What do you think of Bridgette DePape's protest
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
this is a pretty funny statement. Every political party tries to win... Protest is the result of discontent. Too much discontent.. more protest.. and ultimately revolution.I believe you are correct Fuji. She did not say anything about electoral reform. I believe she is too immature to take such a position. Had she said it, i would probably have more respect for her than I do now. At least she would have been making a statement about something! But to disrupt the house simply because the party you voted for did not get elected is stupid and immature. It's just like all the other liberals we have to listen to now, on this board as well as mainstream media, that are saying we need electoral reform. This has only been an issue since the conservatives started winning elections. While the Liberals were in power, there was no need for electoral reform.
I love how the Liberals, seeing that they can't win the game using the traditional rules, now attempt to change the rules to play to their strengths. Grow up children!! Harper is the Prime Minister. And I, for one, am happy that we find ourselves in a new political landscape where the Prime Minister of this country does not need to hail from Quebec. Thank you Mr. Harper!!
Her position is one that is no doubt shared by 60% of Canadians, while you are clearly in the other 40%. Sure, it wasn't "appropriate" for her to make her statement in the Senate, but on the other hand she was prepared to lose her job over it. It would seem to me that this is the flip side of "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". She was well prepared to accept the consequences of her actions and still felt it was worthwhile to make her statement.I believe you are correct Fuji. She did not say anything about electoral reform. I believe she is too immature to take such a position. Had she said it, i would probably have more respect for her than I do now.
While I can see that you don't agree with her view, I have a hard time believing you're unaware that a great many Canadians DO agree with her view, and that she was speaking for a lot of people. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but your position is tantamount to pretending the other side doesn't even exist.
Let me ask you a question:
Do you think that Harper should take note that 60% of Canadians supported a platform further to the left of his? Or do you think he should legislate only on behalf of the 40% of Canadians who voted for him? Should he now behave as the Prime Minister for all Canadians? Or should he behave as the Prime Minister for the minority who are Conservative?
Why don't you look at politicians you like around the Western World and their policies and tell us the answer. (If you find yourself at sea, perhaps you can start with an analysis of the first two years of the Clinton Administration).Do you think that Harper should take note that 60% of Canadians supported a platform further to the left of his? Or do you think he should legislate only on behalf of the 40% of Canadians who voted for him? Should he now behave as the Prime Minister for all Canadians? Or should he behave as the Prime Minister for the minority who are Conservative?
Her disruption in the house was not motivated by any cause other than to say she doesn't like Harper. Well so what? Who really gives a shit who she likes? She may as well have had a sign that says "I don't like broccoli". She was not losing her job over any particular cause (ex. the right to vote, death penalty, gay marriage, etc.)... Simply "I don't like Harper". And so what if 60% of the populace agree with her? In our democracy, Harper won enough votes to form the government. When you have 3 main parties, it is very rare that any government will be formed with more than 50% of the vote. If you support this action, what next? Let's through mustard gas in the House while the house is sitting. How about bomb threats? Where does this stop. You liberals really need to learn to grow up and accept a legitimate loss. You never see this kind of behaviour on the part of Conservatives when Liberals form government.Her position is one that is no doubt shared by 60% of Canadians, while you are clearly in the other 40%. Sure, it wasn't "appropriate" for her to make her statement in the Senate, but on the other hand she was prepared to lose her job over it. It would seem to me that this is the flip side of "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". She was well prepared to accept the consequences of her actions and still felt it was worthwhile to make her statement.
While I can see that you don't agree with her view, I have a hard time believing you're unaware that a great many Canadians DO agree with her view, and that she was speaking for a lot of people. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but your position is tantamount to pretending the other side doesn't even exist.
Let me ask you a question:
Do you think that Harper should take note that 60% of Canadians supported a platform further to the left of his? Or do you think he should legislate only on behalf of the 40% of Canadians who voted for him? Should he now behave as the Prime Minister for all Canadians? Or should he behave as the Prime Minister for the minority who are Conservative?
With regard to you question, I'm not sure what it has to do with the issue we are discussing, but I'll try to answer it anyway. Harper, like any Prime Minister with a majority government, realizes that he is accountable to the people (in 2015) and that he cannot alienate the left. It's a political game. He has to keep the 40% that did vote for him happy so that they will vote for him again, plus he will have to introduce policies that will attract some of the 60% that did not vote for him this election. Harper is not in it for one term. He wants to make the Conservative Party the natural governing party of Canada, like the Liberals have been through the latter half of the 20th century. He knows he cannot do that if he alienates 60% of the populace.
The many Canadians, possibly as many as 60% of us, who also dislike Harper???Her disruption in the house was not motivated by any cause other than to say she doesn't like Harper. Well so what? Who really gives a shit who she likes?
You're trying to gloss over the fact that it's likely that a majority in the country support what she said and applaud her for it. She probably has more Canadians behind her than Harper does.
That's an asinine comment. If you can't see the difference between a peaceful protest such as hers and a violent attack such as that then you really are as thick as I worried you might be.If you support this action, what next? Let's through mustard gas in the House while the house is sitting. How about bomb threats?
All of your arguments have relied on exaggeration so far, pretending she said something she didn't say, or speculating wildly about incredibly violent acts that no one but you has ever contemplated--do you have any point, if you restrict yourself to reality?
If you begin with the above unverified statement, the rest is false.The many Canadians, possibly as many as 60% of us, who also dislike Harper???
You think it's unverified that many Canadians dislike Harper? Really????If you begin with the above unverified statement, the rest is false.
I guess we can write off your views as disconnected from reality then.
Fuji, I've read many people on these boards comment on your intellect. I am starting to see why. Try to understand this..... It is rare that in a country with at least 3 main parties (possibly 4 if you count the Bloc), that the governing party will ever get more than 50% of the vote. So to suggest in some twisted way that because the Conservatives had more people vote against them than for them, that they are somehow illegitimate is just plain dumb. And to take that even further and suggest that this immature little girl was brave because she disrupted the house is just idiotic and typical Liberal sore loser bullshit. Stop being a cry baby, fuji. The Liberals lost. Deal with it for goodness sake.The many Canadians, possibly as many as 60% of us, who also dislike Harper???
You're trying to gloss over the fact that it's likely that a majority in the country support what she said and applaud her for it. She probably has more Canadians behind her than Harper does.
That's an asinine comment. If you can't see the difference between a peaceful protest such as hers and a violent attack such as that then you really are as thick as I worried you might be.
All of your arguments have relied on exaggeration so far, pretending she said something she didn't say, or speculating wildly about incredibly violent acts that no one but you has ever contemplated--do you have any point, if you restrict yourself to reality?
Nobody disagrees with that, but it's also still true that 60% of the Canadians voted for policies further left than Harper's, and that many of them dislike Harper. You are glossing over the fact that she has widespread support. Her actions drew attention to the large number of Canadians that would like to see policies more to the left than the government that was elected. I think her desire--and certainly mine, and many other people's--is for people to keep up public, popular pressure on the government so that it moderates its views and governs more towards the center.Ft is rare that in a country with at least 3 main parties (possibly 4 if you count the Bloc), that the governing party will ever get more than 50% of the vote.
Again you are disconnected from reality. Nobody has suggested they are somehow illegitimate. Try reading what people actually write, and basing your arguments in reality, instead of this made up bullshit you keep coming up with.So to suggest in some twisted way that because the Conservatives had more people vote against them than for them, that they are somehow illegitimate is just plain dumb.
Again I ask you:
If you stick to reality--things that actually happened, things people actually said, things people actually proposed, or might conceivably proposed--do you have any point to make whatsoever, at all, in any way?
My point, Fuji, is that people like DePape and those like you who support her need to stop disrupting parliament just because you are not happy with who won the election. I'm not glossing over the 60% that did not vote for Harper. All I'm saying is that if we continue to allow representatives of the 60% that voted for parties other than the governing party to disrupt parliament, then we will never get anything done. The reason for that is that it is unlikely that any government will ever get more than 40% of the vote. Do you understand?Nobody disagrees with that, but it's also still true that 60% of the Canadians voted for policies further left than Harper's, and that many of them dislike Harper. You are glossing over the fact that she has widespread support. Her actions drew attention to the large number of Canadians that would like to see policies more to the left than the government that was elected. I think her desire--and certainly mine, and many other people's--is for people to keep up public, popular pressure on the government so that it moderates its views and governs more towards the center.
Again you are disconnected from reality. Nobody has suggested they are somehow illegitimate. Try reading what people actually write, and basing your arguments in reality, instead of this made up bullshit you keep coming up with.
Again I ask you:
If you stick to reality--things that actually happened, things people actually said, things people actually proposed, or might conceivably proposed--do you have any point to make whatsoever, at all, in any way?
And stop with this Liberal entitlement bullshit. Had the NDP won with 40% of the vote, would you be saying that it is good to protest because 60% of the populace is more right wing than the NDP? Presumably you would. According to you, it would seem that the only party that could lead the country without protests and disruptions would be the Liberals. If they won the election with 40%, then the remaining votes would be split between the left and the right, and each would have essentially as many votes as the Liberals. So in your twisted little mind, the only party that has any legitimate right to govern are the Liberals. Typical Liberal sense of entitlement!!
So what? The Conservative Party won a majority of the ridings.Nobody disagrees with that, but it's also still true that 60% of the Canadians voted for policies further left than Harper's, and that many of them dislike Harper. You are glossing over the fact that she has widespread support. . . . .[a] large number of Canadians . . . would like to see policies more to the left than the government that was elected.
This is all dog in the manger talk. The young woman seemingly learned nothing in her years at the University of Ottawa about the nature of democratic politics nor of Parliamentary democracy Mark Steyn is entirely correct on those points.
Actually it seemed to me that she learned a LOT. She sure as hell learned how to get media attention on her issue. She's got you and me talking about it here.
She deserves an A+ for understanding how politics REALLY work.
Perhaps you should ask her to tutor you on how democracy works in Canada, as she seems to have a better grasp of it than you do!
She deserves an A+ for understanding how politics REALLY work.
Perhaps you should ask her to tutor you on how democracy works in Canada, as she seems to have a better grasp of it than you do!
+1. Right on the button, Fuji. Aardvark has learned less in his long life than the young girl has already. The day when young people stop questioning and protesting government, we might as well all pack it in.Actually it seemed to me that she learned a LOT. She sure as hell learned how to get media attention on her issue. She's got you and me talking about it here.
She deserves an A+ for understanding how politics REALLY work.
Perhaps you should ask her to tutor you on how democracy works in Canada, as she seems to have a better grasp of it than you do!
You cannot throw around a figure of 60% without any evidence, which you have already done.You think it's unverified that many Canadians dislike Harper? Really????
I guess we can write off your views as disconnected from reality then.
Perhaps you missed the election. It was on the news recently, maybe you weren't watching.You cannot throw around a figure of 60% without any evidence, which you have already done.
What is her message other than a vague "Stop Harper "Actually it seemed to me that she learned a LOT. She sure as hell learned how to get media attention on her issue. She's got you and me talking about it here.
She deserves an A+ for understanding how politics REALLY work.
Perhaps you should ask her to tutor you on how democracy works in Canada, as she seems to have a better grasp of it than you do!
she's had her 15 minutes, it's over.
She simultaneously released a statement to the media outlining her message. Perhaps you should try reading the newspapers before you comment.What is her message other than a vague "Stop Harper "
I see , i was mistaken then, I gave you benefit of the benefit of the doubt on how elections and number work, I see that benefit was misplaced.Perhaps you missed the election. It was on the news recently, maybe you weren't watching.
I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. Review my previous posts, especially post #165 and #168. Then comment again, if you still have anything to say.I see , i was mistaken then, I gave you benefit of the benefit of the doubt on how elections and number work, I see that benefit was misplaced.
