Why the Quebec should be a country. Do you agree?

says who? USA' studies?
When everywhere in the world we say that USA in close to a dictatorship?
Of course, yeah

 

Don't want to insult anyone here, but most of what I see is Anglo-Saxons trying to look like they are good and trying to make the French look bad. The argumentation used is fallacious at best. Lot of bad faith.

 

But anyway, this is not about the consequences on a possible separation.
Its about if YES or NO you think Quebec should become a country.
So stop with the propaganda, just state your opinion

 

So people, moderators, everyone, as the original poster, can I bring back the thread on his topic? Just a simple question:
"Should the Quebec because a country (yes or no) and why (in your opinion)?" No need to talk about USA, Canada's possible reaction, or anything. Just a simple answer

 

all I was saying is that anglo-saxon argumentation was used
but of course, rather than see the point, that a WHOLE PROVINCE, a whole people, a nation, is being exploited, you decide to pick on THAT

 

xD
I just give up. I quit. You win. Happy, now?

 

Also, just for your information, since we are out of topic again: People in England having Norman ancestry is about 9%.

 

Now, back to the TOPIC.
Should Quebec become a country. Just YES or No and why you think so.
Nothing more.

 

at least, its clear
and I still love ya, don't worry

 

What are free countries? According to whose definition?

I have heard exactly the same kind of arguing about 30 years ago. "We have to stop them...." - "We have to make them recognize by force...." - "They have to be made to stop action..." - "We do leave and you will not have any power over us any more!" resulting in civil war, many thousands dead, sometimes thousands up to over ten thousand shot in a day and thrown into ditches ... my heart goes freezing cold reading this. Absolutely shocking. No matter who "wins" in the end, this kind of action always ends up with two loosers.

----------

Definiton of the Term "Anglo-Saxon"

There were some obscure use of terminus tecnicus "Anglo-Saxion", that I have brought into the discussion: Anglo-Saxon-Economics or -Area refers to the need of differing between economic "bubbles". We have a bubble mainly represented by the USA and many countries associated to the Common Wealth (Anglo-Saxon, sticking mainly to a strict capitalistic economy). In contrast there ist Scocial Marketing. Most of the Western and Central European countries,(except Great Britain) have developed special rules of interaction between a state and the economics to diminish the hard social side effects of the raw capitalism, the called Social marketing. Furthermore in Europe has been the Socialistic economy, that meanwhile failed and turned into a Predator-capitalistic system (Predator Merchantinism), where the best, tricky, most nefarious and anscrupulous, actor is held for the best capitalistic leading option (Oligarch). Many of the Central Eastern European countries have managed with varied difficulties to convert this Predator Mechtantinism into Social marketing, most of them meanwhile being integrated into the EU. There are other bubbles (e.g. Central Asian economy, South Eastern Asinan Economy), many of them can not eben be sufficiently decribed in economic theory or systematics, that we have developed in the Western World. All these economic bubbles of course are in reference to their individually defined social structures, which interaction and influx in both ways.

"Anglo-Saxon" therefore is a description of the kind like one would use the name of a religion; Anglo-Saxon-Economics describes the belief in a certain order of social, economic and statal structured ruling, in fact beliefing, interpreting and representing things quite the same way any religion would be accounted to. (Of course this accounts to any other economic bubble, including mine *smile*.)

Just like in a religion, generally it is totally irrelevant what ethnicity somebody inherits, when defending ones individual belief. In this definition, just like religious stubborn ignorance, economic stubborn ignorance, does not dissolve by inheriting a special ethnicity. Just the mere idea of trying to refer to that ethnicity in this way in this kind of context is absolutely ridicoulos.

Somewhere I tryed to describe, that a term like "freedom" (just like many others) may be accounted entirely different to and even saying the same sentecne, the meaning of it might be contradictive, on the various sides/views. Mila obviously has understood, this systematics. She argues on the side of the Quebecians, just in a way like a suppressed religious minority would be argueing being oppressed by a vast religious majority on the other side (if I may stay in the metaphor, I chose before), and therefore als non "Anglo-Saxian". Using this terminus "Anglo-Saxon", she puts her outside of its definiton, at least of the resulting social consequences, what is in total coherence of what and how she argued before from the beginning.

To get back to Milas question:

No, I hold such a step as potentially catastrophic. The (maybe subborn) majority is in absolute responibility of taking account of the Quebecians situation and taking relevant action to make them feel integrated and accepted on "eye-level".

(Interpretation: This conclusion is not Anglo-Saxon, since there it would generally state "the winner (majority) takes it all", mostly totally unaware of the consequences in responsibility and care, being in leadership. It is a typical way of seeing things within the Social-Marketing-bubble, that is, in this case, much closer to Milas (Quebecian) than everybody elses point of view. Why it is still "No", I have tried to explain in older postings.)

 

(It takes me way over an hour to write a post like the one above - therfore I have not read the recent postings before sending my own post. )

You have made the point, pussycat. I would not name it New American Reich, but of course, the USA in many ways act, want to be and purposely define themself in their red line of action (it has abruptly changed after 9/11) as the "world police department", with all its implications of disadvantages and advantages. We do not have to argue on that, good or bad, things can always be improved. But just thinking in the lower ranks, this means anything is shiny and this given fact is the proof of having done everything the best way possible in any respect so far, would be self betraying, hypocritical and unreflected.