Slavik44

August every Canadian truly admires and appreciates the magnificient American Revolutionary spirit, and the marvellous documents of that time period that were concise, inspirational and idealistic. It would be nothing but foolishness to accuse Canadians of being against such a spirit. Let us not be confused by the spirit of the American constitution and revolution, with the America that has come out of the closet. Unfortunately such spirit such idealism is found to be lacking on capital hill, today there remains such a fundemental hipocrisy concerning the spirit of the Former America in terms of the action of the America of today, where the constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper in both their words and actions. Today, now and and then, past and present we have seen these rights, these principles found in the spirit of the constitution trampled upon like a door mat in the name of its protection. It seems as though the only right respected and cared for is the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, people will fight and scream if you touch or take away their guns, but what is to be said for the people that touch, alter, and take away the spirit of the constitution? Why is it that the ones that raise hell about that are labelled as anti-American. If we are to talk about the spirit of America, lets talk about the revolutionary spirit that procliamed when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Many people want to compare George Bush and America to Adolf Hitler and Germany, I am far more content to compare the America of today to the Great Britain it was fighting yesterday. I am sure if we got two constitutional lawyers and locked them in a room they could argue for hours about what every coma and semi colon in the United States Constitution means, but if we are to talk about the spirit of the revolution there can be no debating that the President of the United States of America has violated the Spirit of the Constitution. You know the spirit that proclaimed Americans would not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, and that no warrant would be issued unless their was probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed. The spirit of such a wise proclamation has undoubtedly been trampled on, I think the President might have used the bill of rights to wipe his ass last week. In your post you have invoked the image of America as seen in many of its revolutionary documents I am sorry to tell you, it is dead, it has been killed, such an America no longer exists, it is sad but true. For years many people have justified such and such a violation with an article and this or that action with a bill, or such a decision with a law. But in the name of protecting the constitution it has been killed. I do not know when the deathblow was given or how many blows were recieved but in this day and age, the constitution is something we all pay homage to, like a dead ancestor at a grave yard. Do not envoke the image of the constitution, you killed it. You cannot praise the greatness, benevolence, and beauty of America based on the spirit of the constitution no more than Scott Peterson can make such claims about Lacy. You can tell me that the murder was justified, and I wont waste my time arguing against such a point, but do not then turn around and give such an eloquent summary of the spirit, do not open your mouth to sing praise for your victim. Canadians and the international world loves the consitutional spirit, they hate the fact that such a spirit has been replaced by Bennedict Arnold. The anti-American crowd is in fact not anti-American, they are not yelling insults at America, they are sitting with flowers at the grave of a still born babe, weeping for the loss of the world and shouting in anger at that man who stole his I.D.

Eating pork is a HUGE part of western culture, but I see in today's Van. Sun paper that the age-old staple of the French ... pork soup ... is being banned right across the land from their soup kitchens that feed the hungry. Yet, foul smelling stinky mutton is allowed. That makes me angry. VERY angry. I'd rather die than eat mutton! But you go right ahead, Slavik! Bon appetit!!! If you view a Soup Kitchens goal as that of domesticating the porkers of the world into the drove of French and Western Culture than I can understand why your pride may have a beef with such a fowl decision. But I must disagree with such a bull headed view, the purpose of a soup kitchen is to ensure the provision of food even to the most sickly shoat. In France many people of Such disposition happen to be Muslim, now we could stand and clash horns like a bunch of rams about eating what your given, but if our goal is to save life than throw not our pearls before the swine and let the drift have their mutton. Really Mark steyn was right we worry about the wrong things.

I must admit it was a little long for my tastes, so I jsut read the beginign and skimmed through the rest. And like last time an article was posted by Mark Steyn I am afraid I must disagree with him, yet again. The last to articles someone has clipped from this guy, both discuss the impending doom of the Western World, perhpas that is his theme his forte, his passion in life to predict a sunken ship at the foot of every iceberg. If he was taken more seriously and was more respected he may go down as the Malthus of our generation, but he is gonna have to work on the whole impending doom thing. You see Steyn is wrong, he is wrong on one fundemental fact, he under-estimates the power of western culture, he claims we are not like the shakers, he is right, unlike the shakers western culture is appealing, I find it hard to lable a group of people that doesn't have sex as anything more than peculiar. The problem is how do you defien western culture, who is western? Infact is western culture like binary? Is it Black in white? is it yes or no? Can we walk around and label people into two groups, western and non-western? I belive the answer can be nothing but a resounding no. At some point in time, no one was western, at some point in time western belief did not exist, and when it did start to come about, it was certainly not under a big poof of smoke and an oh look here is modern Britain. Western Culture evolved and it evolved slowly, to the point that we would not describe a politician or businessmen from the 1700's as fully Western, it would be absured laughable at best. The westernization of the west has taken a long time, it has had its truggles but it has happened, but it has happened at a slow rate, taking hundreds of years of progression. But as it advanced we added people, added countries to the western world. In fact we need to look only recently at the death of communism to see some of our latest members, European countries yes, but European countries at one point under the darkest shackles of communism, the transition has not been smoothe and may not be fully complete according to some people. But you would be nothing more than a fool to deny that Ukraine is more westernized today than it was 30 years ago. Do these former Socialist republics not count? Are they not becoming westernized? In fact Mark Steyn Contradicts himself, in one paragraph he talks about muslims fightign westerners, Muslims fighting westerners, where? In Russia, twenty or thiry years ago, you would woudl be fighting commies, you would be fightign the exact opposite of westerners. How western russia is I cannto testify to such a fact, but if Mark Steyn can call them western then I adopt the russian people into western society, a feat un-thinkable only decades ago. From the darkest corners of the cold war, Western Society has apparently, by admission of Mark Steyn, adopted into its litter a child, a son named Russia. By admission of Mark Steyn we have westernized the Iron Curtain. Apparently Russia is dieing(the affects of communism, not islam), but 30 years ago, Russia was our enemy, today according to Mark Steyn Russia is our friend. If russia losses one person we have lost one person, but in 1991 the Soviet Union, gave us more than a hundred million people. By his own addmission he is bitching about the loss of one, that until recently was never ours. He is Bitching about the loss of one, while ignore the gain of millions. Thinking about gain and about western culture, and My belief that it comes on a sliding scale, I am startign tot hink about who the ultimate westerner is. Perhaps Churchill? Roosevelt? Martin Luther King? (oh he wasn't white) Kennedy then? How about a Canadian Pearson? I am going to say no, no, no, no, and no, who then. Well none other than Gandhi, yeah I kow he wasn't white, but thats my point. Western culture is not White Culture, It is hard anywhere in the world to find many strict adherrents to the belief in peace, love, and the pursuit of hapiness...but we can fidn people that are workign towards these idealic beliefs, and we can find them all over the world, apart of many different ethnic backgrounds and skin colours. No the Japanese busnisman is not American, and the south korean houswife, is not America, and india although they have done well with female empoymerent and have worked towars relagating the caste system to a back seat...we cannot ignore the plight of the outcastes the untouchables, we cannto ignore the corupt businessmen either. But in anylizing thsi we cannot ignore the fact that during the industrial revolution, problems of similar magnitudes did occur. I suppose the sayign holds that the industrial revolution was the deadliest revolution the world ever fought, and it is a battle we continue to fight. Some may argue that my comparison to the industrial revolution is unfair, because in other parts of the world they are not following the path Great Britain took, they are skipping it, the order is different. But in defense of these countries we must recognize that outside of a select few, not very many countries followed the exact order Britain followed, Germany although it became highly industrialized, did so under heavy government control, it was government sponsored industrialization. After many years Germany has become fully westernized, it took along tiem to get all the values right and the nut cases thrown out but it happened. In the year 2006 I am un-willing to call Germany non-western because it become a western country in a method that is contrary to that of Great Britian. I am not so concerned about the method so much as I am the final result, Westernization. A result that I am sure will and is happening around the world. We can talk until we are blue in the face about resistance against western culture but we cannot ignore that where there is resistance there is also acceptence. It is hard to resist something you have no knowledge of, so while there is resistance, we must not that there is acceptance, where one brother resists the other accepts or strives to accept. Where one uncle forms a fundementalist terrorist organization his niece poses in a bathing suite. We are iimpatient people, perhpas that is western culture. But we must not in our desire for progress ignore the fact that it is happening, slowly but surely it is happening and it is spreading. We cannot ignore that it took along time for America, For Britain, For France, For Germany to get to the points they are at now, it took along time and it will take along time before others fully join, but I belive that evidence exists so that we can say they are slowly sliding our way. It is not that we are getting exhausted, but that western culture is more powerfull than any Nuclear arsenal and more bennificial. This is not a millitary war, we may get exhausted with wars, but our culture is even greater than our people and it is relentless. Just like a millitary victory in Vietnam was not neccasary for the fall of communism, a millitary victory in Iraq is not neccasary for the fall of regressive fundementalism, because the grass truly is greener. Because the fundementalists are actually fighting a defensive war, a war to retain, a war to stop. So where was Mark Steyn right? When he said we spend so much time worrying about the wrong things. We are worryign about a regressive belief that is fightign a lossign battle. When we should be worried about helping people in foriegn countries undergoe the transition that is occuring. We are wastign tiem predictign our doom and missing an excellent oppurtunity to help spread our glory, Mark Steyn on that point was right, unfortunately he was also guilty.

Why Fire a guy who will step down on his own? It will take 2 weeks before Harper officially becomes P.M, perhaps another two weeks before he anounces his cabinent, after that his appointments may take another week or two of sorting out. So why risk controversy about this, let Mckenna step down and allow Harper to avoid any bad press.

With out a doubt ignatief will be in the leadership race, especially after winning his riding, Stronach on the other hand I am not so sure about. While it certainly is possible for someone to run for leadership of two major parties during their lifetime, i think 3 years may be cutting it just a bit short. It would just be to easy to critisize her. I am tryign to think of other possibilities so far I figure; Ignatief Mckenna Manly Tobin Cauchon (don't know much about him but I have heard his name tossed around) Any one else have some insights into the candidates in what should be one of the better Leadership races we have seen in recent history? Oh and welcoem to Mapleleafweb na85.

well I convinced 3 people to vote, but they all voted CPC...bastards last time I convince people to vote.

Well good luck to everyone who made projections, I will leave my final results the same, although I think we might see one or two independants win on election day.

I hope no one votes for the Liberals, the Liberals need to get together and clean house, they have become a disaster of a party, and what is best for Canada in the long run is to have a stronger, cleaner, and new Liberal party with fresh faces and fresh ideas, a CPC minority will not kill us. some people ar talkign about how even a year or two of a CPC government would turn back the clock, but another month of this Liberal party would break the clock. I hope people don't switch from NDP to support the Liberals, because what is even more frightning than a CPC minority is a Liberal party stuck in perpetuel limbo, with infighting, poor leadership, and no vision.

LPC-6 BLOC-2 NDP-2 CPC-2

A gut feeling, just felt like the right position for him, although it might not be right up his ally, I didn't neccasarily like him for positions that many would see as his base. However, it is Jack Layton's base, background, and over all philophy that would make him a good justice minister. All to often we get guys that really don't know what they are doing, are not interested in doing their jobs, and are sitting in government to get a huge pention and tell people when they can talk. For most of my cabinent I was looking for people who would have a vision and set out to accomplish that, in the end it seemed logical to pick Jack Layton as one of those people and even more logical to put him in Justice because that is a fieled desperately lacking in vision and fankly in hope. with Jack Laytons recent policy anouncements on serious crime I get the impression that such a vision would not be a nightmare given Jack Layton's willigness to get tough on crimes that you need to crack down on.

Makes sense to me, didn't like most other candidates. Stephen Harpers has really only held the Leader portfolio and his main expirence is in Leadership of the NCC, CA, and CPC. That being said I cannot belive that Stephen Harper after leading the Alliance and the CPC and forming the policy of the reform party knows nothing about the Canadian millitary, I would say from that he has enough background. In our federal government much of the "work" is done by un-elected bureacrats so Stephen Harper does not need to have an extensive millitary back ground to hold down the position, just ideas about where he wants the millitary to be headed, which I belive he does. He is a competent enough leader and he would be someone I would trust to do something about the millitary and have enough clout to carry it out. Many people may not like Stephen Harpers Social or Fiscal Conservatism, making the millitary a perfect fit. Most people agree that we need a stronger millitary and of all the politicians out there he is one of a few he could carry it out and he brings along strong leadership abilities...so I have no problem seeign him fill the role of National Defence Minister. I might have missed the whole boarding call for the I hate Pettigrew bandwagon...my only problem with him is that he appoligized for calling speratist leaders a bunch of losers. Anyways on one hand you critisize me for picking the in-expirenced Harper and then I provide you with the most expirenced man for the Job in Canada and you shoot it down the majority of Pettigrews career has been spent in the realm of international policy. I for one am not a big fan of the Bloc, I am not a big fan of Speratists so I am not about to tell anyone that I look forward to a bloc victory anywhere I hope those bunch of losers don't win a riding at all.

Prime Minister: Peter Mckay Deputy Prime Minister: Pierre Pettigrew Minister of Finance: John Manly Minister of the Environment: David Kilgour Minister of Foreign Affairs: Pierre Pettigrew Minister of National Defence: Stephen Harper Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Loyola Hearn Minister of Justice: Jack Layton Minister of Health: Keith Martin Minister of Social Development: Penny Priddy

Last election the NDP aired an advertisment in B.C that compared stephen harper to Gordon Campbell, and you know thats probabley the fairest attack add ever thrown at the guy. Stephen Harper and his policies will probabley resemble the philosophy of Gordon Campbells Liberals. It is not so much a hidden agenda as it is an agenda that some members of the NDP will not like because they are ideologicaly opposed to it and the liberals will be angry because they didn't think of it first. However in the end the hidden agenda is not hidden it only sounds scary and that is why it is used, I don't expect the conservatives to go around hugging trees, kissing bunnies, visting a Louis Riel shrine, all the while driving a Toyota Prius. However, if that is what you expect yes you will be in for a shock. I do not support everything the CPC does and I won't be voting for them this election but I sure as hell am not gonna be suprised If/when Stephen Harper anounces his first budget and if you are suprised by his budget than you probabley were not capable of making it to a polling booth all by yourself in the first place.

What about that Louis Saint Laurent riding? While the CPC may not win any seats I belive they might have a chance, however small. Last election the CPC came second in the Saint Laurent riding losing by a little more than 3,000 votes. Given the CPC's climb in the polls I would think that while the riding may not be won by the CPC it appears as though it could still be a possibility. Although I am not to familiar with Quebec so I could very well be wrong but by the numbers it appears the CPC has a slight chance of grabing a seat in quebec.

Come January 23rd...when your gone this place will clean up just nicely, unless greg bans you before that date.

Well we have the next batch of polls out so I will now present my highly anticipated mid election predictions. CPC: 136 LPC: 92 NDP: 21 Bloc: 59

Member number is one of the most important things on these forums, because those with the lowest numbers, who are still posting, will have in their possesion an intellegince far superior to the newer and inherrently lesser life forms of Maple Leaf Web.

Ive done all right, I'm working on it, the big bang will come on thursday for the medal rounds at the world junior chamionships, that outta be fun...of course with the money I put down I coulda joined you in honolulu.

I would figure very few are actually left to swing to the liberals, I belive this is confirmed by the numbers in the poll. I am interpreting the 1/3 as 1/3 of the 50% which I belive would result in about 16% total, a number that is within the range the NDP has been polling in the past 10 days and the whole election. So if there are swing voters left in the NDP I don't know if we can expect them to be much more than 1% of the total vote, perhaps enough to impact a few tight races.

Nope this ain't your thread, you started the thread yes however, the door was open and a welcome sign was hung and I entered, it was not barging in. All I am saying is that we have net population increase in the western world. You might make it better? Thats why our eyes can see more than one colour, our touch feel more than one thing, our voice sound more than one way, and our tounge tastes more than idaho potatoes. It might not matter to them but I think we both would have enjoyed this discussion much more if we appealed to facts. Sure has, until next time... Sure is and I say the pudding has got a hell of alot better over the years. and I hope you do I certainly will.

The Liberals have had a very poor campaign showing so far, I woldn't say the CPC has the election in the bag as there is always something that might go wrong. However, the way things have been going I would not be suprised if the CPC did infact pull off a victory.

Which is directly in the Constitution of the NDP, whereas this cheerful flowery bit of obfuscated tripe is from the Socialist International texts: Sounds pretty contradictory. I don't know how on one hand you can say production and distribution of goods and services shall not be for profit, yet advocate freedom. I don't know how you can control producers and distributers, while advocating solidarity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know currently cyber coma there is a bit of a debate going on. You see there are people that belive that Adam and steve should be allowed to marry each other and by not allowing them to do so, you are violatign their constitutional rights. However, there remaisn some that say allowing them to marry is a violation of my constitutional rights. The fact is I have never heard of a constitution that has no ambiguities or a constitution that has only one interpretation. That is why when I posted excerpts from the constitution I provided the policies of the NDP for this election. Because the best way to interpret what democratic socialism is would be to see what policies it leads to. After looking at those policies I would conclude that the NDP is not looking to nationalize all industries or have a central planeed economy. It does appear however that that the NDP belives that (to put it in right wing terms) If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. I do not belive that the the snippets for the NDP constitution mean very much, I primarily brought them out because people said the NDP said in their own constitution that they were socialist, while instead it was Democratic Socialist. If you want to understand truly what that is you must look not only at the constitution but at what the party proposes and while they may have some socialist elements and they may have some socialists in the party, I belive that the policies indicate that the party is primarily one that wishes to see Government Control rather than Government Ownership.

You have your wording wrong, I have been a member of mapleleaf web for a long time, I often log on to the forums and look at what other people post and respond to them. I did not coem barging in actually I went to a public forum saw a thread clicked on it read an article. An article that had to ommit 90% of the truth to make even a feeble arguement. It was in fact a very poor article, your defense of it has been no existant. You were not able to defend the claim that whites were dieing, you were nto able to defend the claim that western culture is dieing, and now you have resorted to a mindless appeal to Authority you are relieng on Nothign mroe than the reputation of the Author to combat the cold hard truth. And that is waste of both your time and my time, If you have proof of your beliefs show them, but up to thsi point you have made no defense of your beliefs other than saying progress is not happening fast enough but progress is progress and it is happening. I have clearly shown to you why this article is bullshit, and if al you can say is Mark Steyn said then you clearly deserve to be labled as acting in an ignorant manner. Then stop posting about the damn thing if you have never actually taken the time to read it.

What you have described is not marxism it is your opinion of left wing policies.

No I am sayign the NDP is a social democrat party jsut like it says it is, tha tis not socialism. Well that would explain why you don't know what you are talking about, you refuse to read your own posts. exactly so espousing those views can not make a party socialist it makes it human, espousing the view that there must be nationaliziation of all industries and a government planned economy that would be socialism. As I said many people will not apreciate the NDP's Left wing policies, but these left wing policies are not socialism. FOR THE THIRD TIME 1.The constitution of the democratic party The New Democratic Party believes that the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs." 2. The constitution of the Socialist International THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL is an association of political parties and organisations which seek to establish democratic socialism. 3. The definition of democratic socialism as defined by the socialist international "Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society." As I said some may not apreciate the left wing policies of the party I am calling the NDP exactly what they are Social Democrats, which is exactly what is in their party constitution and is exactly what is in the constitution of the socialist international. Now what is stupid is your inability to admit your error, The party constitution does not say they are a socialist party.