Somehow I think it's contrary to human nature to look at history in order to learn from past mistakes. We keep repeating the same mindless, idiotic, nonsensical behaviours over and over again. The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result. I really wish evolution would move the fuck along.Maury Beniowski said:
How do explain Chretien, then? NOBODY could understand him in any language known to man and the little crook from Shawinigan kept getting elected...Maury Beniowski said:
I could speak better french than Harper and I used to get kicked outside during winter during french class. I think what Maury is getting at is the amount of effort put into understanding a people, which Harper clearly lacks. Language is perspective, if you don't understand the language, then you don't understand the people. Chretian understood the meaning of the language, the people knew that, and that's why he was voted in. Harper doesn't have a clue, and doesn't seem to care about properly learning the perspective, so his chances in Quebec are slim. Rightly so.Cock Throppled said:
Discombobbled said:I could speak better french than Harper and I used to get kicked outside during winter during french class. I think what Maury is getting at is the amount of effort put into understanding a people, which Harper clearly lacks. Language is perspective, if you don't understand the language, then you don't understand the people. Chretian understood the meaning of the language, the people knew that, and that's why he was voted in. Harper doesn't have a clue, and doesn't seem to care about properly learning the perspective, so his chances in Quebec are slim. Rightly so.
Credit for "trying" to speak French may earn him points out here, but yields a polite "pass" in Quebec. It's one thing to speak; it's quite another to understand. The first of many things an outsider has to "understand" about Quebec is the phrase, "Je me souviens". Harper is completely at a disadvantage there; and that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's not his fault; it's his ancestors' fault, but he's gotta live with it, and overcome it; a formidable task indeed. His party is made up of individuals who evidently don't understand the basics of the makeup of the Canadian electorate. Quebecers support the Bloc, not because they want to separate, but because he's a French-Canadian, and he's the least worst devil of the two. Martin, being French-Canadian has a slim chance, but they see him as "Dancing with Wolves". Harper's opponent in Quebec, would have to be a very evil person in order for him to stand a chance, and even then, the Quebecer would get half the vote. Quebec is notorious for electing sinister types.festealth said:
one of those stupid double standards. obviously if some leader was running for PM but with a heavy french accent(chretien's accent, no commentMaury Beniowski said:
), and people in english canada dismisses him as a "no-good, backward quebecker, who can't speak english", they will all be branded as: racist, pro-anglophone, "out-of-touch with the mosiac of canada", red-necks, yanks wannabees, and the list goes on. would be the same as western canadian opposed to any party unless it's leader is from west of ontario.festealth said:one of those stupid double standards. obviously if some leader was running for PM but with a heavy french accent(chretien's accent, no comment
I don't think you're getting the point here. Quebecers speak French, which is an entirely different way of perceiving the world and how things in the world work. They have an entirely different perspective than English speakers. You can't simply translate a language and expect the meanings to be the same. Considering the population in Quebec, any Prime Minister needs to understand that perspective.
Your argument means there could never be an English-speaking Prime Minister that could understand Quebec, its needs or people. Actually, I might almost buy that argument since so many things in Quebec defy logic and seem so incessant to me.Discombobbled said:I don't think you're getting the point here. Quebecers speak French, which is an entirely different way of perceiving the world and how things in the world work. They have an entirely different perspective than English speakers. You can't simply translate a language and expect the meanings to be the same. Considering the population in Quebec, any Prime Minister needs to understand that perspective.
Actually, my point doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that any Prime Minister of Canada needs to have a clear understanding of Quebec and the perspective of the people of Quebec.Cock Throppled said:
yes, and I think it also needs to be said that Quebec understands the rest of Canada very, very well.Discombobbled said:Considering the population in Quebec, any Prime Minister needs to understand that perspective.
But your original point was Harper didn't have a chance of understanding Quebec because he didn't speak french properly, thereby implying only a Quebecois could ever truly understand Quebec. But understanding Canada as a whole is impossible as Albertans don't think like Ontarians, BC'ers don't think the same as those in Atlantic Canada and the Metis in Manitoba don't think the same as Francophones, and the Anglophones in Quebec sure as hell don't think the same as separatists in Quebec. Let's face it - Canada, as she stands is ungovernable.Discombobbled said:Actually, my point doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that any Prime Minister of Canada needs to have a clear understanding of Quebec and the perspective of the people of Quebec.
There's a certain irony in all this. Those years that we had to go thru trying to understand Cretien's babbling out here in the west. It's almost worth voting in Harper to put them easterners thru the same shit.Maury Beniowski said:
There is no implication that only a Quebecois could truly understand Quebec. The point is language; different languages have different perspectives. If one doesn't understand the language, one doesn't understand the perception.Cock Throppled said:
I agree with those that say we need a change but am afraid of all the choices so I also choose the devil I know.RDangerfield said:
linkwolverine said:
http://www.ecquologia.it/sito/pag70...d.joined.id=39450&field.joined.singleid=49117
Not exactly an outright endorsement of decriminalization, but when New Zealand voted to decriminalize the sex trade in 2003,
time for people out west to seriously think about creating an official Western party and pull an "USSR" on canada, lol. BC, alberta, sask, and manitoba will be a new country; ontario and quebec will be their own serapate states; merge the atlantics together; declare the northern territories as property of the westCock Throppled said:
