Canadian Blue
-
Posts
2,969 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Canadian Blue
-
-
I put these allegations with all of the "second guessing" type allegations that are put up against presidents - Democratic and Republican.
It doesn't help that the report was authored by John Kerry.
Attempting to put the entire blame on George W Bush for not capturing Osama Bin Laden is infantile. When an operation like that occurs the President doesn't have control over what every soldier in region is doing, attempting to do so would result in a clusterf*ck.
Do I think Donald Rumsfeld in particular was incompetent, without a doubt.
Correct...and President Bush was re-elected to office after doing so.That was due more to John Kerry than anything George W Bush did in the previous four years. The Democrats had every advantage in 2004 and lost it all because of a shitty campaign.
-
I've actually heard some people call Gen. Rick Hillier a war criminal. Then again those people are usually confined to the usual quacks who have no clue where Afghanistan is on a map.
-
All I'm saying is that to put all the blame on Bush would be incorrect. When it comes to an operation like that the errors come from many areas. In this case it seems the biggest offenders were Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks.
-
Death panels have existed for a long time in the United States Shady.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009685301_harrop19.html
What I love is reading the "pro-life" politicians who are opposed to any additional funding for healthcare. Despite going on about how government intervention is required to ensure women don't have abortions, they want no public funding available for parents to help cover the costs of health insurance. Therefore a child can die later in life and the GOP is fine with it, but if an abortion occurs it's a tragedy that requires immediate action.
-
Really, was Bush the one who told those American troops not to move faster to catch Osama.
I'm not fan of George W Bush, in fact I think his Presidency was a complete failure. But you can't blame all of the problems in the world on him.
-
Oleg, you should really get back on the lithium.
-
I haven't seen this government cut back on their spending yet. They gave themselves a raise this year or last. How many of us got a raise?
Actually the federal government gave most civil servants a raise. I doubt you bitched about that.
The taxpayers pay for their travelling,and their families, they stay only in the best of hotelThat's how it works with most federal employees. As a private I would have a hard time moving my entire family, buying a home, and eating, etc. if it all came out of my own pay. Especially when you're given the order to do training with only two days notice. We don't stay in the best hotels either, whenever I was sent to another base I stayed in single quarters and would often find myself with three other members in a room.
Military families are separated for 6 to 9 months while on deployment. A friend of mine didn't get to be at the side of his wife for the birth of his first child due to deployment. If some Green Party supporter [Topaz] has a problem with it, then go bitch to the veterans at your local legion about how easy they had it in life compared to yourself.
if we could get the info on this it would be in the million of dollars I bet and this money could be put to better use instead of being abused!This is what I hate about the left. It used to be about helping the working man, the farmer, and the small businessman, now it's just some suburban marxist [Topaz] bitching about how the government should be spending money on her bullshit.
-
Let me explain to you how this works...
-
It's my understanding and belief that this is not a government 'of the people', but puppets chosen to further the US corporate hegemony.
So far corporate hegemony is far better than Taliban hegemony.
-
Is there any possibility that the Manitoba Liberals could win more support by finding a middle ground between the NDP and Tories?
-
I disagree, the BC Liberals are not just the old Socreds, they are a coalition of both conservatives and liberals. That's why it's not shocking to find members their party run for either the CPC or the LPC. If the Liberals wanted to govern, they would need to find a way to appeal to those on the right who favour the free market, civil liberties, and a welfare state.
The claim I made in the post above about the federal NDP being more of a lobby group than a party ready to govern I think holds true to a certain degree for the ALP. David Swann has taken some heat for making it appear he;s running a healthcare lobby group instead of a political party.Agreed, when I was a member of the NDP I couldn't help but look in awe as the federal NDP seemed to ignore everything it's successful provincial counterparts were doing. It seems like economic illiteracy is a point of pride in the federal party.
Often the stigma around the Liberals is that they seem like the lobby for public unions.
I suppose though it reallyy depends on which party can make a better case. I have a feeling what might work in the Liberals favour is the downturn in the oil sands -- it's considered "dirty" oil -- and with the economy still in a slump and environmental concerns (the US government for instance, is disallowed by law from purchasing dirty oil) and US trade protectionism raising its head, I don't think the oil boom is coming back completely.The Liberals could make a platform devoted to diversifying the economy through more funding towards education and the trades. That could be a huge benefit in both urban and rural areas. It would also show the Liberals are more forward thinking than the current crop of PC's.
But the Liberals shouldn't just take up the stock policies. I'd argue that the Liberals should argue for reform of the HRC's for example to ensure protection of freedom of speech and press. They should also be more prominent in the battle for elected senators, which would resonate with a large number of former Reformers. But once again, I haven't seen any of these moves made by the party.
I think the Liberals in Alberta have a shot at governing if they give themselves a good shake up. I was actually hoping Harry Chase would be the new leader, but that's a whole other argument.I was hoping for Dave Taylor since he had the best plan for modernising the existing Liberal Party. Unfortunately I haven't seen any real movement to make the party more palatable to the rest of Alberta. If the Liberals don't improve I'd just vote for whichever party was the most likely to gain the seat, whether it be NDP, Liberal, or [assuming Danielle Smith wins] Wildrose Alliance.
-
In as much as the Democrats are just the party of terrorist sympathizers, flag burners, and communist abortion lovers.
Difference being that flag burners aren't considered the "base" of the party. Sarah Palin who thinks Obama will personally execute old people and mentally handicapped children is the leading candidate for the Presidential primaries. The nutters have obviously taken over.
-
Then let private insurance come in to fill the void. We had the same fight in Alberta over delisting sex change surgery.
I doubt the reason for the delisting is because the Manitoba NDP are a bunch of gay bashers.
-
At least in Alberta, the NDP leader, Brian Mason is willing to listen to a credible voice when it comes to oil royalties. Not that he'll ever be premier, the Alberta NDP are to stubborn to team up with the Liberals, which is what need to happen to oust the Conservatives.
I disagree, what needs to happen is the Alberta Liberals should follow the same model as the BC Liberals. Moving a little bit farther left won't get them anything except a couple more seats in Edmonton. The Liberals had a chance to become a force in Alberta and blew it by selecting David Swann over Dave Taylor.
Dave Taylor's New Liberal initiative was exactly what was needed to renew the ALP. Now we're stuck in the same situation we found ourselves in a year ago, the Liberals have not made any changes to their party that would appeal to more Albertans. It seems like they prefer being a rump party with no chance at power instead of learning from what Laurence Decore did in the early 90's.
-
Alright hacks, lets get a couple things straight.
The majority of provinces receive equalization payments, that doesn't mean said provinces might successfully run their economies to the point where they'll eventually become have-not provinces. I'd consider both Manitoba and New Brunswick to be success stories in that sense since they are aiming to eventually become have provinces.
It doesn't matter whether you have a PC, Liberal, or NDP, government. What matters is how said government acts on things like taxations and regulation. As it happens the Manitoba NDP are far more competent than their federal counterparts since they are more concerned with pragmatism than blind idealism.
If Alberta receives 4 billion in transfer payments, they still lose over 17 billion to the federal government. It hardly make the province dependent on Ottawa as some people like to claim.
Equalization is obviously necessary in a country the size of Canada, I don't think any of us would want to see a province slip into semi third world status. That being said it has been politicized, look at Danny Williams.
-
Big difference is that being gay has no effect on the treasury. When I had glasses people called me four eyes, perhaps the government should fund all laser eye surgery.
-
With reference to the possibility of a CPC leadership race. The most important characteristic for any future leader is to maintain the big tent the CPC currently has. That requires a centre-right candidate who is as pragmatic as Harper [stop frothing at the mouth partisan hacks] has shown in government. The best candidate in my judgement would be Jean Charest. He probably wants to become Prime Minister and is currently running a centre-right Liberal government in Quebec. The biggest advantage for Charest would be the ability to win in Quebec and a relatively successful experience in government. While some might wonder what I've been smoking, I'll remind you that the CPC leadership is done proportionally by riding instead of one man one vote, thus giving Quebec an equivalent amount of sway as BC and Alberta.
If Jean Charest doesn't run, the CPC would be better of with Peter Mackay, Jim Prentice, or Brad Wall.
-
In some Toronto newspapers they have. Fact is, if you look at the two leaders professional qualifications, Ignatieff is more qualified hands down. He has taught at Oxford, Harvard and has been a journalist in the UK and abroad (covered the war and genocide in Yugoslavia).
How exactly is that pertinent to running a government? Qualifications is a largely abstract term. If we were to base this purely on political experience Harper would win hands down.
IF anyone understands the way the world works and how Canada should interact in the globe, it's probably Ignatieff. In the end, the world is globalizing at a rapid pace and being around matters less and less when one can keep up with national headlines and problems daily.Agreed, and I'm happy to see Ignatieff has largely eviscerated the myth of peacekeeping.
The fact that the conservatives have become so anti-intellectual shows that they understand that this is Ignatieff's strength and need to turn it into a weakness by simply declaring that he didn't live in Canada and therefore isn't worthy as a Canadian leader. Understandably, this works to the conservative base and people who don't know much about Ignatieff.Come on, what exactly is "anti-intellectual." This reminds me of when the Liberals warned that the Tories were going to bring in a "hidden agenda" which included two-tier American healthcare. Even though American's don't really have a two-tier system, but Australia and New Zealand do.
If you think only the Tories play to ignorance you're blind to reality.
Finally, the way the anti-Liberal hatred on this site is espoused is absolutely appalling. Everything anti-Harper is Liberal fabricated lies. I even saw one post to the effect of calling Liberals gutter dwelling vermin. All Canadians of every stripe, whether we agree with them or not, is trying to do what's best for Canada. There's no need for this propaganda. We can disagree without bringing up these extremely disturbing stereotypes. I'm currently reading Saul Friedländer's Nazi Germany and the Jews. Without trying to sound too dramatic (which is impossible when making a reference of this kind), some posts you could substitute liberals with jews and things read here would be absolutely Hitler-esque, which to me is infintely disturbing as to how much of a divide there is between left and right now-a-days. It used to be that the Liberals and Conservatives were essentially the same party with some differences here and there. Now, the discontent being fostered by many is leading to this kind of garbage.What divide? The biggest policy difference is over EI payments, hardly the Naziesque picture you paint. Hell I even read a piece by the head of the Liberal Party in Alberta arguing that we should extend the mission in Afghanistan.
The Conservatives and the Liberals have essentially become the same party with a few differences. We now essentially have two parties battling for the centre, one on the left, and the separatists. That being said I really doubt policy differences on senate reform, the three strikes law, or EI, will somehow result in the Kristallnacht.
-
Awe yes, the Republicans.
I don't think we can find a party like it anywhere else in the world [unless you're a partisan hack who thinks every centre-right party is on the same wavelength as the GOP].
Aren't the Republicans just the party of Civil War re-enactors, religious fundamentalists, jingoists, and nutters. The fact that a woman who thinks Obama is setting up death panels to kill senior citizens and mentally handicapped children is the top candidate for their Presidential nomination should tell you they're delusional.
The better question is whether the GOP will survive by adopting centrist stances or perhaps dissapear altogether.
-
So, there was nothing wrong with William Wilberforce being a Christian, but if he were alive today, I would challenge him to cite the Biblical evidence to back his arguments that slavery was immoral....just like all of the Southern Baptist and Methodist ministers did during the slavery debates! The fact is Wilberforce's objections to slavery did not come from his Bible, they came from the Enlightenment principles that every person should have the same basic rights and freedoms, and no man should be property of another man -- this was not a principle of Biblical times, even New Testament times!
Actually, William Wilberforce admitted that it was largely his Christianity that made him oppose slavery and that God created all men equal. He was also a fierce opponent of revolution and the cult of reason which saws tens of thousands murdered in France in the name of "enlightenment" values.
so atheist or not, that puts Stalin in the same category of many religious zealots who claim to have a system based on higher principles that are perfect and unchanging.I notice that theirs always this loose grasp on what religion is whenever people attempt to claim that some atheist who committed atrocities was really no different from some Baptist preacher. But it's not a surprise that whenever people are abolished of any form of punishment whether it be earthly or transcendent that they will act barbarically. This isn't to say all atheists are bad people, I was once an atheist, however their are many who give up on God not based on principle but so they can engage in destructive behavior.
The Marxists and those equally dangerous Ayn Rand followers on the far right, may be atheists, but they are certainly not humanists, or they would have been forced to adapt their policies to the desires and goals of people living in the real world.Yes, I've stated before that I find Ayn Rand's philosophy to be deplorable. But theirs not much difference between the most strident Objectivists and Marxists in that they're both materialistic and support a cult of reason. Needless to say I'm closer to traditional conservatism which values the community over this mass consumer culture which is supported by many on the right.
Well, if you mean these guys who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago, one of them is the new science minister, and won't answer a simple question on a scientific issue: do you accept the theory of evolution?He's now stated that he accepts the theory, and the only reason he didn't is because what is commonly done by Richard Dawkins and his ilk is to say that only true atheists can believe in the theory of evolution. But once again it's not the only issue, you have to take the good with the bad unfortunately.
-
No, read the history! The name was the result of a merger between the Conservative Party and the populist Western farmers party called the Progressives, which won more than 60 seats in Parliament during one election back in the 30's.
No it wasn't. The Progressives never folded into the Tories, if anything more folded into the Liberals and CCF than they did into the Conservatives. As well the Progressives reached the height of their success in the 1920's, not the 1930's. If anything the Progressives were the prelude to the socialist CCF. Their was no merger between the two parties, if you have proof of this supposed merger I'd love to see it.
But according to history the name change was due to the election of John Bracken as leader of the Party.
The emphasis on religion and social issues is very new to Canadian politics, at least on the federal level. There have always been SoCreds and others out west who put social issues on the front burner, but there is no history for social conservatism in most of Canada, and that's why I suspect that Harper will try to keep this group energized for grassroots campaigning, but will not want them pushing issues that will scare away the rest of the voters.That's not quite correct since the Social Gospel had a large effect on Canadian politics, which included the notable election of the CCF in Saskatchewan.
Until we get to the third trimester, or whatever stage fetal human rights are considered worthy, it should not be any outsiders' decision to make.That is unless the reasoning for the abortion isn't to your liking.
I remember the name! Why just one example?Their are countless millions who have dedicated their lives in both small and large ways to improve this world. To write a list would be near impossible.
If they don't -- they should!So which supreme being in Ottawa do you trust to have full judgement over who is or isn't capable of being a representative. You would have thought that with all this talk of "progress" people would focus on what a person's individual policies are instead of personal religious beliefs. However if we were to base a politicians qualities around their religious beliefs without regard to anything else than Stalin [atheist] would be a better pick than William Wilberforce [Evangelical Christian] for not holding supernatural beliefs. Maybe people should simply butt out and listen to what politicians have to say instead of whether or not they believe in God.
-
Speaking of bastardizing Progressive Conservatism
Progressive Conservatism is an oxymoron. The only reason for the name "Progressive" Conservative was because the old Conservatives wanted a Progressive premier to run the party, the only way to do it at the time was change the name.
I don't recall self-described Red Tories like Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark or Flora McDonald having a whole hell of a lot to say about the Monarchy!Conservatism existed before Robert Stanfield.
I think the point is that social conservatives want government social programs gutted and whatever aid is available is back to being the province of the churches, likely by means of tax credits and direct subsidies like the Bush Administration cooked up south of the border.No it doesn't, social conservatism is a different philosophy than fiscal conservatism or neoliberalism. Their are plenty of political parties in Europe that are socially conservative yet support mixed economies.
Great if there are Christian fundamentalists volunteering at the food bank (hopefully for other reasons than just proselytizing), but people living on the margins should not have to depend on the charity of churchgoers for survival.Then perhaps secular individuals should become more charitable instead of seeing a poor person and wishing that individual was aborted instead.
Where this relates to the abortion issue is that the most absolute (no exceptions) pro life groups have little or anything to say about providing for the fetuses after they are born. They are generally only concerned about the sanctity of life until it is out of the womb, then it can die on welfare!This has already been refuted ad nauseum on here. As well their are plenty of examples of people giving their time to the poor, Dorothy Day being one example.
But social issues were never a primary focus before, and no previous Conservative leader would have given important jobs to creationists who believe the world was created 6000 years ago.Probably because the question would have never been asked. One thing I find hilarious is that people will always ask Christians these questions but would never ask a Jew, Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim, about their religion lest they be considered a bigot.
It would be nice if all these people on the secular left who have far more in common with the Jacobins/Cult of Reason than Edmund Burke would stop attempting to call their philosophy "conservatism."
-
Their distance from the centre is best measured by their electoral results. They've failed to win a majority in 3 elections since the sponsorship scandal broke. What lesson do you learn from this?
Yes, and Joe Clark never won a majority and proceeded to lose the government in the next election. I suppose by that logic he is nothing more than an extreme-right wing conservative.
So does that make the federal Liberals extreme left wing and on the fringe since they haven't been able to get into power since 2006? What of the last election, were they as far to the left as the NDP visionseeker?
Elections aren't about policies, they're about who has the best PR campaign. Robert Stanfield lost an election because he couldn't catch a football for example. Most American's support universal healthcare but neither party strongly supports such a program as they claim it would be "out of reach" and instead support small changes to the corrupt HMO's and put forward minor programs. Even Kim Campbell recognized that elections are no time to discuss politics and it's obvious that "spin" has more resonance on voters than the issues ever do. I can't think of a single policy that could be considered very "right-wing" under Harper, and usually if I am given examples it tends to gravitate around the presumption that a three strikes rule for violent criminals, cutting off funding to starving artists, and making a minor cut in the GST, are somehow ideas prevalent on the fringe of Canadian society. Despite the fact I haven't met many Canadian's who have a problem with jailing repeat offenders, loved paying taxes, or thought taxdollars should go towards Tal Bachmann's trip to Africa.
-
I support an industry that more than pays for itself in jobs and many productions that get nominated for Genies, Oscars and does good box office.
Yeah, Nickelback is also a Canadian band that makes tonnes of money, doesn't mean I want taxpayer funding going to all douchebag rockbands because it might create the odd job. If I had to choose between getting an extra police officer patrolling the block or having some bureaucrat fund a crappy artist that nobody likes, I would have to go with the police officer who is doing something productive in society. By productive I mean not merely inflating the egos of a few Liberal Party members. We would likely still have a film industry without said subsidies, not to mention that it wouldn't be relegated to movies about necrophilia, the poor man's American Pie, or for that matter Pearl Harbour part 2.
So you see no difference between a Sun call in vote and other polls? The poll that Report used was widely scoffed at.Yes, and I'm sure we should have hired about a dozen bureaucrats earning six figures to do all the research required before giving said magazine $25,000.
Would you like more? As I've told you, these have been posted before even if you haven't seen them,Wow, nice way to answer a question with a question. Yes, I'd like more, and they have to specifically stating that western separation should happen instead of articles where separatism is merely mentioned. Not this idiotic notion you have that any criticism of the Liberal Party or the coalition is akin to "fanning the flames of separatism."
So what compelled you to watch it? Just wanted to see a crappy film?I heard their was nudity in it, you don't watch that kind of film for the dialogue or humour. The same effect comes across if you mute it.
It wasn't that great, if David Duchovny was the star it would have been great though.
Try to get this straight. No money to the Walrus. No money to Maclean's. No money to support editorial. Why do you feel the need to lie?I don't, I'm simply pointing out your hideous double standard in that you would never criticize such funding if a different political party of your liking was in power that's all.
By the way taxdollars also go to the magazine "Alberta Views." A magazine with a notable left wing bent when it comes to how it reports the news.
Here is the previous listing of magazines which got support from the government: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/list0607-eng.cfm
I don't feel the need to lie, just to point out that you're a blatant partisan hack who gets into a tiff over a piddly amount of money going to a magazine which mentioned "separatism" but then support taxdollars going to projects which are largely wastes of money that most Canadian's wouldn't support. It would be nice if you actually held consistent positions once in a while.
My criticism still stands on the Tories. They have made it clear that they support giving $75 million a year to magazines. I don't think it should go to those that sympathize with separation.Don't worry, I'm sure you'll drop all criticism of the government once the Liberal Party gets into power regardless of what they do. I can only hope that the money which has gone to the Report will go to something more worthwhile, a film about necrophilia perhaps.
Republicans Failed us in Catching Osama
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Required America to fail at what exactly?