CanPol: *****-umen Showdown

[Flubber]

2011 populations

33,476,688 Canada
7,903,001 Quebec
12,851,821 Ontario

If Quebec secedes Ontario's portion of the population goes from 38.x to 50.x percent.

The electoral math for smaller regions barely works now, it is FUBAR without Quebec.

Again .. I know the electoral math as I said in my prior post... so so responding and listing the populations does nor address at all what I said. Atlantic Canada has traditionally been quite divided between traditionally two and more recently the parties. Ontario was quite divided in the last election. ... So the liklihood of a government needing significant seats is the west to become the government has increased.

In the Pre bloc days,it was quite normal for the liberals to claim 60 seats in Quebec, and with Ontario and Atlantic Canada then have a majority coming out of Ontario. In a Quebec less Canada, someone would have to essentially sweep Ontario to be in the same position and I actually see Ontario as being harder to sweep.

[Asher]

Flubber is bringing to the table another Canadian fantasy: that Quebec doesn't know or understand that separation is risky.

This is not a fantasy.

Anyone who thinks separating is viable or beneficial for Quebec in any meaningful way is intellectually bankrupt.

[Aeson]

Yes, my friend Zach who passed away earlier this year was native american and lived on a reservation for a time. And I don't have any prejudice against indians, so piss off.

You really do sound like you have a prejudice against Native Americans.

The reality is most of those who live on reservations still do so to maintain their cultural traditions. The main one being they have a spiritual connection to the land. They would be better off in just about every economic way (aside from land stewardship) by leaving ... even those who would be on welfare in either case. This is because the (non-casino) reservations have relatively poor infrastructure and the land is generally marginal at best (the whole point of reservations being created). For instance, the reservation where my parents go regularly to help the residents improve their gardens (which are significant contributors to their diet), they have to truck in all their water.

They aren't choosing to live in such a situation to coast off of government handouts. People don't think to themselves, gee... I want to live off government handouts so I'll go to where government doesn't provide the basic benefits that most Americans take for granted and ignore the opportunity to live better off government handouts elsewhere.

[regexcellent]

For many Native American tribes, and especially among the Alaskan natives, if they weren't getting subsidies in some form or another their communities would cease to exist and they would integrate into normal society like ordinary Americans. Self sufficient reservations generally take advantage of jurisdiction wherein they legalize certain industries (e.g. gambling) that are illegal in the surrounding area.

Alaskan native villages are in particular a problem. It is nearly impossible to provide basic law enforcement, let alone public safety, education, medical services, and so on. The only contact many villages have with the outside is through very unreliable satellite telecommunications and the weekly mail plane, the latter of which is paid for by Uncle Sam. Due to the number of remote settlements the Alaska State Troopers are pretty much paramilitary by necessity. Maintaining heavily trained and equipped State police and State services for localities is inordinately expensive and the service remains inadequate.

As for Indian Reservations, I find it ridiculous that these people have not just integrated into ordinary American cities by now. Poverty and alcoholism are rampant, as is government dependency. It's not a sustainable system without government money.

[giblets]

This is not a fantasy.

Anyone who thinks separating is viable or beneficial for Quebec in any meaningful way is intellectually bankrupt.

What does "intellectually bankrupt" even mean? Is it just a another term for "stupid"? Why can't you just call Quebeckers "exceptional individuals"?

[Hauldren Collider]

You really do sound like you have a prejudice against Native Americans.

The reality is most of those who live on reservations still do so to maintain their cultural traditions. The main one being they have a spiritual connection to the land. They would be better off in just about every economic way (aside from land stewardship) by leaving ... even those who would be on welfare in either case. This is because the (non-casino) reservations have relatively poor infrastructure and the land is generally marginal at best (the whole point of reservations being created). For instance, the reservation where my parents go regularly to help the residents improve their gardens (which are significant contributors to their diet), they have to truck in all their water.

They aren't choosing to live in such a situation to coast off of government handouts. People don't think to themselves, gee... I want to live off government handouts so I'll go to where government doesn't provide the basic benefits that most Americans take for granted and ignore the opportunity to live better off government handouts elsewhere.

The reality is exactly how reg described it. Many are simply unable to leave--the benefits from the government are enough to keep them alive, but not enough for them to accumulate enough wealth to actually move. They're stuck in the ultimate form of dependency. In most, though not all, reservations, land use is managed by the tribal government, resulting in this bizarre form of communist land management where no one actually has any incentive to maintain whatever marginal use of the land is possible because they don't own it and it can be taken away by corrupt tribal governments on a whim.

And no, for the last time, I don't have any prejudice against native americans you ****ing douchebag.

PS: This is based on what my late friend told me about life on a reservation

[Asher]

What does "intellectually bankrupt" even mean? Is it just a another term for "stupid"?

It's not that hard, is it?

What does intellectual mean? What does bankrupt mean?

What would it mean to bankrupt in terms of being intellectual?

[giblets]

It's not that hard, is it?

What does intellectual mean? What does bankrupt mean?

What would it mean to bankrupt in terms of being intellectual?

Bankrupt. Yes. Because intelligence is something you can run out of. Like money.

[Asher]

Bankrupt doesn't mean "run out of money", it means you're unable to pay outstanding debts.

Think about it.

[notyoueither]

the west lothian question was an issue in the last parliament and hopefully once the referendum on scottish independence is out of the way, will be resolved.

And if they don't vote to go, how will it be resolved?

I'm pretty sure the people of Ontario would not accept the beginning of such a system, let alone wait for 'them' to vote to leave to end it.

[notyoueither]

Flubber is bringing to the table another Canadian fantasy: that Quebec doesn't know or understand that separation is risky.

No. He's saying Quebec won't want to pay for the reality. Good-bye state day-care, or hello massive tax increases. Quebec will not have money from Ontario and the rest of Canada to pay the bills any longer.

They also will lose the massive Canadian subsidies to some industries, like aerospace.

[notyoueither]

Short answer: Separatists feel like Quebec should never have been part of Canada, period. Moderate Canadians like NYE recognize that the Québécois used to be second-class citizens, but adopt a very classical liberal approach to the solution. Now that individual rights are equal, so they say, there is no reason for Quebec to leave, (thus brushing aside communitarian aspirations).

I never said that. I am fully aware that the psychological reasons for seperation are a real issue.

I am saying they get played on to get benefits.

[notyoueither]

Again .. I know the electoral math as I said in my prior post... so so responding and listing the populations does nor address at all what I said. Atlantic Canada has traditionally been quite divided between traditionally two and more recently the parties. Ontario was quite divided in the last election. ... So the liklihood of a government needing significant seats is the west to become the government has increased.

In the Pre bloc days,it was quite normal for the liberals to claim 60 seats in Quebec, and with Ontario and Atlantic Canada then have a majority coming out of Ontario. In a Quebec less Canada, someone would have to essentially sweep Ontario to be in the same position and I actually see Ontario as being harder to sweep.

I don't. Give 51% the ability to screw everyone else over, and consider it done. Examine the economic history of Canada, and take a close look at the trajectory of the Atlantic provinces after Confederation. Policy was set to suit Ontario and Quebec. Nova Scotia got screwed.

I recognise that Ontario is a large place, and people vote differently by sub-regions, but by and large the population centres go to whomever strikes the fancy of 'the people of Ontario.'

The largest problem to begin with will be the perception that nobody else matters other than 'Ontario' as a monolith. People born in AB and BC will chafe, big time, at the prospect. It will not have to be borne out by reality to be a very large issue.

[Aeson]

Many are simply unable to leave--the benefits from the government are enough to keep them alive, but not enough for them to accumulate enough wealth to actually move.

Some may be stuck there. That's hardly what you were driving at though by claiming they hold their government bacon most sacred. Most are not stuck there, but are making a choice to be there. For example, if you can truck water to your land, you could truck yourself to a job (whether inside or outside the reservation). And it would probably be less work than trying to eek out a living off of marginal land.

You just want to pretend that everyone on reservations is some sort of leech on society (whether by choice or necessity) and ignore that there are self-sufficient people and communities, as well as cultural/spiritual reasons why these people choose to live a different lifestyle, in addition to possible economic ones. You do this so you can just paint them all with the same negative stereotype you seem to hold so dear.

They're stuck in the ultimate form of dependency.

Most I know, most of the people my parents work with, make some or all of their living off the land. They do so without the same support that most Americans take for granted. (For various reasons.) Many have jobs of one sort or another (on or off the reservation). That's why your stereotype of being a bunch of bums looking for handouts is so absurd. They're actually hard working, honest people, who are benefiting less from government projects than most Americans for the most part.

But they get to keep their culture, their traditions ... their government ... so they choose to be there.

In most, though not all, reservations, land use is managed by the tribal government, resulting in this bizarre form of communist land management where no one actually has any incentive to maintain whatever marginal use of the land is possible because they don't own it and it can be taken away by corrupt tribal governments on a whim.

Yes, they have their own form of governments, which amazingly enough are the governments they've chosen as communities.

As for no incentive, that is where you clearly have no understanding of many of these Native American cultures. Like I said, my parents go several times a year to help families on reservations in Arizona learn how to improve their gardening. (Water is too limited on these specific reservations for large scale farming.) They actually take very good care of these gardens and get tremendous yields. They are not lacking incentive to take care of the land. Taking care of the land is actually integral to many of these communities' belief systems.

And no, for the last time, I don't have any prejudice against native americans you ****ing douchebag.

Yes, you do seem to harbor prejudice against them. You can't bring yourself to come out and admit that they may hold something more dear than government handouts. You're the douchebag promoting an ignorant negative stereotype about many different (and in various ways divergent) communities.

[Aeson]

Many are simply unable to leave--the benefits from the government are enough to keep them alive, but not enough for them to accumulate enough wealth to actually move.

Some may be stuck there. That's hardly what you were driving at though by claiming they hold their government bacon most sacred. Most are not stuck there, but are making a choice to be there. For example, if you can truck water to your land, you could truck yourself to a job (whether inside or outside the reservation). And it would probably be less work than trying to eek out a living off of marginal land.

You just want to pretend that everyone on reservations is some sort of leech on society (whether by choice or necessity) and ignore that there are self-sufficient people and communities, as well as cultural/spiritual reasons why these people choose to live a different lifestyle, in addition to possible economic ones. You do this so you can just paint them all with the same negative stereotype you seem to hold so dear.

They're stuck in the ultimate form of dependency.

Most I know, most of the people my parents work with, make some or all of their living off the land. They do so without the same support that most Americans take for granted. (For various reasons.) Many have jobs of one sort or another (on or off the reservation). That's why your stereotype of being a bunch of bums looking for handouts is so absurd. They're actually hard working, honest people, who are benefiting less from government projects than most Americans for the most part.

But they get to keep their culture, their traditions ... their government ... so they choose to be there.

In most, though not all, reservations, land use is managed by the tribal government, resulting in this bizarre form of communist land management where no one actually has any incentive to maintain whatever marginal use of the land is possible because they don't own it and it can be taken away by corrupt tribal governments on a whim.

Yes, they have their own form of governments, which amazingly enough are the governments they've chosen as communities.

As for no incentive, that is where you clearly have no understanding of many of these Native American cultures. Like I said, my parents go several times a year to help families on reservations in Arizona learn how to improve their gardening. (Water is too limited on these specific reservations for large scale farming.) They actually take very good care of these gardens and get tremendous yields. They are not lacking incentive to take care of the land. Taking care of the land is actually integral to many of these communities' belief systems.

And no, for the last time, I don't have any prejudice against native americans you ****ing douchebag.

Yes, you do seem to harbor prejudice against them. You can't bring yourself to come out and admit that they may hold something more dear than government handouts. You're the douchebag promoting an ignorant negative stereotype about many different (and in various ways divergent) communities.