zumpano21 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I heard through the grapevine that a lot of Anglos in Quebec have suddenly put their houses up for sale (esp. the Hudson area). This can only be interpreted as a sign of trouble to come with respect to the separation movement getting reared up and ready to fight once more. Any truth to this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I heard through the grapevine that a lot of Anglos in Quebec have suddenly put their houses up for sale (esp. the Hudson area). This can only be interpreted as a sign of trouble to come with respect to the separation movement getting reared up and ready to fight once more. Any truth to this? :lool: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathieu30 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Maple syrup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 The sovereignist movement is losing ground right now (43% YES, was around 54% at the same date last year), the PQ's free falling and is unlikely to wins the next election (set for this Falls) since Boisclair's leadership is weak and the PQS will eat some of its vote on the left, mostly in Montreal. So there's little credibility to what you heard about something brewing. The only thing I can somehow remotely link to this is that Montreal is having a record year of house sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Québec won't separate as long as Boisclair is leader. He's far too incompent to convince the fence sitters. Québec politics are so depressing We have Charest that accomplished very little of significance during his mandate. Our official opposition is lead by a cokehead with little grasp of the reality of middle class citizens. Then they're is the ADQ who have no program and no personality besides their leader and Québec Solidaire which I find simply .... I'll be as nice as possible.. out of touch with reality, both morally and economically. Thank God we got Harper in Ottawa to give us some leadership. Altough had the Federal Liberals stayed in power and Landry stayed PQ leader, the future of this country's unity would be much more uncertain Man I want Bouchard back.. before being a separatist he's a leader for this province, someone that knows where he's going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chips Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Quebec or shall I say most of the people in the provice of Quebec. Have realized there is more to be gained from staying together and thriving. But acknowledging our differences is one of the fundamental priciple that Canadiens have grown to accept. We are multicultural, those who cannot accept it can get up and move. And maybe after the recent racial issues that surfaced, debate on all topics allong racial differences must be again alive and conversational in Quebec and especially Montreal. But I suspect the recent trend in homes forsale( sold ) is just a sign of the times. The market is peaking and will not climb higher in the near future. Mortgages have started to rise so; these are last minute sellers who are trying to take advantage of a hot market nearing its leveling off period. Or, the sky is falling everyone run! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 The only thing going up for sale at the moment is 24 Sussex. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/03082006/6/n-ca...level-poll.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 (edited) Not with Ignatieff. Dryden is the guy. He's a H-A-B except for the Presidency over the :puke: It's too bad that Dryden can't win. He has the passion. Ignatieff is a dangerous (IMO) choice going against Harper given current conditions. The election won't take place for a while and polls are not reliable right now, so as they might relate to 6 months down the road. In the thick of it, when it matters most I have no faith in Ignatieff. Of course, I could have the whole thing completely wrong and contradicted. Politics eh? Who knows? Edited August 8, 2006 by ATHLÉTIQUE.CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Watch out for Bob Rae. And don't laugh when people say people in Ontario won't vote for him because of what he did as primier in the early 90's. I seem to remember a political party that Canadians swore they would never vote into government? hmm, let me think it starts with an R and ends with an M. Oh wait that party doesn't exist anymore. Yes it does technically. The people who used to run that party called reform are now sitting in the government chairs. Funny how people regret saying things or doing things they shouldn't. Reformers figured out that they couldn't get elected with the word 'reform' so they went to the CRAP party then infiltrated and united the right in the Conservative party after the Progressive Conservative party failed. Funny how life works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I'm not going to delve much into politics here, at least not at three AM, however I will say this: Of all the choices we Canadians (I have SUCH a hard time spelling that without the 'e') had at the last Federal election, the most frustrating thing I felt was that I could not, in good conscience, vote for the best leader/politician/person of the bunch because he's the leader of the Bloq. Gilles Duceppe is a well-spoken, genuine (for a politician), and intelligent politician and person. If he was for any other party in Canada, he would have had my vote. All the other leaders combined aren't half the person he is. Now, if the Liberals could just convince Lloyd Axworthy to come back to politics, Canada would be set for the forseeable future. Canada would finally STAND for something. Not like Paul Martin's invisible leadership or Stephen Harper's wannabe Bush-manship. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/...p-3026695c.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Gilles Duceppe is a well-spoken, genuine (for a politician), and intelligent politician and person. If he was for any other party in Canada, he would have had my vote. All the other leaders combined aren't half the person he is. Duceppe really grew into his politician role. Which makes it all the more ironic that, of all the Federal leaders, the one with the most experience and stature is the one leading the party that was supposed to be "temporary" and that's supposed to stand against Federalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I used to have a good opinion of Duceppe too, but when he realised than the Conservatives would make gain in Québec City he went on a Alberta bashing rampage and that left a very sour taste in my mouth , even tough I'm 0.000% albertan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 (edited) Funny how life works. It certainly is. Reform and the PC's uniting is just history repeating itself. It blows my mind how people of left thinking persuasion think that "Progressive" evolved out of the "Red" Tory side of things. Hence, progressive has now become a left meaning word. WRONG! I blame Paul Martin for that The Progressives were a western protest party back in the 20's and 30's just like Reform was a western protest party in the 90's. The "Progressives" was formed by right wing Social Credit and blue thinking Conservatives. The 2 united due to having a split small c vote. Hence, the PC's were born. Reform is just history repeating itself. As it turns out, they went back to being just Conservative. I give it about 20 to 30 years until they break up again and then merge not too long after. The Liberal version of civil war occurs from time to time too. This latest fued is to be known as "Chretienites versus Martinites". Edited August 9, 2006 by ATHLÉTIQUE.CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I used to have a good opinion of Duceppe too, but when he realised than the Conservatives would make gain in Québec City he went on a Alberta bashing rampage and that left a very sour taste in my mouth , even tough I'm 0.000% albertan Sadly that's what politics has turned into nowadays. Negative poltics: gaining political capital on the back of others rather than by winning logical arguements. Its not always as blatant as the religional crap-flinging that often happens between Quebec and other provinces, but the under-currents are always the same. Whenever you see or hear politicians on TV or on the radio, just look how much of their discourse is spent on trying to sink the other side rather than explain and validate their own views in a reasonable, logical fashion. Most of the time, the only "logical" arguements they'll use is to throw a bunch of stats that are usually meaningless when taken out of context. That's the sad part about democracy. Its aimed at the LCD (lowest common denominator) and LCD is an usually an easily-impressed, no-time-to-think, sucker for one-liners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 So true KoZed. Or down here its basically a two party system so only the selected few have a voice. Thats why more people vote for American Idol then they do the president. How sad. Down here in Missouri there are two Missouri's. One is said Missour -eeee and the other is Mizzer- aah. When politicans talk about the missour-eee they are talking about St. Louis, Kansas City and Columbia MO. But when they go below the mason dixon line its all about Mizzer-ah. Mizzer-ah is the rural areas while Missour-eee is the sane areas. Most of Missouri's politicans come from Mizzer-ah. Its a dictatorship. Roy Blunt for example runs on family values yet divorces his wife of 30 some years for a 30 something tobacco lobbiest. And his son is now the Gov. of Missouri, at his inguaration 5 year olds were given and I quote "Kill all the liberals" t-shirts. (I'm not making this up). Then he took 20,000 mentally handicapped people of medicare basically throwing them to the curb. He's got approval ratings in the low 20's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Most of Missouri's politicans come from Mizzer-ah. Its a dictatorship. Roy Blunt for example runs on family values yet divorces his wife of 30 some years for a 30 something tobacco lobbiest. Check the facts, you are wrong about most politicians coming from "Mizzer-ah." 7 of the states representatives in the House and Senate are from cities that you list in "Mizzer-ee." 2 others are from cities in the northern portion of the state. That leaves just 3 from the so-called Mizzer-ah. As for Blunt, I don't know anything about the situation, but getting a divorce and re-marrying doesn't exactly go against family values. Getting a divorce doesn't make you a bad person. Granted, if he was seeing the lobbiest before the divorce, that's obviously a whole other story. I looked around a little, and couldn't find anything about an affair before the divorce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Of course fanpuck they're will be people for the urban areas and in the United States we have districts therefore some politicians will come from the non urban areas, duh. The Senators though on the other hand don't care about the city areas there interests lie in the southern part of the state. Jim Talent for example comes from the Suburbs of st. louis county but doesn't share the views of his consituents (I was in his congressional district). Kit Bond - Springfield Mo John Ashcroft- Springfield Mo Roy Blunt - Springfield Mo Govenors of Missouri Matt Blunt - Springfield Mo Bob Holden - born in KC grew up in the Ozarks Mel Carnahan - grew up near Branson which is in the Ozarks John Ashcroft - born in Chicago grew up in Springfield MO Kit Bond - born in St. Louis grew up in Mexico Mo which is in the southern part of the state Warren E. Hearnes - born in Central rural Missouri John M. Dalton - born and grew up in the southwestern part of the state Those are all the govenors from the 1960's on The senators: Current: Kit Bond Jim Talent previous: Jean Carnahan (for her Late husband Mel) John Ashcroft Last decent senator that the state ever had that cared about the majority of the people instead of a select few was Thomas Eagleton who retired from the Senate in '87, Bond took his seat. The last decent republican senator was Rev. John Danforth. He retired back in the early 90's seat was taken by Ashcroft, then Carnahan, then Talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 And Pierre does the same thing than Duceppe does, instead of putting two provinces against each other tough, he put 2 areas of the same state against one another His message basically Rural Missouri = bad Urban Missouri = good In the same way than Ducepep want us to think than Québec = good Alberta = bad I hate such attitudes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 And Pierre does the same thing than Duceppe does, instead of putting two provinces against each other tough, he put 2 areas of the same state against one another His message basically Rural Missouri = bad Urban Missouri = good In the same way than Ducepep want us to think than Québec = good Alberta = bad I hate such attitudes No Jean you've got it the other way around the rural part of missouri hates the cities. If I make it sound like I hate rural missouri I don't I have relatives in rural areas. What you don't know is that the rural areas think that the cities are out to get them. Its always been this way. So they've taken the Duceppe route I've just given up because this has been going on since the formation of Missouri. It gets old and juvenile. The problem with the rural areas is that they "don't get out much". They live a sheltered isolated life in the hills of the ozarks. They don't see reality, in fact they are the ones being taken advantage of and I feel sorry for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 In the same way than Ducepep want us to think than Québec = good Alberta = bad I hate such attitudes Well, the Bloc is only running in Québec. If ragging on Alberta can get them a couple more votes, they've got nothing to lose. They're not representing Alberta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zumpano21 Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 Hmmmm...... I raise a question concerning the Hudson area of Quebec and what do I get?....... rural Missouri. Habsworld, I salute you! :king: :king: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Hmmmm...... I raise a question concerning the Hudson area of Quebec and what do I get?....... rural Missouri. Habsworld, I salute you! :king: :king: That's to be expected when talking politics with people comong from all over the world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Hmmmm...... I raise a question concerning the Hudson area of Quebec and what do I get?....... rural Missouri. Habsworld, I salute you! :king: :king: Yeah... now I know more about rural Missouri than the Hudson area. Where's the Hudson area anyway? Around Montreal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I *think* the Hudson area is what's in beetween the west end of the Montréal Island and the ontarian border 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.