DominO123 Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Really angry the so-called ADQ had so much votes. They're simply vote suckers, worthless beside that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurocentric Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Really angry the so-called ADQ had so much votes. They're simply vote suckers, worthless beside that. Most people voted for them simply because they did not want to vote for the liberals or the pq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK-47 Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 (edited) Most people voted for them simply because they did not want to vote for the liberals or the pq. lol yeah, especially the quebecois in the gyughs up north of montreal. it's gonna take the pq a long time to recover, it was their worst loss since 1970. I was watching yesterday from time-to-time and the pq headquarters were dead silent, they were cheering for just about anything... Mario Dumont's clique was having the time of their lives. Go Liberals! Edited March 27, 2007 by AK-47 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 What choice do people have? This was the worst slate of representatives/campaign platforms I have ever witnessed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 What choice do people have? This was the worst slate of representatives/campaign platforms I have ever witnessed. Eveything beside ADQ, they're more fake than any parties, more than the "yes for weeds" or some insignificancies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Most people voted for them simply because they did not want to vote for the liberals or the pq. Yeh, but there are other parties out there to vote for. The ADQ is a worthless blood sucker party, which has nothing serious to offer, all its supposed possible party lines are so embarassing that they prefer to not even expose them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurocentric Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Yeh, but there are other parties out there to vote for. The ADQ is a worthless blood sucker party, which has nothing serious to offer, all its supposed possible party lines are so embarassing that they prefer to not even expose them. Give them a chance, they don't have any famous names in their party but it could be a good thing. All I know is that they're supposed to be autonomists and fiscal conservatives. They also seem to have the hardest line on the "reasonable accomodation" bull kaka. What other alternatives where there? The marxist-leninists and the green party with their tediously monotonous idealism? Québec solidaire? A an even more leftist version of the PQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 ADQ vote was a protest vote for the two main parties it's like killing two birds with one stone. You guys are lucky that ADQ did not win a majority, the way Bob Rae (NDP) won while back in Ontario and ruined everything. Even the leader of ADQ is happy that he did not win the minority, because it would have been a circus of a government. Next election will be very interesting. If PQ wants to win next election they should soften up the seperation issue otherwise Liberals will come back to power with majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurocentric Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 ADQ vote was a protest vote for the two main parties it's like killing two birds with one stone. You guys are lucky that ADQ did not win a majority, the way Bob Rae (NDP) won while back in Ontario and ruined everything. Even the leader of ADQ is happy that he did not win the minority, because it would have been a circus of a government. Next election will be very interesting. If PQ wants to win next election they should soften up the seperation issue otherwise Liberals will come back to power with majority. You're assuming the ADQ will fail before next election... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 You're assuming the ADQ will fail before next election... Yes it's a one time showing, it's a party of little bit of everything. How do I know? I don't, time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK-47 Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Separatism is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Dumont himself used to be a separatist and admitted to voting "yes" in the 1995 referendum but even he's changed now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Yes it's a one time showing, it's a party of little bit of everything. How do I know? I don't, time will tell. Exactly, Euro, that was my point. There is so much party lines, which contradict eachotherothers, and presenting them all would be an embarassement. I do want to give them a chance, but I don't believe in the capacity of their leader and many of the "high" figures of the party. Giving them a chance does not mean to leave them screw Quebec. When I said there was alternatives, I meant protestation alternatives, ADQ should not be considered as a protestation alternatives when people knew the polls and still undangered Quebec by voting irresponsably like this when such an extrem protestation could have led the ADQ to come to power. Imagine what would have happened, argh, I just don't want to think of that. I agree about the accomodation stuff, but it really does not worth screwing everything by electing a party which for sure is not prepared to govern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Separatism is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Dumont himself used to be a separatist and admitted to voting "yes" in the 1995 referendum but even he's changed now. Dumont has no position to settle, he will only say what is popular. It was hot in 1995 to vote yes! As for liberation (you call it separation), as long as the Canadian constitution is not signed by Quebec, the battle for independence is on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK-47 Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Dumont has no position to settle, he will only say what is popular. It was hot in 1995 to vote yes! As for liberation (you call it separation), as long as the Canadian constitution is not signed by Quebec, the battle for independence is on. LOL separatist Domino? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 LOL separatist Domino? I am not a hypocrite, independence for Artsakh, independence for Northern Cyprus, for Quebec, and any nations which want to assume themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK-47 Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Actually i've thought about that too but I don't see Artsakh an "independent" state, I see it as a re-unification w/ Armenia. Independence is just there for the sake of Armenia not getting into shit w/ the world. And for Cyrus' case, no support because of the double standards by Turkey who invade a country to set an independence of N. Cyprus yet close their borders w/ us for a very similar case in Artsakh. Blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Separation has become a bit of a non-issue simply because of economics. When the economy is doing well, there is less impetus for the population to seek independence. Just wait.... once the economy slows down, interest rates get hiked and jobless rates increase, you'll see that separation is alive and well. Hard-line nationalists and soft-nationals alike can't resist the lure of economic "good-times".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Dumont has no position to settle, he will only say what is popular. It was hot in 1995 to vote yes! Yeah, what a double-faced person... Oh well, at least the Liberals are still in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Actually i've thought about that too but I don't see Artsakh an "independent" state, I see it as a re-unification w/ Armenia. Independence is just there for the sake of Armenia not getting into shit w/ the world. And for Cyrus' case, no support because of the double standards by Turkey who invade a country to set an independence of N. Cyprus yet close their borders w/ us for a very similar case in Artsakh. Blah. AK, the mistake was on Turkey's part not the population, but I agree it is a more difficult cases as Northern Cyprus majority is crafted while even if Azeri refugees return, Armenians will still be a majority. My position on independence is the one of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the decision of independence should be based on the liberty of the collectivity and not individual liberty. I agree with Rousseau and for this reason can not oppose Quebec's independence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Oh well, at least the Liberals are still in power. Is this a good thing? It's perhaps the least evil... (sigh) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armenak Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Shouldn't it be up to the French-Canadians (Quebecois) to ultimately decide whether to separate, rather than Arab, Armenian, Greek, Haitian, Pakistani, Romanian and Vietnamese immigrants? Aren't the majority of the French Quebecers separatists? The only thing that is keeping them from separating are the Anglo-Quebecers and immigrants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Shouldn't it be up to the French-Canadians (Quebecois) to ultimately decide whether to separate, rather than Arab, Armenian, Greek, Haitian, Pakistani, Romanian and Vietnamese immigrants? Aren't the majority of the French Quebecers separatists? The only thing that is keeping them from separating are the Anglo-Quebecers and immigrants. Are you saying that the vote of a french Canadian should count more than the others that you mention in a democracy? If yes how many should it count? two, three or ten. While at it why don't we forbid those others from getting elected into office. You see this kind of thinking doesn't work in a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK-47 Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Shouldn't it be up to the French-Canadians (Quebecois) to ultimately decide whether to separate, rather than Arab, Armenian, Greek, Haitian, Pakistani, Romanian and Vietnamese immigrants? Aren't the majority of the French Quebecers separatists? The only thing that is keeping them from separating are the Anglo-Quebecers and immigrants. Yeah but to be politically correct, we all count as "Quebecois" as well, not allowing to let us vote would be a big political scandal. The hub of the support is outside of Montreal and I think Quebec City where immigrant-Quebecois are kinda scarce. It's true that the majority of the supporters are of French (or Quebecois) descent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 Shouldn't it be up to the French-Canadians (Quebecois) to ultimately decide whether to separate, rather than Arab, Armenian, Greek, Haitian, Pakistani, Romanian and Vietnamese immigrants? Aren't the majority of the French Quebecers separatists? The only thing that is keeping them from separating are the Anglo-Quebecers and immigrants. No, it should be up to everyone. But the decision should be taken on the name of the collectivity and not some selfish reason, like an ethnic group voting no for its own selfish reasons. My wanting for independence has little to do with Quebecs culture or language, it has to do with the existance of that culture or language and the preservation of this difference. Rousseau has it right, the PQ has very strong arguments in his philosophy to convince a lot of people but they just don't seem to know the existance of that material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) And having a gay drug addict as a leader doesn't help either (for their cause). Edited March 28, 2007 by Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.