guys won!" <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'><br /> <br /> I thought your comments might be on the topic of this thread for once, hence the current Gomery inquiry testimony and it's outing of the PQ's corrupt individuals, sorry for my mistake.<br />

[samuel]

Yup and we all know where the "good fellas" that win usually end up, don't we <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] Yup and we all know where the "good fellas" usually end up, don't we <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Yup. I saw that movie too. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> A good relation to the PQ.<br /> <br /> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099685/<br /> <br />

[samuel]

Two can play at the editing posts game (see my edited previous post), loser.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] Two can play at the editing posts game (see my edited previous post), loser.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Excuse me?<br />

[samuel]

Your editing your previous posts to make mine irrelevant afterwards is just a show of the sour grapes loser you are.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] Your editing your previous posts to make mine irrelevant afterwards is just a show of the sour grapes loser you are.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I see no changes in any of your previous posts. I don't usually change any of my posts after the fact, unless I see spelling or grammatical errors.<br /> <br /> Speaking of sour grapes . . .<br />

[samuel]

And what's this "A good relation to the PQ". Are you also a liar?