Cheaps shots where?
What is a "trial walloon"? Oh I get it, his trial firewall.
quote:
Originally posted by CoryWillis:
[b]3) It seems Babblers are no less divided on how to handle Quebec than Conservatives. That's much more realistic than the beginning of this thread, which was just silly cheap shots at Harper and Belgium. I don't think much of his "trial Walloon" but it's at least worth discussing.[/b]
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Cheaps shots where?[/b]
Harper as a toad and a load of crap about chocolate, mainly.
quote:
[b]What is a "trial walloon"? Oh I get it, his trial firewall.
[/b]
Heehee
Personally, I have issues with Belgium over their exploitation of Coca growers. Plus a few other historical items still affecting us today.
The toad thing, who in the hell cares really besides the toads? And they might feel slighted, I personally call him more appropriate things.
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
[b]I knew a guy who took French in high school in Dallas.I had a hard time convincing him that the number between sept and neuf is not pronounced "reet," because that's what his teacher taught them.
"I know it's spelled 'huit' but it's pronounced 'reet.'"[/b]
I stopped taking french after grade 6, since I felt insulted by french teacher, so my french is nearly nonexistant, to say the least (although not that the people I knew who took french through to grade 12 speak much more than I do) but i'm quite confused. Is it NOT pronounced "reet" or is it pronounced "reet"? When i learned it, it was pronounced much like "Wheat".
You're right Raos, it is "wheat." I was quoting my friend quoting his teacher, but that wasn't clear.
And Cory, if you can't handle the way Harper has been treated in this thread, I don't think babble is for you. Little things like "homosexuality isn't an orientation, it's a behaviour" and "gays and lesbians aren't protected by the Charter" tend to lead people to speak [i]quite[/i] unkindly about him.
[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
[b]And Cory, if you can't handle the way Harper has been treated in this thread, I don't think babble is for you. Little things like "homosexuality isn't an orientation, it's a behaviour" and "gays and lesbians aren't protected by the Charter" tend to lead people to speak [i]quite[/i] unkindly about him.
[/b]
Thanks, RB, I think [i]I'll[/i] decide if Babble is for me. If you're going to bash Harper about homophobia, do it on some other thread -- and I'll join you. But I don't care for [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks -- disagree with the message, not the messenger. Trudeau's bilingualism policy isn't working; do we try harder, or do we try something else?
quote:
Trudeau's bilingualism policy isn't working
It isn't? We've gone from roughly 1.5 million bilingual (English-French) citizens in 1971 to roughly 5 million in 1991. I don't know the specific number from the 2001 census, but I'd bet that it is still increasing. Sounds like a success story to me.
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
What a wimp.
Wimp?! He has the courage to propose bold changes Canada and you call him a wimp. You can disagree, you can call him stupid but I'll tell you what is wimpy - governing by polls or defering tough decisions to the supreme court.
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
[b]It isn't? We've gone from roughly 1.5 million bilingual (English-French) citizens in 1971 to roughly 5 million in 1991. I don't know the specific number from the 2001 census, but I'd bet that it is still increasing. Sounds like a success story to me.[/b]
If that is your definition of success. I guess it is a question of priorties though (or in the case of the Liberals - lack of priorties). Most people recognize that governments have LIMITED funds and that businesses thrive with fewer regulations. The COST of bilingualism to administer and enforce in terms of lost productivity and direct government funding is far greater than whatever perceived benefit you refer to as a "success story".
quote:
The COST of bilingualism to administer and enforce in terms of lost productivity and direct government funding is far greater than whatever perceived benefit you refer to as a "success story".
Everyone prepare themselves for links to the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (...or some old thing from APEC) that categorically proves the statement quoted above. We haven't had that in a few weeks, and I'm pretty sure everyone wants to revisit this perenially baseless canard regarding bilingualism, if only out of pure nostalgia.
quote:
Originally posted by CoryWillis:
[b]Thanks, RB, I think [i]I'll[/i] decide if Babble is for me. But I don't care for [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks -- disagree with the message, not the messenger.[/b]
And I couldn't give a rat's ass if you care for ad hominem attacks on Harper or not and people here will decide whether or not to make them. By the way, those are Pearson's bilingualism policies. The process started before Trudeau was even in Parliament, but for some reason those opposed to them seem to prefer to attack Trudeau for them. I can't imagine why...
quote:
The COST of bilingualism to administer and enforce in terms of lost productivity ...
is a canard which has never really been proven.
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
[b]Everyone prepare themselves for links to the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (...or some old thing from APEC) that categorically proves the statement quoted above. We haven't had that in a few weeks, and I'm pretty sure everyone wants to revisit this perenially baseless canard regarding bilingualism, if only out of pure nostalgia.[/b]
Right. It costs nothing for manufacturers to use up half of their marketing real estate for french on cereal boxes in Alberta [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
It costs nothing for Air Canada to provide all its services in both languages on flights from Vancouver to Calgary even though there are usually 10X more Chinese speaking people than french speaking people on those flights. Your sarcasm is does a disservice to Canada.
[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: ferrethouse ]
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
[b]is a canard which has never really been proven.[/b]
Some people don't require "proof" to understand what essentially amounts to common sense.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrethouse:
[b]Right. It costs nothing for manufacturers to use up half of their marketing real estate for french on cereal boxes in Alberta [/b]
I'd thought even the looniest of the anti-blingualism bunch had advanced beyond being offended by bilingual cereal boxes by now. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
I wonder if our little ferret thinks it somehow saves money to produce English-only, French-only and bilingual cereal boxes instead.
quote:
Right. It costs nothing for manufacturers to use up half of their marketing real estate for french on cereal boxes in AlbertaIt costs nothing for Air Canada to provide all its services in both languages on flights from Vancouver to Calgary even though there are usually 10X more Chinese speaking people than french speaking people on those flights. Your sarcasm is does a disservice to Canada.
Marketing real estate? If they didn't print the French on it, you can bet they'd waste their money on printing something far more useless and socially irrelevant.
And Ferrethouse, don't even try to start giving me the impression you know exactly the linguistic makeup of trans-continental flights in Canada. You'll only indicate that you make up stuff to prove a point.
...gee, they're always from London, aren't they? When I lived there, it was a (mostly boring) case study in Canadian parochialism.
[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]
Cereal boxes. Good Gawd.
Well, if time has actually stood still, and this is still 1970 -- go Habs go!
quote:
Some people don't require "proof" to understand what essentially amounts to common sense.
Prove it.
Wasn't somebody asking what a troll looked like?
[Note that I am not defending Trudeau of the War Measures Act, which our new friend is talking about in another thread that he started.]
[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]
So training civil servants to speak french is free, as in cost no money or time? So learning french to get a civil service job is the best posible use of time and resources? There is nothing more useful that could be learned with the same time and expense?
Yippee for political correctness!
Speak of trolls, and up pops the most persistent one I can think of: Oatmeal Savage. Never has he ever been bothered with doubting whether an opinion of his (based on his singularly limited world experience) can be based in reality and generalisable to the rest of the world.
Oatmeal, I get dumber reading anything you post.
So what's your point? Is bi-lingualism completely free? How about answering the question instead of attacking the messenger.
Of course biligualism is not free, but hey if you don't mind being served by unilingual francophones in the federal government, that's your perrogative!
Biligualism is not free, just like cops aren't free, just like streets aren't free, just like the sewer system is no free. But they're all worth every penny.
How is bi-lingualism worth every penny? Particularily in western Canada?
The Oatmeal Savage's posts are free, but they aren't even worth that (although the refreshing absence of Canadian Taxpayers Federation links is duly noted).
quote:
How is bi-lingualism worth every penny? Particularily in western Canada?
It is the greatest system yet found for exposing politicians as intolerant bigots, lest we elect them without knowing this about them. As it has helped keep Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper out of office, for that reason alone it is worth every penny spent on it.
[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]
Still with the personal attacks, but no answers.
You would think debating someone as dumb as me would be fairly easy. Hmmmm
It's just that it's too easy to even bother.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrethouse:
[b]It costs nothing for Air Canada to provide all its services in both languages on flights from Vancouver to Calgary even though there are usually 10X more Chinese speaking people than french speaking people on those flights.
[/b]
I do have to point out that airlines aren't perhaps the best example here, since most airlines, Canadian or not, seem to provide more than one language. (I can't speak about the American ones, since I haven't flown on any, but lots of European ones lately...) They aren't all French/English, and they certainly aren't based on a poll of who's on the plane. They make announcements in two languages, English, and another, depending on the airline. Does this cost more? Not at all, it simply adds criteria to their hiring process.
[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: Jenny ]
quote:
Still with the personal attacks, but no answers.
You would think debating someone as dumb as me would be fairly easy. Hmmmm.
Find your own answers, OS. No one owes you responses to your empty-headed musings.
And, as far as I know, debating someone as purposely obtuse and disruptive such as yourself is one of the hardest, most soul-destroying thing a person can do.
In other words there are very few real arguements that you can make in favour of spending money on bi-lingualism.
No, in other words, I think you're stupid and not worth the time. And I have told you this already in the past, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to you.
In any case, my shortcut to investigating a position is to study the positions taken by intolerant rightwingers and go for the opposite. It has served me very well, lo these many years. It's my version of "common sense".
People sometimes assume that the right to free speech implies a right to force people to listen and engage in discussion with them.
It doesn't. People can say what they wish (within the limits of both the law and babble's rules) but no one has to answer or engage in pointless discussion.
Furthermore, I gave a direct reply to why it is worth every penny. If TOS wishes others to debate him, he should at least have the courtesy to respond to those who do.
[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]
It is not unreasonable to expect well educated people to be fluent in at least 2 languages. Outside of the US that is the standard.
The sad thing is that despite all the money spent on bilingualism since the 1960s it is still possible to attend and graduate from university knowing only English and I count myself as one of those people (despite getting an A in French 12).
Having said that, I would take a politician who thought and spoke coherently in one language over one who thought and spoke incoherently in two languages.
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
[b]It is the greatest system yet found for exposing politicians as intolerant bigots, lest we elect them without knowing this about them. As it has helped keep Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper out of office, for that reason alone it is worth every penny spent on it.
[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ][/b]
You mean guys like Parizeau as well?
Or is your only justification for the billions spent on bi-lingualism is that it gives you one more measuring stick to decide who to vote for.
Why do you persist in spelling it bi-lingualism, when the correct spelling is bilingualism?
Do you also write "bi-cycle," "bi-sexual," and "bi-fid?" Most people, when as clearly obsessed with a subject as you are with bilingualism, make the effort to learn how to spell it.
Is this an attempt to show us the money would have been better spent in tutoring you?
Parizeau, incidentally, was a provincial politician. He doesn't enter into a discussion of federal policy, although if Manning, Day or Harper had the command of the English language he does, they, like he did, might have overcome the stench of their innate bigotry at least long enough to hold office for a while before being forced out in disgrace.
I think it accurately reflects the pronunciation of the knuckle-draggers.
"Bi-lingualism"
"Ky-oto"
etc.
You mean like Nu-cu-lar? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
So what are the reasons for spending billions on 'bilingualism'? I've heard a lot of crap this morning, but no real reasons. Could it be that the political correctness brainwashing doesn't actually stand up to any close scrutiny?
What happened to questioning authority?
It doesn't need quotes. Try again.
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
[b]What happened to questioning authority?[/b]
You're not an authority on anything.
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]According to Reality Bites link, Belgium has 102% debt servicing from the GDP as opposed to Canada's 77%, yep we surely need to model ourselves after them.[/b]
Anyone can balance a budget. Conservative politicians in the States did so in leading up to 1929 and world-wide failure of laissez faire capitalism. Mauru and East Timor are debt free. Socialist Norway has no external debt.
Before Tommy Douglas, Saskatchewan had about 130 miles of paved roads. Tommy added thousands of miles of paved highway and roads. And TC Douglas balanced a budget for 17 years straight in Saskatchewan.
quote:
[b]
There also would be every ethnicity being self determining. That ought to make things function very well, eh.[/b]
French speaking people all over Belgium. And they don't have 'concerned citizens groups' wetting their pants over language rights there.
quote:
And Ferrethouse, don't even try to start giving me the impression you know exactly the linguistic makeup of trans-continental flights in Canada.
Do you want me to look up the census data for major cities in western Canada? I will if you insist on keeping your blinders on. Oh, but let me guess, asians don't fly on airplanes? lol.
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
[b]In other words there are very few real arguements that you can make in favour of spending money on bi-lingualism.[/b]
Because a quarter of the country speaks French.
Because it's good customer service for the government to have people providing services in a variety of languages.
Because it facilitates mutual understanding between different parts of the country.
Having everyone speak one language would definitely be more efficient, but it certainly isn't realistic.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]You're not an authority on anything.[/b]
What I meant was, why not question the authority that tells you bilingualism is good, why not examine the concept on its merits, not just parrot back the politically correct party line.
You seem great at throwing insults, any chance of getting a logical defense of your position on bilingualism? I mean after all, I'm just a mouth breathing right winger, a genius such as yourself should have no problem explaining why it's important to have french service in the town of Ducks Ass, Alberta.
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
[b]I'd thought even the looniest of the anti-blingualism bunch had advanced beyond being offended by bilingual cereal boxes by now. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
I wonder if our little ferret thinks it somehow saves money to produce English-only, French-only and bilingual cereal boxes instead.[/b]
Marketing is effective and if they can put twice as much advertising on on their boxes for english canada then yes it is an opportunity cost.
i can't believe you think there isn't an opportunity cost to only having half the product to advertise on. lol.
this is really elementary. i find the intellectual level of debate much higher at FD.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]Wasn't somebody asking what a troll looked like?[Note that I am not defending Trudeau of the War Measures Act, which our new friend is talking about in another thread that he started.]
[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ][/b]
Oh. Is my advertising "costing" your forum? Perhaps I should advertise my forum in both french and english. lol. this is toooo easy.
quote:
Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
[b]So training civil servants to speak french is free, as in cost no money or time? So learning french to get a civil service job is the best posible use of time and resources? There is nothing more useful that could be learned with the same time and expense?
Yippee for political correctness![/b]
well said. it is one thing to support bilingual but complete lunacy to pretend that it doesn't cost money.
quote:
i find the intellectual level of debate much higher at FD.
Prove it.
I save this low level of debate for self-identified mouth breathing trolls.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]The Oatmeal Savage's posts are free, but they aren't even worth that (although the refreshing absence of Canadian Taxpayers Federation links is duly noted).[/b]
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
how weak
