HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: getting enumerated
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:59:01 GMT

Barry G. Adams (barry@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca) wrote:
>  How does one get enumerated for the referendum?
>  I am never at home when the enumerators call.

They missed me as well. However, they left a number to call (which will be
different for each riding). I called at 8:30 pm just for the heck of it,
and lo and behold someone was there. Seems that from the 8th to the 18th
(plus or minus a day or two, I am going from memory here), you can drop in
at your local (temporary?) elections Canada location and get enumerated.
What really blew me away were the hours: 9am to 9pm, 7 days a week. So,
the government does seem to be making it quite easy to get enumerated.

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.general
Subject: Re: referendumdum
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:55:29 EDT

An anonymous admirer of mine sent me this:
> From unimtl!IRO.UMontreal.CA!vm1.mcgill.ca!MUSICB.MCGILL.CA!BFRS Thu Oct 15 09:06:07 1992 
> Message-Id:  <15OCT92.08939901.0057.MUSIC@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA>
> Date:        Thu, 15 Oct 92 08:16:39 EST
> From: BFRS000 <unimtl!vm1.mcgill.ca!BFRS%MUSICB.MCGILL.CA>
> To: <alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca>
> Subject: Re: referendumdum
> Please keep your NO side dribble to your
>                        yourself

to which I can only answer:

	NO.


--
 Alain
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Polling results -Where are they?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:53:51 GMT

szathmary@sscl.uwo.ca wrote:
: 
: 
: 
: I know that polling results on the referendum are available in Quebec at least
: once per week. But what about the rest of Canada? I'm surprised that there are
: so few (any?) polls made public for the other 9 provinces. Are they being
: suppressed??? ---      
: 
: An informal (read _unscientific_) poll carried out by the Toronto Star and
: reported last Sunday indicated a 76.5% NO vote among 9000+ respondents.
: Admittedly there would be error due to biased sampling (self selection, etc.)
: but at least the poll was not 76.5% the other way. 
: 

Any self-selected poll is absolutely false. I could ask people to phone two
numbers -- one if they felt there was too much pollution, another if they
didn't. Which group do you think would call the most?

Last night the Journal carried three polls -- environics, reid, gallup.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but they showed something like 53% in
favour in atlantic and Ontario, 40% in favour in Quebec, and 36% in favour in
prairies and BC. Surprisingly, the three polls, all with the same sample
size, showed results that differed by up to 6 points, and were considered
accurate within three points. Obviously they could not be accurate to within
three points..

Common to all the polls was a huge undecided margin -- as much as 40% in some
regions if I remember correctly.



--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@minotaur (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: TV ads for the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:41:25 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct8.140745.16392@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
: >The arguments in the TV ads sponsored by the "yes" campaign:
: >
: >-------------------------------------------------------------------
: >We should vote yes in the referendum, because basically
: >nothing is perfect, and really, making constitutional amendments
: >is sort of like swinging at a ball in a game of baseball - you've
: >just got to take a swing at something that looks good.
: >
: 
: The proper "way" to think of this commercial is to realize that
: Brian Mulroney is the batter...and that we can strike him OUT!

Why turn a simple thing into a personal hate campaign? We keep hearing from
the NO side about how we should all vote NO because we hate our
politicians. Well, I have one thing to say -- we elected them. Why bitch
and complain about who developed the deal instead of looking at it?

: 
: >
: >We should vote yes in the referendum, because we have
: >participated in every U.N. peacekeeping force, and we are such a
: >swell country to help people all over the world like that.
: 
: The proper thing to remember about this commercial is that the
: countries where we have to send peacekeepers to are those who
: have upheld group rights of tribal or nationalistic form, and not
: individual rights.

Dream on. The proper thing to remember about this commercial is that these
countries are places where the people refused to compromise, and then, when
part of the country tried to leave, fought with military right to keep it.
Serbia. Cyprus. Korea.

: 
: >Are there more advertisements like these?
: 
: There is the ad which gives the 1-800 number that lies...and claims
: that Charlottetown results in a stronger economic union and common
: market through an expanded 121...which of course it doesn't.

Your opinion represented as fact, again.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:20:22 GMT

In article <charles.719087363@menaik> charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>Bob Rae is essentially a clone of Clark, although Rae had slightly more
>>integrity to stay in the party he belongs.  Mulroney will rue the
>>day he entrusted his political future to this duo...it was a massive 
>>political mistake which will destroy his legacy.  One can survive
>>being despised if one is principled, because one can be respected...Trudeau
>>and Maggie Thatcher are perfect examples of this, and I believe Mulroney
>>would have been respected in hindsight, but for the disastrous
>>abandonment of any principle which Charlottetown represents, which
>>he will be forever tarred with, and which history will never forgive
>>him for.
>
>	Only if the accord passes the referendum. Otherwise Mulroney will
>be remembered as a man who increased our taxes and shipped our industry to
>Mexico.

Actually, whether the vote is YES or NO, because if the vote is YES,
we will have to live with the Charlottetown abomination, and Mulroney
will be forever blamed for it.  Our industry isn't going to Mexico
because of Mulroney...NAFTA is of little consequence...Mexico began
taking our industry away when they abandoned protectionism and joined
GATT in the eighties...under GATT Mexico already essentially has one-way
free trade with Canada.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: Will Mulroney resign?
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:21:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.023114.24666@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
|> In article <1bl4ojINNevq@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
|> >I am all-but-certain that if there is a Yes vote in every province,
|> >Mulroney will resign. If there is a No vote in one or more provinces
|> >he is more likely to hang on as Progressive Conservative leader.
|> >
|> 
|> The referendum is irrelevant to getting rid of Mulroney....if he doesn't
|> leave we can vote him out next year anyway....Mulroney promising or not
|> promising to leave doesn't change the fact that the Charlottetown Accord
|> is a bad deal...

In your humble opinion.  I happen to disagree with your position and almost
every arguement you've put forward.

|> The place to deal with politicians is in elections...it is best to cast
|> your vote in the referendum based on an informed judgement on the
|> content, and not be distracted by other issues.  A YES vote on the 26th
|> means we have to live with the Charlottetown abomination forever.
|> Mulroney, if he doesn't resign, will have to face election next year.
|> Deal with him then.

Assuming he's elected out.  I don't like Brian, but I don't like the
competition more, and I know a lot of people with the same thought.

|> >My reasoning is this: you can tell just by watching him over the
|> >last few months how tired he is of the job. I'm sure he'd love to
|> >say "Well, I've had two terms and accomplished what I set out to,
|> >so now I'll give somebody else a chance." This would be easy to do
|> >after a Yes vote, but if Charlottetown fails he couldn't resign
|> >because it would make him look like a quitter, getting out when
|> >the going's rough.
|> >
|> 
|> There is a federal election next year to deal with the issue of
|> Mulroney...Oct 26 is about Charlottetown and about making a decision
|> that we have to live with for decades.  It would be foolish to confuse
|> the two.  The future of politicians will unfold as it should, regardless
|> of the result of Oct. 26.
|> 
|> Gerald

Absolutely, vote on the deal and don't protest vote.

Don Clayton
a.k.a. Rear-Adm. Maverick, DM of the Drow
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a K-car (a nice reliant automobile),
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:17:56 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: 
: The people with Hitler-esque ambitions are the premiers...for
: Hitler-esque ideology is written all over Charlottetown in its
: collectivist ideology, and the concentration of power by the first
: ministers at the expense of the legislatures.

Sheesh.  

: And which side has come up with the slogan "the enemies of Canada",
: and promises millenial prosperity with a YES vote, and a hellish
: doom with a NO vote...which side has said Canada will become Beirut
: or Yugoslavia.   

Well, the NO people are certainly pushing the idea of Balkanization
and a hierarchical class system based on race. Both sides are just as
guilty of fear mongering.

: Manning's rhetoric is calm and reasoned...you need not agree with
: all of his arguments or policies, I don't, but there are much better
: candidates for demagogues in the country than him.         

Manning is doing a fine job, and I think he is embarrassing many of his
political opponents who have long claimed that he is Hitler incarnate.
He's a more balanced orator than Trudeau, which isn't saying much.
I wonder if, as in the Trudeau case, there is a Reform Party bureaucrat
who is begging Manning to father her children?  One can't ask for two
finer biological and intellectual specimens than Manning and Trudeau.

-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Xref: sparky can.politics:8323 talk.politics.misc:51018 soc.culture.canada:7381
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
Subject: OK, I am biased, but...
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:09:48 EDT

It is interesting to watch how the arguments, for against the
proposal, fly.  The YES side wants us to believe.  The NO side
wants us to understand.

The NO side talks about the NO.  So does the YES side.  The YES
side doesn't say much about what will happen after a YES vote.
The NO side says it will be more of the same.  I would tend
to question the YES side's approach.

The YES side says fire and brimstone will fall on our heads.
The NO side says the current leaders will get their ass (in
the political sense) rimmed.  Which is more likely to be true?

The YES side says the country will fall apart.  The NO side says
that refusing a proposed vague and remote change can't make the
country fall apart.  Which is more likely to be true?

The YES side says the economy will go to the dogs.  The NO side
says the economy is already in nowhere city because of the people
who want us to sign a blank cheque.  Which is more likely to be
true?

If I listen carefully, I think I detect two things:
	a) the YES side speaks with the voice of a medieval
	   inquisitor; we are not supposed to have a choice.
	b) the YES side only talks about the terrible things
	   that would happen in the event of a NO victory; it
	   doesn't seem to occur to them that they could win.

If I take my cues from the YES side, I must vote NO.  And,
by the way, if the YES side is not lying to us, then they must
be incredibly more naive (not to say stupid) than we can afford
our leaders to be.


--
 Alain
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: English Quebec politics
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:19:03 GMT

Some time ago, I tried to start a discussion of English Quebec
politics and politicians, not got no response.

Now that there seem to be some English Quebecers in can.politics,
I will try again.

------

Most young anglophones intend to leave Quebec. Why?

English Quebec has a variety of spokemen.  Which one of them
embarrasses you the least? Does the Equality Party represent you?
Alliance Quebec? Do you think Royal Orr burned his own office to win
sympathy or did he do it for the insurance money ;-)?

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Subject: Re: YES in CHQ contradicts YES in Quebec
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:44:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.205707.3283@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
>>Heard on TV News yesterday :
>>
>>In CHQ, the YES camp is selling the deal in saying it gives no new power
>>to Quebec.
>>
>>In Quebec, the YES camp is selling the deal in saying it gives 31 more
>>new powers to Quebec.
>>
>>Who's right?  Or aren't they both wrong?
>>
>>Definitively NO to the Charlatan Accord.
>
>In a way it is almost irrelevant who is right. The fact that a supposedly
>unifying accord is being be sold in different parts of the country by
>spouting exactly *opposite* messages should be cause for concern.
>-- 
>Jim Robinson

  I think it is less a matter of being sold differently in different parts
as a careful editting of the sales pitch both by the sellers and those
opposed to them.

  Quebec is told it is getting some new powers and a guarantee of 
non-interference in existing powers. 

  The rest of the country is told Quebec is getting no new powers (that
anyone else is not getting).

  The message is only one of opposites if you edit it as shown, and I am
actually disgusted at the divisive tactics of those who continually try
to exploit such issues, even to the point of distorting facts, rather
than merely editting out any clarifying context.

  As with Meech Myths, there is nothing in the Accord which substantially
favours one province, group or other community over any other, just the
hysterical ravings of those fearmongers who want to win votes and influence
people by pretending such.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: AAA credit rating downgraded
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:35:26 GMT

In article <Bw6DMo.Ht4@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>[Front Page Financial Post]
>
>Canada's AAA credit rating has been, for the first time in history,
>downgraded to AA+. This has just cost us as money must be borrowed at 8.7
>instead of 7.7%.
>
>For those who still don't believe the economic consequences of a NO vote,
>consider: the people who matter do. (Standard+Poor said that the major reason
>for the downgrading was uncertainty over the results of the referendum).

No they did not say that.  Can't you read?
here's what they said:
"The downgrades reflect the progressive deterioration in Canada's current
 account deficit in recent years, a consequent sharp increase in its already
sizable external debt burden, and the prospect of only a moderate 
improvement in the balance of payments in the medium term" S&P said.

"S&P director Marie Cavanaugh played down the importance of the
constitutional debate in the decision"

You blatently lied about why S&P lowered Canada's credit rating.  If
Canada is going to be seen as a good place to invest, then we must get our
finances in order.  We've had shitty, financially irresponsible and
politically unaccountable politicians governing us for too long, and
now they want to consolidate their positions by creating this constitution,
while saying that they can't improve the economic situation while 
the negociations are going on.  Then what the hell is the rest of the gov't
doing in the mean time.  WASTING OUR MONEY and BORROWING from overseas.

>My reason for posting:
To strengthen your argument by lying.

> How can we keep our economy from being decimated in the short term by this
>uncertainty?

How?  Just like we kept our economy on the rocks during the 80's.
Our political caretakers are currently in the process of strengthening
their own political power, and they have NO track record of creating
or maintaining a financially sound form of gov't. 

If there's a bigger laugh then their assurtions that this deal will be the
end-all of negociations, it's that they will fix our financial trouble
at the same time.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Reform ads misleading, ironic
Keywords: penguins, lobotomy
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:28:06 GMT

In article <knight.719247776@cunews> knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight) writes:
>
>  It's interesting to note, that although the Reform party ads purport
>to be based on facts and issues, rather than making emotional appeals,
>they consistently refer to the Charlottetown Accord as "Mulroney's
>Deal", attempting to make use of the negative connotations associated
>with the word Mulroney. As Chris Cobb in the Ottawa Citizen points
>out, this is "at best misleading, and at worst an outright lie". 
>

Take this in context though...the government of Canada is spending
millions of dollars on feelgood ads which violate the spirit if not
the letter of the referendum law.  Even there ads for the 1-800 number
to get information are sometimes misleading...for example, one implies
that we are going to have an economic union.

Remember, look at the dishonesty of the referendum wording itself...

Do you "agree"...and the use of "renew" instead of amend.

In many news reports, I've seen Mike Harcourt call it the Canadian Unity
Agreement...which is infinitely more misleading than calling it 
"Mulroney's Deal".

Isn't the YES side being just as misleading by having the best political
operatives of the mainline parties running the campaign, but putting
a bunch of yespersons out as fronts for the political parties and
premiers which are really responsible for the deal.

Geez...we're in a political campaign of sorts...and one side gets
upset that the other side invokes the name of the leader of the YES
side...Mulroney constantly invokes the names of Manning, Trudeau,
Rebick, Carstairs, and Parizeau.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Re: YES in CHQ contradicts YES in Quebec
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 13:40:39 GMT

In article <Bw2CnM.LG5@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
|> Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
|> : In a way it is almost irrelevant who is right. The fact that a supposedly
|> : unifying accord is being be sold in different parts of the country by
|> : spouting exactly *opposite* messages should be cause for   concern    -------------------------------------------------
|> 
|> One could point out that the NO camp is also using contradictory arguments.
|> Trudeau says this, Manning says that, Rebick says something else. Who is
|> lying?
|> 
|> ie -- Trudeau says this Accord gives way to much powers to Quebec, Parizeau
|> says not enough. Add to this mess COR and Sharon Carstairs, and we end up
|> with a group of people saying opposing things, and all on the same side.
|> 
|> At least the YES forces are unified in their message of vote for the Accord
|> based on the contents -- the NO side wants everybody to vote NO for
|> differing reasons.
|> 
|> --
|> Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca

Maybe you want to rethink this one.  The original post stated that the yes side
is portraying the agreement as different things to different audiences.  The
obvious conclusion is that either they are knowingly lying or they are supporting
yes for different reasons which means they are in the same predicament as the no side.
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rcano@bnr.ca (Bob Cano)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Reply-To: rcano@bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 17:55:55 GMT

In article <Bw66xA.830@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
|> Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
|> : 
|> : Remember, I did not bring up Hitler...a YES supporter did in describing
|> : some of the NO forces.  You've conveniently edited out the initial
|> : Hitler allusion by the YES side.  Since the YES side raised the issue,
|> : I was merely demonstrating why Hitler would be on the YES side.
|> 
|> That's pretty funny. Lets bring more dead people into a discussion, and
|> arbitrarily assign views to them. I think Sir John A. and G.E. Cartier would
|> be in favour. I think John Lennon likes the deal.
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
McKenzie King's mother just loves the deal too. If you don't believe
me, just check your shaving cream tomorrow morning. (but i understand
that Pat isn't to keen on the canada clause) :-))).
-- 
Bob Cano           Bell-Northern Research    | When all else fails,   
rcano@.bnr.ca      P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C     | read the instructions.
                   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   | 
(613)763 4086      K1Y 4H7                   |   
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general