How long before Canadians get mad??
- Thread starter langeweile
- Start date
The Meech Lake accord was downright criminal. I would rather see Canada Balkanized than make Quebec a Constitutional elector and aristocracy within Confederation 
. Brian Mulroney was a great man in many ways, but he was really more of a businessman than a Statesman, totally cynical, and as such was willing to casually use the rights and freedoms of the people as so many bargaining chips.
. Brian Mulroney was a great man in many ways, but he was really more of a businessman than a Statesman, totally cynical, and as such was willing to casually use the rights and freedoms of the people as so many bargaining chips.Wrong pal! It takes Large balls, to say to the electorate,: "Woops, my party, may or may not have been run by criminals, I would like to stand on my record, and get a new mandate from Canada"red said:
That would take balls.
Sure Red...Wait, wait, wait...red said:
Further to all That shit...Do YOU really want this quetionable group in Charge?
Hell, they are scary...very scary,,,,,,
Throw the bums out!
Having lived in the USA for quiet a while I have a hard time calling the Conservatives..well conservative.
Everytime the Liberals come out with a new entitlement plan, like daycare,or take a position on any issue like gay marriage. Harper usually comes out and says "Yeah i am for that too, but I would do it different".
There must be a lot of people like me they ask themselves "Why should I vote fo him?"
IMHO he doesnt represent a true allternative. In many ways the NDP represents a much stronger alternative than him.
His reluctance to openly speak about a truly conservative agenda. Keeps many conservative voters away from the polls and gives the liberals the "hidden agenda" card.
The"R's" in the USA didn't get elected because they were fighting for the middle ground with the "D's", they got elected because at the time they managed to distinguish themselves as a true alternative. I don't get the same vibes from Harper.
By constantly moving to the left he pushes the whole spectrum even more to the left.
I think the Conservatives need to do some soul searching. Maybe they will loose a few % points in the short run, but I think in the long run they can seperate themselves as a true alternative.
Looking at voter participation in the past election, there is a big chunk of people that haven't voted.
Certainly in the last election in the USA the higher turnout has benefited the Republicans.
Everytime the Liberals come out with a new entitlement plan, like daycare,or take a position on any issue like gay marriage. Harper usually comes out and says "Yeah i am for that too, but I would do it different".
There must be a lot of people like me they ask themselves "Why should I vote fo him?"
IMHO he doesnt represent a true allternative. In many ways the NDP represents a much stronger alternative than him.
His reluctance to openly speak about a truly conservative agenda. Keeps many conservative voters away from the polls and gives the liberals the "hidden agenda" card.
The"R's" in the USA didn't get elected because they were fighting for the middle ground with the "D's", they got elected because at the time they managed to distinguish themselves as a true alternative. I don't get the same vibes from Harper.
By constantly moving to the left he pushes the whole spectrum even more to the left.
I think the Conservatives need to do some soul searching. Maybe they will loose a few % points in the short run, but I think in the long run they can seperate themselves as a true alternative.
Looking at voter participation in the past election, there is a big chunk of people that haven't voted.
Certainly in the last election in the USA the higher turnout has benefited the Republicans.
Agreed. (Lang and I agree on something! Quick! Write this down!)langeweile said:
In my experience, Canadians are less apt to be polarized in their politics than Americans, which is likely why the battleground for support has always been the middle-of-the-road electorate.
The fine line Harper must walk is to move the Conservatives to the middle politically, while maintaining his hard-core Conservative base. But I frankly don't think he has the ability to do that. East of Manitoba, he's seen as another out of the same mold of social conservatives that hatched the likes of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day. Rightly or wrongly, that carries HUGE baggage.
But until the leadership of the Conservative party can provide a credible, socially progressive and fiscally responsible alternative, the Liberals will continue to govern the country.
The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't enough hardcore, rightwing conservatives in Canada for them to elect a Government. I'm sure the Liberals would be salivating at the idea that the Conservatives make themselves more conservative; can you say, Liberal hegemony for another decade?langeweile said:
Canada isn't the USA. Canada is more centrist and extremist elements will not get elected, plain and simple. If conservatives are waiting for the Conservative Party to become more hardcore, they'll be waiting an awfully long time... (like, cold day in hell type of long).
As for Harper, he's useless. He's a case-in-point example of why the CP is going nowhere. Harper needs to go and the new leader (who must be from the east if the CP wants to win a national election) must work to outline exactly what it is the CP stands for... something the party itself can't even agree on at the moment.
If anyone saw the Minority Report documentary on channel 26 the other day, you'll know exactly how out-of-their-league the CP is at the moment (which makes me speculate that the true CP powers-that-be are waiting in the wings for the momentum to swing so that the old-school Conservatives can reestablish control and bring a new CP to Parliament Hill, possibly with a Mike Harris or Ralph Klein at the helm).
No, Canada is so far left that moderate conservative positions seem extreme to you.Keebler Elf said:
A country veers as far to the left as its citizens are willing to allow themselves to be pushed. Contrast America at one end of the spectrum- whose population is wealthier and enjoys more freedom and better administration than any nation in history- with England, whose citizens have been reduced to little more than slaves, at the other. For some time, Canada has been drifting farther and farther towards the edge of the English abyss. I agree that Harper just doesn't have what it takes to stop that drift. Both Mike Harris and Ralph Klein do; either one could save this country from a miserable, slow, and painful descent.
Arguable. Very arguable...Truncador said:
If England is the abyss, then the USA must be the black whole!
Bravo, you are very correct on all points impala77, I tried to explain to him the same points on a few occasions yet he keeps coming back with the same argument!
in conclusion: EURO / Canada is not USA in many respects, EU is about 100+ years and Canada about 50+ years ahead in another direction over USA (some may say wiser!) in dealing with social issues because of historical/cultural progression! In another word we are not as reactionary as USA is in dealing with problems(foreign / domestic) and that of course has an economical cost which in many ways we are willing to endure!
i.e., we prefer to help a drug addict deals with his addiction than hang him dry!
i.e., we prefer diplomacy over going to war (Iraq) when it seems a right thing to do!
i.e., we are willing to talk, not shoot our way out of each and every probelm!
i.e., we are more secular (private in our believes) than religious nuts!
i.e., We don’t think sex is a sin nor our sex workers are all criminals!
Gee . . . I could come up with hundreds of more examples that characterize our disparities in many ways!
in conclusion: EURO / Canada is not USA in many respects, EU is about 100+ years and Canada about 50+ years ahead in another direction over USA (some may say wiser!) in dealing with social issues because of historical/cultural progression! In another word we are not as reactionary as USA is in dealing with problems(foreign / domestic) and that of course has an economical cost which in many ways we are willing to endure!
i.e., we prefer to help a drug addict deals with his addiction than hang him dry!
i.e., we prefer diplomacy over going to war (Iraq) when it seems a right thing to do!
i.e., we are willing to talk, not shoot our way out of each and every probelm!
i.e., we are more secular (private in our believes) than religious nuts!
i.e., We don’t think sex is a sin nor our sex workers are all criminals!
Gee . . . I could come up with hundreds of more examples that characterize our disparities in many ways!
Last edited:
I used to think that until I actually lived in the U.S. Their infringements on freedom often come in different forms but they are there and in some ways worse.Truncador said:
That certainly is not true of the current American Administration.
Provincial politicians rarely do well federally. They carry to much baggage.
The problem with a common I.D. like Europe is that the U.S. would expect far too much to make it happen. When I got my british passport, it was just before the european union, once i had my british passport i was considered to be verified by the british and as such acceptable to the rest of the european union. I don't think that the U.S would just readily accept that people who have canadian or mexican passports are verified according to their standards and would still require other checks that could include finger prints and other personal data that as a Canadian I don't even really want my own government to have let alone a foreign one like the U.S.langeweile said:
I actually don't think that the U.S really does enjoy more freedom than we do. From what i have seen of the U.S population, they totally buy in to whatever propaganda is fed to them without much argument, now many canadians do the same thing but at least most canadians can look beyond their own media for second or differing opinions. I think some of freedoms afforded by the U.S constitution are nothing more than words on paper and the spirit behind them has long since been removed from the governmentTruncador said:
the English as slaves? what do you base that on? I'd like to hear more about that one.
One last thing, it is painfully obvious that you are a conservative and believe that the only answer to all of canada's problems is a conservative government, to that i applaud your convictions. but to suggest that ralph klein and harris will be the ones to save the conservatives after harper leaves totally ignores the fact that both of those men will also face lots of opposition in ontario and have some personal demons to slay before even thinking about federal politics.
For the conservative to regain an edge in canadian politics they need to find somone in the party that has no previous connections to harper, day, manning or anyone else now in the inner circle. They need to find a fresh face, someone who will come in and lay down the plaform that will quiet down the percieved religious agenda and bring a message to canadians that they are seriously ready to be the government. No one has since been able to convey that. The party still looks like an awkward merger of alliance and conservative, much like the current parliamentary alliance of the bloc and conservatives.
I take it that you never read the Meech Lake Accord or ever had any idea what it was about, for the Accord would have done none of the things you suggest. The sheer ignorance of many Canadians about the precise terms and conditions of this agreement was appalling.Truncador said:The Meech Lake accord was downright criminal. I would rather see Canada Balkanized than make Quebec a Constitutional elector and aristocracy within Confederation
One of the reasons for this is that the USA has a unique and rather peculiar definition of the word "conservative". We have a rather strange notion of the concept ourselves.langeweile said:
In Canada, the true conservatives are in the Liberal Party, in the sense that they stand for the status quo on most important issues.
Not the case anymore. It was certainly the situation when I was there, during the height of the Thatcher/Major years, but life and the economy in the UK is about as good now as it has ever been.Truncador said:
Harris drove the economy into a $6Billion+ deficit, and then lied about it to make the McGuinty Liberals look bad. Fortunately the Ontario Auditor General saw through it and placed the blame where it belonged. As for Klein, Alberta just happens to be sitting on top of some monumental oil and gas reserves. To hear Klein and Rod Love and the other Tory cronies talk, you'd think that they actually did something to deserve this peculair quirk of geological fate! They remind me a bit of the son born into a rich family, gloating all his life that he hit a triple, when in fact he was born on third base.Truncador said:
Re: Freedom in America: America is, of course, far from being some kind of theoretical libertarian paradise or something like that. Furthermore, it`s admittedly difficult to generalize about a country that`s at once extremely diverse and puts a lot of power in local hands. No doubt, every one of the several states and various jurisdictions have some onerous, or just plain silly, rules and regulations. Nonetheless, it`s a fair generalization to say that, all in all, basic rights are better protected and more deeply entrenched than any other English-speaking or G-8 nation:
-right to freedom of political speech, which is absolute, and moreover vigorously exercised
-right to property: personal taxes in particular are about as low as can be in a big, complex, and powerful State
-legal limits on the power of the State, which are severe, inflexible, and very difficult to alter.
-right to keep and bear arms: America is presently the only major democracy that understands the importance of, or recognizes, this bedrock right at all (although it was almost universally understood in Western democracies and in democratic political theory until early in the last century).
Also, there are far more avenues and instruments of direct democracy (referenda, election of judges and local public servants, etc.) than in any of America`s peers by far.
Re: Conditions of Englishmen in this respect: Where the biggest civil-rights issue in the USA is whether or not enemy combatants should be prosecuted with extraordinary measures, in England things have reached a point where the question of whether or not Englishmen can be trusted with objects sharper than Playskool scissors is now being seriously discussed (link to discussion)
England`s Parliament, unlike that of Canada and the American Congress, openly claims unlimited power, in particular the right to alter the Constitution (which has no judicial review mechanism) as it sees fit. This power, no less omnipotent than that of any dictator, has been used to abrogate historic Constitutional rights that date back centuries, including the right to bear arms (guaranteed in the 1688 Bill of Rights and reinforced by common law legal rulings, which Parliament can and has ignored at their will and pleasure) and the right to non-self incrimination. Meanwhile, those who exercise the elementary human right of self-defense are subject to being brutally persecuted for doing so by the courts.
With respect to the latter, the Home Office is on record as saying the government has the duty to protect criminals from their victims. The government there is seemingly powerless to protect its citizens from the epidemic of criminal predation that has mushroomed over the last ten years, but not to punish the citizens for trying to protect themselves. This isn`t slavery- it`s worse than that (one writer suggests the term "anarcho-tyranny").
Finally, Britons are also subject to being prosecuted for speech deemed offensive by the authorities.
Re: Harris and Klein: I base my comments solely on an appraisal of their public style, in particular their willingness to speak right up to their opponents and say what many Canadians think but won`t say. This is the type of leadership the Opposition needs if it`s ever going to win another election, no matter its platform or public-relations issues. Harris, in particular, managed to stare down the totally mobilized social forces of the Left not once, but twice.
-right to freedom of political speech, which is absolute, and moreover vigorously exercised
-right to property: personal taxes in particular are about as low as can be in a big, complex, and powerful State
-legal limits on the power of the State, which are severe, inflexible, and very difficult to alter.
-right to keep and bear arms: America is presently the only major democracy that understands the importance of, or recognizes, this bedrock right at all (although it was almost universally understood in Western democracies and in democratic political theory until early in the last century).
Also, there are far more avenues and instruments of direct democracy (referenda, election of judges and local public servants, etc.) than in any of America`s peers by far.
Re: Conditions of Englishmen in this respect: Where the biggest civil-rights issue in the USA is whether or not enemy combatants should be prosecuted with extraordinary measures, in England things have reached a point where the question of whether or not Englishmen can be trusted with objects sharper than Playskool scissors is now being seriously discussed (link to discussion)
England`s Parliament, unlike that of Canada and the American Congress, openly claims unlimited power, in particular the right to alter the Constitution (which has no judicial review mechanism) as it sees fit. This power, no less omnipotent than that of any dictator, has been used to abrogate historic Constitutional rights that date back centuries, including the right to bear arms (guaranteed in the 1688 Bill of Rights and reinforced by common law legal rulings, which Parliament can and has ignored at their will and pleasure) and the right to non-self incrimination. Meanwhile, those who exercise the elementary human right of self-defense are subject to being brutally persecuted for doing so by the courts.
With respect to the latter, the Home Office is on record as saying the government has the duty to protect criminals from their victims. The government there is seemingly powerless to protect its citizens from the epidemic of criminal predation that has mushroomed over the last ten years, but not to punish the citizens for trying to protect themselves. This isn`t slavery- it`s worse than that (one writer suggests the term "anarcho-tyranny").
Finally, Britons are also subject to being prosecuted for speech deemed offensive by the authorities.
Re: Harris and Klein: I base my comments solely on an appraisal of their public style, in particular their willingness to speak right up to their opponents and say what many Canadians think but won`t say. This is the type of leadership the Opposition needs if it`s ever going to win another election, no matter its platform or public-relations issues. Harris, in particular, managed to stare down the totally mobilized social forces of the Left not once, but twice.
