Who knows/had poutine before?

[CanadaRocksEH]

Well i was talking to a friend from Australia and we asked each other what kind of food each country had. and i said poutine and she had no clue what it was..... So im just wondering who knows/has had poutine before and did you like it? (its french fries, covered with shredded cheese, then covered in gravy)

[Quick_Sylver]

O.M.G. I LOVE poutine ^^

[Jean Poutine]

You must have been eating really bad watered-down poutine because it's made with cheddar cheese curds, preferably fresh from the same morning, not shredded cheese. Personally I can't stand the stuff outside of Quebec. You English-Canadians just don't know how to make it.

As a Québécois, I am automatically an authority on poutine.

[nick]

I've never heard of that, to be honest it sounds disgusting. Cheese & gravy?

[Quick_Sylver]

...Nick, poutine is the best thing ever(except pie). If you haven't tried it, try it. THEN bash it.

[Jean Poutine]

I've never heard of that, to be honest it sounds disgusting. Cheese & gravy?

You don't know what good is until you've tasted warm cheese curds soaked in gravy juicing out with every bite.

It's fat, yeah, and probably not too healthy. Who cares?

It's as my female squarehead friend above said. Don't knock it until you try it.

[nick]

...Nick, poutine is the best thing ever(except pie). If you haven't tried it, try it. THEN bash it.
I didn't say it is disgusting, just that it sounds disgusting.

[The Joker]

I absolutely love poutine.

[CaptainObvious]

Poutine! NOM NOM NOM.

What is it? A heart attack served on fries. :P

I looooooove it, but try to only eat it when I'm doing something physically active like skiing, which ties nicely with the fact that the best poutine is in Quebec.... so, skiing in Quebec is where I eat most of my poutine. :P

[The Joker]

Skiing in Quebec while eating pouting, the only way you could be more Canadian than that is if you were playing hockey. :P

[Jean Poutine]

Skiing in Quebec while eating pouting, the only way you could be more Canadian than that is if you were playing hockey. :P

Get out.

Québec being part of Canada is only an unfortunate fact. Poutine is a Québec dish and it has nothing to do with English Canada. I know the only culinary culture you guys have are nanaimo bars but try not to steal ours.

[TheKingDavis]

Anyone post a pic of poutine?

i dont like the sound of it either...

[CanadaRocksEH]

http://electron.mit.edu/~gsteele/poutine/new_photos/plate_poutine_1.jpg
mmmmm good ol' poutine :D

[TheKingDavis]

not trying to offend anyone.... but that looks disgusting imo

[YesterdaysNews]

Gravy itself is disgusting. But if I'm hungry and mooching off friends, I'll eat it.

[CaptainObvious]

Get out.

Québec being part of Canada is only an unfortunate fact.

Yet as you say, it is a fact, so quit whining about it.

[CanadaRocksEH]

i really dont want to get in a quebec vs. rest of canada fight.......

[Jean Poutine]

Yet as you say, it is a fact, so quit whining about it.

That'll change one day.

Next time there's a referendum please have the goodwill to refrain from cheating, thanks.

And poutine is not disgusting.

[AllThatIsLeft]

THat's an UGLY picture of it.
*goes find a good one*
http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/outoftown/canada/quebec/quebeccity/chezashton/12poutine.jpg
VOILA!

[TheKingDavis]

THat's an UGLY picture of it.
*goes find a good one*
http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/outoftown/canada/quebec/quebeccity/chezashton/12poutine.jpg
VOILA!

your image isnt showing up

[AllThatIsLeft]

your image isnt showing up

Son of a b----

*find another one*

http://blog.credoreference.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/poutine.jpg

now?

[TheKingDavis]

Son of a b----

*find another one*

http://blog.credoreference.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/poutine.jpg

now?

yes ... and still eww

[Mzor203]

Not trying to offend anyone... but you look kind of disgusting.

See what I did thar?

Best. Stuff. Evar. e_e

I had some one one of our crazy cross-country car rides where we went through Quebec. Mmm...

[Jean Poutine]

Poutine is one of these things that seem disgusting at first but that you love once you actually try them.

You know, kinda like mudwrestling.

[CaptainObvious]

Next time there's a referendum please have the goodwill to refrain from cheating, thanks.

There were irregularities on both sides. For example, the statistically significant higher percentage of rejected votes in ridings voting monolithically "No."

That'll change one day.

No, it really won't. After the Clarity Act, even if a referendum to separate were passed, it would now certainly be by a small enough majority that I can guarantee you that Parliament would invalidate it immediately. Heads Canada wins, tails Quebec loses, kind of a thing.

Furthermore, to assume that Quebec as it is currently constituted could separate in totality is simply fantastical. You would lose all territory claimed by the Inuit and Cree under the same framework of self-determination upon which the idea of separation is based, such partition being generally supported even in Quebec. Past that, many other areas wishing to secede would most likely be allowed to do so.

Support for such a chopped-up Quebec nation would almost inevitably evaporate and make continuation of the separation process - which is, after all, a political process - untenable. The other option, of course, would be an attempt by Quebec to forcefully prevent such partition, which would most likely lead to military intervention of one kind or another, as support for separation outside Quebec - including among non-Quebecois Francophones - is extremely low, and extremely negative attitudes would most certainly crystallize in the event of forceful restraint by Quebec of regions wishing to remain with Canada.

It is quite clear in the aftermath of all of this that the separation question has been practically settled, whether or not the answer is to your satisfcation.

And poutine is not disgusting.

On this we agree.

(Sorry for the off-topicness, go poutine! :P)

[TheKingDavis]

Hmm how does one make poutine> maybe i should try this disgusting looking substance?


seriosuly it looks gross... but then again so do mushrooms


amyway if i can make it myself ill try it

[Quick_Sylver]

Hmm how does one make poutine> maybe i should try this disgusting looking substance?


seriosuly it looks gross... but then again so do mushrooms


amyway if i can make it myself ill try it

Get fries(cooked), shredded cheese(sorry...I dunno about other cheese stuf unfortunately) and poutine sauce. There's normal a can of poutine sauce at your local grocery store. Cook the sauce as directed(READ THE CAN) have the fries warm in a bowl, put the cheese on top, pour gravy over top of it all and eat. :) I'm sure someone else'll give you better directions.

[Jean Poutine]

No, it really won't. After the Clarity Act, even if a referendum to separate were passed, it would now certainly be by a small enough majority that I can guarantee you that Parliament would invalidate it immediately. Heads Canada wins, tails Quebec loses, kind of a thing.

The Clarity Act has unspecified values on what it considers a "clear" majority. It's meaningless. For all we know 80% "yes" would not be enough.

Also don't cha know, we have our own mirror law that is equally meaningless.

55% of Montenegrin people voted in favor of independance. Montenegro is recognised by Canada. What now, 55% is enough as long as it's not Quebec? Right. We'll see what happens.

Furthermore, to assume that Quebec as it is currently constituted could separate in totality is simply fantastical. You would lose all territory claimed by the Inuit and Cree under the same framework of self-determination upon which the idea of separation is based, such partition being generally supported even in Quebec. Past that, many other areas wishing to secede would most likely be allowed to do so.

Support for such a chopped-up Quebec nation would almost inevitably evaporate and make continuation of the separation process - which is, after all, a political process - untenable. The other option, of course, would be an attempt by Quebec to forcefully prevent such partition, which would most likely lead to military intervention of one kind or another, as support for separation outside Quebec - including among non-Quebecois Francophones - is extremely low, and extremely negative attitudes would most certainly crystallize in the event of forceful restraint by Quebec of regions wishing to remain with Canada.

Silly federalists. Ohhhh partition. I'm scared.

Partition is a myth. According to the principle of legal continuity a sovereign Quebec would have every single inch of the territory it covered before independance, no more no less. This principle overrides the Native claims to separation and the individual regional claims. Isn't law well made? Why couldn't Serbia partition Montenegro?

Partitioning us is against international law, unless agreed to by both sides, which will never happen. Oh by the way the principle of territorial integrity applies to the people of Quebec. Didn't you know? Canada is not a real country, at least that's what Lucien Bouchard said. Harper can claim his motion was symbolical all he wants. We have our nation and our territory, thus we can aspire to the same territorial integrity as everyone else. So much for mozaics or melting pots or whatever.

And finally, don't you think it's hypocritical to allow these regions of Quebec who would vote "no" for independance to stay in Canada in the wake of a "yes" victory, while of course not allowing the regions that voted "yes" after defeat to separate? It doesn't matter anyway. Individual towns and regions can't secede because they do not have the right to do so. It's just the moral principle behind the madness.

There were irregularities on both sides. For example, the statistically significant higher percentage of rejected votes in ridings voting monolithically "No."

As a de facto country unfortunately Canada has so much more means to cheat than we do! Which is why we lost ultimately.

Stick your Unity Rallies and 90% discounted airfare to attend them up your butts. And stop mass naturalising immigrants so they can vote "no". And stop rigging electoral lists to allow 56,000 people to vote when they could not.

It's okay one day we'll pack up our toys and leave. And we'll both be all the better for it. You guys don't even make good poutine anyway.

Get fries(cooked), shredded cheese(sorry...I dunno about other cheese stuf unfortunately) and poutine sauce. There's normal a can of poutine sauce at your local grocery store. Cook the sauce as directed(READ THE CAN) have the fries warm in a bowl, put the cheese on top, pour gravy over top of it all and eat. I'm sure someone else'll give you better directions.

Dude, shredded cheese is the demon. Who would eat poutine with shredded cheese?

What you need :

-a can of good, thick gravy...poutine sauce is diluted and yucky, although some are passable
-fries, preferably as crunchy as possible
-fresh-from-the-same-day cheddar cheese curds. If it doesn't make a "squick" sound when you bite into it then it's not good enough.

From then on it depends. You can put the cheese in the bottom, the fries on top and then put your gravy. You can do the other way around, too. Feel free to add sausage, steak, peppers, or onions. If you feel daring, then put ketchup.

Additionally there is a variant called "poutine italienne" which uses spaghetti sauce instead of gravy. The taste is a little weirder but it's also good.

[Quick_Sylver]

Dude, shredded cheese is the demon. Who would eat poutine with shredded cheese?

What you need :

-a can of good, thick gravy...poutine sauce is diluted and yucky, although some are passable
-fries, preferably as crunchy as possible
-fresh-from-the-same-day cheddar cheese curds. If it doesn't make a "squick" sound when you bite into it then it's not good enough.

From then on it depends. You can put the cheese in the bottom, the fries on top and then put your gravy. You can do the other way around, too. Feel free to add sausage, steak, peppers, or onions. If you feel daring, then put ketchup.

Additionally there is a variant called "poutine italienne" which uses spaghetti sauce instead of gravy. The taste is a little weirder but it's also good.

It's the only way I've had it at home...but that's in the 'English' bit of Canada, so...

[CaptainObvious]

The Clarity Act has unspecified values on what it considers a "clear" majority. It's meaningless. For all we know 80% "yes" would not be enough.

Yes, that's quite the point. It was instated as a way to ensure that a slim majority would not require Parliament to begin separation negotiations. It is indeed arbitrary, and that's precisely its intent. Not that the underlying argument is invalid: if separation led to strife and a majority for separation was so slim as to possibly disappear under such strife, there are good reasons to not consider it a time-tested majority at all. You might consider that unfair, but it is certainly a defensible argument.

55% of Montenegrin people voted in favor of independance. Montenegro is recognised by Canada. What now, 55% is enough as long as it's not Quebec? Right. We'll see what happens.

I don't know, separation has never gained 55% support. We'd have to see - but I suspect since it never will, the question is meaningless. If it did? I'd hazard a guess that's right around the threshold for a clear majority, so maybe.

Silly federalists. Ohhhh partition. I'm scared.

Partition is a myth. According to the principle of legal continuity a sovereign Quebec would have every single inch of the territory it covered before independance, no more no less. This principle overrides the Native claims to separation and the individual regional claims. Isn't law well made? Why couldn't Serbia partition Montenegro?

I could be trite and replace "Quebec" with "Canada" in that paragraph, and "Native" with "Quebecois", and it would be an equally baseless argument. But I won't do that. Using your own - in my view, shaky - argumentative basis, the legal justification for Quebec's right to secede is its status as a demolinguistic nation. However, by definition the Cree and Inuit and their territory are certainly not a part of that Francophone Quebec, and therefore not part of that nation. Therefore, they are justified in their demand to remain in Canada even under the Quebecois separatist view - which is why even in Quebec the majority of Francophones supported their right to stay with Canada in polling. For the majority Anglophone areas, an identical argument applies. The Quebec "nation" is not identical to the Quebec province, even under your separatist view of the world.

You keep bringing up Montenegro, and it mystifies me as to why. Montenegro was allowed to secede. Secession is ultimately a political process, and Serbia certainly could have attempted to stop it. However, it would have been unsuccessful especially in the Balkan climate prevailing after the wars and ethnic cleansing there. It's not as if some world government constitutional court forbid Serbia to do anything about it - Serbia realized they couldn't. Whereas, Canada could. Not a matter of "right", a matter of "can". Again, you might think it unfair, but...

Partitioning us is against international law, unless agreed to by both sides, which will never happen. Oh by the way the principle of territorial integrity applies to the people of Quebec. Didn't you know? Canada is not a real country, at least that's what Lucien Bouchard said. Harper can claim his motion was symbolical all he wants. We have our nation and our territory, thus we can aspire to the same territorial integrity as everyone else. So much for mozaics or melting pots or whatever.

Lucien Bouchard said Canada is not a real country, and therefore Canada is not a real country? What a stunningly insightful and defensible argument. (That's sarcasm.) Again, precisely the same arguments for the allowability of partitioning Canada apply to partitioning Quebec, and you have provided no real reason why they do not. Your "nation", insofar as it is based upon demolinguistics, most certainly does not include the large native territories that have no interest in secession from Canada or significant cultural ties to Francophone Quebec, nor the majority Anglophone areas with the same views. To insist that Quebec has the right to territorial integrity over areas that have no interest in being part of a Quebec "nation" invites the same argument to be made about Quebec itself with regard to Canada. Only your extreme bias could prevent you from seeing that. As you say below, that's hypocritical.

And finally, don't you think it's hypocritical to allow these regions of Quebec who would vote "no" for independance to stay in Canada in the wake of a "yes" victory, while of course not allowing the regions that voted "yes" after defeat to separate? It doesn't matter anyway. Individual towns and regions can't secede because they do not have the right to do so. It's just the moral principle behind the madness.

It would of course be hypocritical. It's also not official government policy - if there was a clear majority vote to secede, the Francophone areas of Quebec would probably be allowed to do so by Canada. I was merely pointing out my personal disagreement with such a course of events. I'd personally rather we just demand immediate payment of Quebec's large share of the national debt, and if it were not forthcoming, militarily reconquer and split Quebec between New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nunavut and Ontario. But I'm not the government.

But since you brought up hypocrisy, it is hypocritical to insist that Quebec as a demolinguistic "nation" has territorial rights over parts of Quebec that cannot except in fantasy be said to constitute part of that demolinguistic nation.

As a de facto country unfortunately Canada has so much more means to cheat than we do! Which is why we lost ultimately.

Stick your Unity Rallies and 90% discounted airfare to attend them up your butts. And stop mass naturalising immigrants so they can vote "no". And stop rigging electoral lists to allow 56,000 people to vote when they could not.

It's okay one day we'll pack up our toys and leave. And we'll both be all the better for it. You guys don't even make good poutine anyway.

I detect lots of anger here. Unfortunately, anger is a poor substitute for a valid argument. Rejected ballots in an election in Quebec have never totaled more than ~2%, yet in at least one monolithic No riding, rejected ballots composed 12% of total ballots cast. What, all of a sudden people forgot how to write check marks in 1995? You can blindly focus your anger on other issues - and as I said, irregularities occurred on both sides for certain - but that merely exposes your inherent bias and inability to evenly argue this issue.

[Jean Poutine]

Yes, that's quite the point. It was instated as a way to ensure that a slim majority would not require Parliament to begin separation negotiations. It is indeed arbitrary, and that's precisely its intent. Not that the underlying argument is invalid: if separation led to strife and a majority for separation was so slim as to possibly disappear under such strife, there are good reasons to not consider it a time-tested majority at all. You might consider that unfair, but it is certainly a defensible argument.

That, or you people just have sour grapes because we came so close.


I don't know, separation has never gained 55% support. We'd have to see - but I suspect since it never will, the question is meaningless. If it did? I'd hazard a guess that's right around the threshold for a clear majority, so maybe.

Never will? Maybe if you stopped cheating. Polls taken just before the referendum indicated a 5% headway over the "no" side. The Unity Rally, naturalisation of immigrants likely to vote "no" and the messing around with voter lists were enough to steal the referendum from us.

Try again.

I could be trite and replace "Quebec" with "Canada" in that paragraph, and "Native" with "Quebecois", and it would be an equally baseless argument. But I won't do that. Using your own - in my view, shaky - argumentative basis, the legal justification for Quebec's right to secede is its status as a demolinguistic nation. However, by definition the Cree and Inuit and their territory are certainly not a part of that Francophone Quebec, and therefore not part of that nation. Therefore, they are justified in their demand to remain in Canada even under the Quebecois separatist view - which is why even in Quebec the majority of Francophones supported their right to stay with Canada in polling. For the majority Anglophone areas, an identical argument applies. The Quebec "nation" is not identical to the Quebec province, even under your separatist view of the world.

International law would enforce uti possidetis of Quebec over any claim brought over by either the Anglophones or the Natives, invalidating partition. This was determined by a panel of lawyers commissioned by the provincial body. Unless you pretend that your logic is better than a commission panel (and why would it be?), it's not my argument that is shaky.

The natives are free to do like us and separate from an independant Quebec. Unfortunately, poor little Anglophone minority, they'll have to stay here and endure our language police.

Try again.

You keep bringing up Montenegro, and it mystifies me as to why. Montenegro was allowed to secede. Secession is ultimately a political process, and Serbia certainly could have attempted to stop it. However, it would have been unsuccessful especially in the Balkan climate prevailing after the wars and ethnic cleansing there. It's not as if some world government constitutional court forbid Serbia to do anything about it - Serbia realized they couldn't. Whereas, Canada could. Not a matter of "right", a matter of "can". Again, you might think it unfair, but...

Since nobody would partition anything anyway it doesn't matter.

Lucien Bouchard said Canada is not a real country, and therefore Canada is not a real country? What a stunningly insightful and defensible argument. (That's sarcasm.) Again, precisely the same arguments for the allowability of partitioning Canada apply to partitioning Quebec, and you have provided no real reason why they do not. Your "nation", insofar as it is based upon demolinguistics, most certainly does not include the large native territories that have no interest in secession from Canada or significant cultural ties to Francophone Quebec, nor the majority Anglophone areas with the same views. To insist that Quebec has the right to territorial integrity over areas that have no interest in being part of a Quebec "nation" invites the same argument to be made about Quebec itself with regard to Canada. Only your extreme bias could prevent you from seeing that. As you say below, that's hypocritical.

No shit it's sarcasm. Be snide elsewhere. I have a good enough command of English to detect sarcasm when I see it. How's your French? Let's continue this in French. Why should you always have the home court advantage?

Typical.

Our territory granted to us under federal legislation in 1898 and 1912 would still be ours due to the principle of territorial integrity and legal continuity. As the French Canadian minority occupies mostly a certain territory within Canada, this gives us to right to secede this territory while protecting us from partition. Which is why Bouchard said that Canada wasn't a real country.

Sure, after separation, there is no reason why the Natives wouldn't be able to separate from us. Be my guest. We all want control of our destiny. But individual ridings that vote "no" unfortunately don't have this power.

Sorry to Alliance Quebec, Montreal stays with us.

What part of "the Native claims to their right to remain within Canada are not feasible under international law" do you not understand? Canada can't partition the Native lands because they feel like it. It'll have to be another separation process, and personally I don't care. Refusing to others what is being refused to us is dumb. You want me to quote the particular commission or you'll be a big boy and you'll look it up yourself?

It would of course be hypocritical. It's also not official government policy - if there was a clear majority vote to secede, the Francophone areas of Quebec would probably be allowed to do so by Canada. I was merely pointing out my personal disagreement with such a course of events. I'd personally rather we just demand immediate payment of Quebec's large share of the national debt, and if it were not forthcoming, militarily reconquer and split Quebec between New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nunavut and Ontario. But I'm not the government.

Oh really. Then Saguenay Lac-St-Jean should be its own country. They voted overwhemingly for separation.

Oh, yeah, such sour grapes. Invade us. Good to know you're all about upholding democracy and its virtues.

Start by paying us our dividends from the harmonisation of our taxes.

But since you brought up hypocrisy, it is hypocritical to insist that Quebec as a demolinguistic "nation" has territorial rights over parts of Quebec that cannot except in fantasy be said to constitute part of that demolinguistic nation.

I don't remember territorial integrity and legal continuation being fantasy.

I detect lots of anger here. Unfortunately, anger is a poor substitute for a valid argument. Rejected ballots in an election in Quebec have never totaled more than ~2%, yet in at least one monolithic No riding, rejected ballots composed 12% of total ballots cast. What, all of a sudden people forgot how to write check marks in 1995? You can blindly focus your anger on other issues - and as I said, irregularities occurred on both sides for certain - but that merely exposes your inherent bias and inability to evenly argue this issue.

You'd be angry too if we kept you from taking your own destiny in your hands by cheating.

A few rejected ballots does not come close to the shit the federal government managed to pull off and get away with. Both are equally undemocratic and shouldn't have happened. Still, the hundred of thousands of voters that should not even have voted in the first place were enough to steal the referendum from us.

I suppose everybody has to belittle someone. Fuck this crap, I'm out. You accuse me of being angry? Evidently by the "LOL ID INVAD U" comment you have some sort of problem against my province. I don't care. I obviously won't change your opinion as utterly silly as it is, and you won't change mine.

[2D]

This isn't ROTW guys.

[The Joker]

Get out.

Québec being part of Canada is only an unfortunate fact. Poutine is a Québec dish and it has nothing to do with English Canada. I know the only culinary culture you guys have are nanaimo bars but try not to steal ours.

I was just making a little comment, dude. No need to get all seperatist on my ass. :rolleyes:

[MrLongName]

It is over here in Canada. We french love the stuff.

[Kaius]

Tbh, i just prefer Chips and gravy. No cheese, that just sounds..kinda gross.

[Paracet]

aslong as those chunks are cheese, looks yummy to me :D

[INFERNO]

Poutines are absolutely amazing, even when they're from the fast-food places where the gravy and cheese curds are sitting out for however many hours/days. It may not look all that appetizing but looks can be deceiving. I've had them both in Quebec and Ontario, they're great in either place. Unfortunately, I've heard some fast-food places mispronounce it. At least I hope they're not selling putains but are selling poutines.

[Vinc3nzo]

Poutine is A-mazing

[KenFisher]

Chips and cheese, tick. Chips and gravy, tick. Chips, cheese and gravy? Probably tick. So yeah, prob will try it. :). *i was gonna say, this is a food thread!*

[NeverLetGo]

I love poutines! Amazing!