nd
Posted by neilmckentyweblog2 on July 3, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Leave a comment | Trackback URI
DO CANADIANS HAVE A REASON TO CELEBRATE INDEPENDENCE DAY?
nd
16 Comments
RSS Feed for this entry
Neilmckentyweblog2’s Weblog
Just another WordPress.com weblog
RSS Feed for this entry
-
Recent Comments
Barbara on WHO SHOULD BE THE NEWSMAKER OF… jim on WHO SHOULD BE THE NEWSMAKER OF… Cornelius T.Zen on WHO SHOULD BE THE NEWSMAKER OF… neilmckentyweblog2 on WHO SHOULD BE THE NEWSMAKER OF… SUZANNE on WHO SHOULD BE THE NEWSMAKER OF…
To honor our American immigrants just as we celebrate St-Patrick’s Day, Robbie Burns Day (Scotland), St-David (Wales), the 14th of July (France), St-George (England), the Tet (Asia), etc. Not doing so would be kind of discriminating against the Americans, don’t you think?
We do mention Muslim holidays and make accommodation for them as for Jewish High Holidays, we have lately introduced a Black Holiday, I forget the name, in Christmas time, so why not the 4Th of July?
Kwanzaa is the name you’re looking for, Paul. And you make most excellent points!
I have a flag that is half American and half Canadian. Yes, I celebrate the Fourth. And Cinco de Mayo. And Guy Fawkes’.
I celebrate everything that is cultural in nature, in fact…the food, the music, the dance, the costumes. All of them. The more, the merrier!
Hero worship is not very attractive, Neil.
I have been accused of “hatred” on this forum for simply playing the role of Loyal Opposition to all things Obama. When I asked those who accused me to come up with anything I had ever written that could suggest such a thing, they were not able to.
Opposition even if it’s just for the sake of opposing and giving the other side of an argument is a healthy thing in a democracy. Blind devotion to a leader isn’t.
It’s ugly. And it can be quite harmful.
It also insults those who live in totalitarian regimes, such as Cuba or North Korea, who would like to oppose their leaders but can’t upon penalty of death or imprisonment. Blind devotion does the same job without the chocolatey mess.
Tony, I havenever seen any of your remarks that could be categorized as “hatred” although you feeling towards French-Canadians may leave something to be desired.
Let’s not confuse disagreement and arguing with hatred. That is a very slippery road.
Tony’s last post reminded me of a story. The day after an election that saw the incumbent governement soundly trounced, the neighbour of an Irish farmer told is friend, a vehement critic of the outgoing government, “Paddy you must be happy. The government was voted out of office”. Paddy replied:” I don’t give a damn I’m against the government”. Could his name have been Paddy Kondaksakis?
Neil writes:
…you feeling towards French-Canadians may leave something to be desired
In what way?
And what, specifically, have I said about French-Canadians that bring you to that conclusion? Please use your archives to document your point(s).
Tony,
Whenever Quebec’s language laws come up you seem to think we are a bunch of fascists.
Neil:
That’s no answer; that’s an opinion.
Give me specifics, please.
And what’s this “we” business? You specifically singled out French-Canadians, not Quebecers. By using “we” you indicate yourself along with the rest of Quebec, you see, because you’re not French-Canadian.
Indeed I do consider myself a Quebecois.
The incidents I referred to all related to the Charter of the French Language – Bill 101
You can certainly consider yourself a Quebecois, Neil, but you had referred to “French-Canadians” of which you are not.
You’ll have to educate me as to why my virulent opposition to Bill 101 somehow means that my feelings towards French-Canadians leaves something to be desired. Indeed, as I have written here many times, I blame Ottawa (representing a majority of English-Canadians) for the continued existance of Bill 101 much more than I do Quebec.
And, as I’ve said many times here, I’d rather live in an independent Quebec that respected individual freedom than a Quebec within Canada that didn’t.
I’m a separatist and I want Canada to end…and that’s what my new book is all about:
http://www.whycanadamustend.com/index.htm
.
(for some reason my response to Neil is not being published).
Anyway, for my response: see the website for my new book (click on my name above).
Tony, I have read that promotional thing about your book. I strongly recommend that you stay in Arizona, get American citizenship and keep out of Canadian politics. Although I will defend your right to be off the track.
I find it interesting, Paul, how you can make such an informed decision about a book that you haven’t even read yet.
Unless your presention is erroneous or the interviewer misrepresented your content I don’t think i’m wrong. You have voiced those opinions in previous posts right here on this blog. so I guess my opinion is based on those previously expressed positions… the blurb I have read on that reference of yours would seem to be on the ball.
You voted Yes, you said so, on previous posts, you have voiced your opinion that Canada should not exist and that Québec should go it alone. The partitionist point of view you have supported before, on this same blog. The fruit usually falls near the tree.
As I said, I totally disagree with you, but we have absolute rights to our opinions.
Paul:
I never voted “Yes”, and I never said I did.
I would vote “yes” if a referendum were held today under the format I propose.
As for the “partitionist point of view”: if you had read my book you would have seeen that I advocate Quebec separating intact.
And, yes, Canada must end if it continues to support, defend, and promote laws such as Bill 101.