🚀 go-pugleaf

On 11 Oct 1996 16:13:04 GMT,  paul@squall.uucp writes:
>
>In article <53hbhk$ag0@news.istar.ca> Ken&Laura <chaddcon@istar.ca> writes:
>>952390001@news1.vir.com> <pbennett-0110961202440001@47.208.9.182> <fawzi-0210960847440001@news1.vir.com> <3252995C.15FB7483@Icpd.mitel.com> <fawzi-0210962247490001@news1.vir.com> <325541ff.8660841@47.128.136.92> <fawzi-0510961849190001@news1.vir.com> <538hir$4rj@news.istar.ca> <325BE47A.7C09@agora.ulaval.ca>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: ts13-11.hfx.istar.ca
>>Mime-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; I)
>>Xref: news.mcgill.ca qc.general:20633 mtl.general:38751 can.general:109257 can.english:5207 can.francais:22377 can.politics:175017 tor.general:82223 can.atlantic.general:2495 ott.general:19272 bc.general:56017 soc.culture.quebec:56040
>>
>>aah075@agora.ulaval.ca wrote:
>>
>>> > interests of *ALL* Canadians !!
>>> >
>>> > ...Ken just a small thought ...
>>> 
>>> the one who screams the loudest usaually receives the most attention...
>>
>>   This is not a scream but an attempt to place an emphasis on this particular
>>word. It has been my experience that it is generally accepted across the news
>>groups as such
>> 
>>> quebeckers often talk about �a feeling� they have...and it's this feeling that contributes to many
>>> seperatists.
>>
>>   Emotions are often created by those with an agenda.
>>   A good example occured during the referendum, the PQ were being soundly
>>defeated by a simple (and accurate) explanation of the probable economic
>>and political consequences of a YES vote. M Bouchard then stepped into
>>the fray and appea;ed to Quebecers' sense of outrage with an extremely 
>>revisied, distorted and sometimes blatantly false version historical events.
>>This led to an emotional response which shouldn't have been envoked and the
>>full cost of which we still haven't paid. 
>>   If people are going to make a decision on their future and the future of
>>their childern, they should be allowed to do so on the grounds of reality
>>not strong emotion which distorts the situation and may make them do things
>>which they will regret. 
>>   With this M Bouchard showed just how little concern he truly holds for the
>>people of Quebec and how much contempt he has for their right to make a *reasoned* 
>>decision based upon the best facts available !
>>
>>
>>...Ken
>
>For the sake of credibility can't you at least say that most politicians
>do that?  Is federalism a religion for you or what?  Who is
>suppose to have the "best facts available"? Stephane Dion, Jean
>Chretien?  Wake up and stop inventing reasons for the result
>of the referendum.  Reality is much more simple.  There is an
>important number of Quebeckers not satisfied with the present
>political framework.  That's it.  The space which is now
>called Canada has gone trough several major political
>"reworkings"  From Nouvelle France to British Colony to Canada
>to Province du Quebec to Lower Canada back to Province du Quebec...
>What's so terrible with another change?  
>
>Paul Vaillancourt
>

Paul

I've left the string above to provide the full argument and my comment's
relevance:

   So far, anything Quebec has proposed the rest of Canada has rejected.
   The hard fact is that.  The option left?  Those who want to separate can
   do so, but they can't drag along those who don't.  Arrange, negotiate or
   create a split that satisfies both sides and we'll set up the customs 
   houses at once.

Tom Simms