Jump to content

Canadian Blue

Member
  • Posts

    2,969
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Canadian Blue

  1. Yes, their is no doubt in my mind that if all MP's are mere drones we'd all be better off. Actually you've proven my point, Congressman tend to steal from other American's to bribe voters in their own constitutencies, much like when that Liberal MP stated the carbon tax was good policy because it would take money from one part of the country and be put to work in his riding. If you bothered to read what I wrote you'd realize that I've supported limited government, what I mean by local is that if people want an initiative to be done at the local level, everything should be local. They shouldn't be crying to the bureaucracy in Ottawa looking for money from elsewhere.
  2. Well, most politicians. The problem is that most politicians I like either don't get elected or don't last long when they do get elected. More or less because a politicians job involves bribery, extortion, creating conflict in order to achieve power, living outside of your means, taking credit for the work of others, and selling off the liberty of individuals to get votes. We teach our children not to act like politicians. I'm currently reading "Look Homeward America" and in it the author details the lives of two Senators. While each one was respectable in one fashion or another, they both sold off their principles for expedients often. It's no surprise that working in the government is the first step to becoming an anti-statist. But, I do believe that politics would be greatly improved if it was done at a far more local level.
  3. No, you previously stated that the west faced no threats since the 1940's. I corrected you, and then you proceeded to say that you really didn't know anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis. You see after World War 2 this thing called the Iron Curtain descended across Europe. Now you likely would have been far more supportive of Stalin's regime since it provided free college education and butter at the cost of individual liberty.... ....then Ronald Reagan funded the Afghan fighters in their battle against communism and produced a military build up, the Soviets could not match it and would eventually crumble under their own inefficient and immoral system. The US requires it's immigrants to work, as well immigrating to the United States is much tougher than that of Europe. No I was talking about Europe, specifically those countries where artists, cartoonists, and politicians, often require bodyguards for speaking against extremism or honour killings. Yes it does, especially if the demographics back it up. You cannot have a stable society built upon the pedestal of ethnic balkanization. If you do it'll breed internal conflict. Alberta also gives money to Nova Scotia in the form of equalization, weird how that works eh. But, let me remind you that one of the reasons for said deficit is because the government tampered with economy. All I can say is that they shouldn't have been in those terrorist camps or killed American medics. Yes I have, I recall many Cubans had a dismal knowledge of their own history. Yes, because their is absolutely no surveillance of citizens in a totalitarian country. Yes, it is. How about all those people who were killed by Che, or for that matter those artists who were forced to flee Cuba after the glorious revolution that you so admire. He also sent alot of violent criminals to the United States. But given your love affair with totalitarian dictatorships, I'll provide you with the following: Cuba is ranked 169 in terms of press freedom: http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cl_en_2008.pdf The internet is restricted: http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_gb_md_1.pdf Discussions of leaving Cuba can get you a six month prison sentence: http://eprints.ccsu.edu/archive/00000279/03/KobayashiFT.pdf The Black Book of Communism estimates 15,000 to 17,000 peope were executed in Cuba: Black Book of Communism. p. 664. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/200...8/cuba12207.htm Vaclev Havel on Cuba: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3668018.stm One point though, you tout Cuba's low infant mortality rate and other apparent favorable traits. Have you ever considered what the system really is like in Cuba. You do know about the forced abortions and infanticide that is regularly happening. http://www.iri.org/newsarchive/2003/2003-0...Herald-Cuba.asp
  4. I'd like to change the system so we can ensure the only legal whorehouse [House of Commons] in Canada can't do too much damage to the country. But I suppose I am being too harsh, I would never dare compare a whore to a politician, a whore has far better morals than a typical politician.
  5. Looking back at it I would have preferred division. Then we might have atleast one MP that would have argued against the deficit that'll chain our children to more debt.
  6. I haven't seen your criticism thus far of the opposition, and yes you are somewhat irrational if you don't think politicians on the left side of the spectrum play political games. I find it somewhat repetitive to remind people that politicians are in politics and will likely play political games. It's something I've had to repeat ad nauseum however it never seems to get through. However I have no love for Stephen Harper, if anything I wish the coalition did go through just so he'd have some dignity while watching said coalition crumble apart a few months later due to the incompatibility of the Bloc, NDP, and Liberal Party. But listen I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings by pointing out certain facts, like how the opposition was going to go through with the coalition regardless of what happened. I can't change history to meet your needs.
  7. What I meant was rational side, are people that can look at a situation objectively and recognize that not everything is black and white. Yes, Stephen Harper played a political game [attempting to lure the NDP into voting for the update, thus destroying the LPC] and failed. However any person who thinks that politicians don't play political games just because of where they sit on the spectrum has no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
  8. It's not really what we have since backbench MP's really have no power or say over the issues. I'm fairly certain that if the Conservative caucus were to vote on the budget a large proportion would have voted against the deficit, needless to say they couldn't due to their obligations to the party. Our system is a farce because we don't really elect MP's in general, when people go to vote they'll always choose either the party or the leader. I've only known maybe a dozen candidates who I would vote for based soley on their qualifications with no regard to their party, which might I add would include Joe Anglin of the Green Party of Alberta.
  9. I'm just pointing out that unlike your previous assertion Harper really couldn't have done anything about it. Yes, to any politician it is. Including shockingly enough politicians on the left whom are apparently angels on earth. No, it isn't. The Governor General does hold that power. If you were on the rational side of the political spectrum you would have recognized that the entire episode was a clusterf*ck of idiotic politicians from both the left and right whom had no concern about solving the problems the country was facing and only wished to either hold or attain power regardless of the consequences. Really, so the coalition wasn't taking a situation beyond political partisanship, even after the government withdrew the contentious parts of the update that the opposition was pissed off about. So let me get this straight, you're saying that the coalition never went beyond political partisanship once, right?
  10. Well I'm not surprised, considering that I've been debating with a suburban Marxist who's praised Communist Dictatorships because they provide "free college" I shouldn't be surprised at the nuts on here.
  11. I wasn't particularly fond of the Contra's or the Sandanista's. But this thread isn't about Nicaragua, you might as well point out the injustices of the War of 1812. I've stated before that if I had to choose between war or free trade, I would always go with the latter. The difference is though that I don't think one should be foolish enough to not prepare for any future hostilities. Nor should a nation ignore attacks on it's citizens, if an attack happened on our soil I would expect a similar response along with aid from our allies. I've just proven that you're an apologist for communism. As well the fact you don't know the strategic problems that nukes pose to the North American continent from Cuba also showcases your ignorance, not to mention the fact was a hair away from nuclear war at the time. You do realize that Che Guevara wanted to nuke North American cities right, I'm guessing that doesn't really make much of a difference to you though. Yes, thanks largely to the military and the United States. Much like it's been a good friend to the suburbs of Paris, the streets of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the London tube, and the Madrid train stations. Needless to say I'm looking forward to it considering the reaction to a couple of cartoons and the murder of Theo Van Gogh along with the calls for the implementation of Sharia law in Europe. Besides, many immigrants will go onto the welfare roles so it might not be as much of a benefit as you'd like to think. Immigration is more based on politics than the needs of a country. Yes, and they'll likely collapse after a generation. However most European nations also depend on the United States for national defence, much like Canada has, if we didn't have the US we likely wouldn't have those welfare states. Yet Nova Scotia is still largely a have-not province. No, I make a differentiation between people who were on the side of Osama Bin Laden and those who criticized the government of Cuba. Yes, and they've turned their country into a veritable slave state, individualism is crushed, once you're born you're the property of the state, and you are denied certain basic rights, but I suppose it's worth it if they've got free college. This reminds me of the kind of rhetoric you would often hear that would praise the countries under the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe. Sure, they don't have any freedoms, are property of the government, and they can't think for themselves, but atleast everyones "equal." It's not surprising that communism has killed well over a hundred million people yet you'll still hear apologists for it. It's unfortunate that the children of the west still buy into such utopian bullshit. But then again I doubt western civilization will last for more than two generations given that we're in the decadent stage right now.
  12. No, my justification is that if you give shelter to someone who was complicit in incinerating thousands of civilians in skyscrapers that you should get attacked. Yes, more or less because a Soviet submarine nearly launched a nuke during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As well with nuclear weapons that close to North America it would have impaired our ability to retaliate to such an attack. That doesn't mean it's acceptable that Miami could be incinerated within a minute. The country's that have an extremely low birthrate that won't be able to sustain their welfare system for more than a generation. That the richer a country is the better it's HDI will be. If theirs a demand then the employer will pay for them, as they have in Alberta. Gitmo's being shutdown. But I'm sure you'd find some way to justify jailing opponents of the Cuban regime. I've always found it hilarious how suburban Marxists such as yourself always praise some mediocre Marxist country yet then enjoy all the benefits of capitalism. You're like a modern day George Bernard Shaw: http://www.georgetownbookshop.com/Georgetown/boobshawv.jpg By the way I support trade with Cuba, much like I do with China. The difference is that I can support that policy yet also criticize China for it's atrocious record on Falun Gong, something you're likely incapable of.
  13. Actually the opposition was clear that no matter what Stephen Harper did he wouldn't get the confidence of the house. Therefore he had to go to the Governor General. So you're saying that you really don't know how the system works either with regards to the Governor General's powers in Canada, correct? But he sure did get "skool'd" according to you since he ensured his government survived while Stephane Dion left politics losing his one chance to become Prime Minister. You know, I love how all the lefties like G here argue that Conservatives know nothing about Parliament and then showcase their even larger ignorance of the role of the GG. First of all, Harper did what you wanted since he brought forward a budget that was passed by the majority of the house, thus showcasing that the coalition wasn't needed. But let's keep in mind this dispute was largely due to the fact that the Liberal Party and Bloc Quebecois can't survive because their supporters are evidently too lazy to sign a cheque.
  14. So pointing out that a certain action that the community wants take would go against the Charter is seditious because? What you're really pointing out is that the RCMP won't take an action because it's against the Charter, but since they mentioned that the reason they can't take action is due to the Charter, thus automatically making them critical of the Charter, even though they just pointed out the fact that they are suppose to follow the Charter. Mind telling me how that's seditious eyeball.
  15. What's the brown guy doing that would force me to shoot him? But it's more likely that said guy is throwing acid in a schoolgirls face. So you don't know anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Son, if you're this ignorant of history I don't know what to tell you, other than letting you know that the public education system failed you. Actually the same progress also happened in capitalist countries as well. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that when a country produces more and has more capital people's lives will start to improve, to argue a correlation is absurd. The North Korean government owns just about the entire economy however the people their aren't better off than their Southern bretheren. However I wouldn't be so foolish as to credit all progress to government bureaucrats. However some people such as yourself should be reminded that state worship is often unhealthy. No, an anal cyst. Well, I'd suggest you stop picking butter because it's bad for your heart. Yes, and we've had moaning and complaining ever since. Trust me, I'm glad that my taxes are going to fund suburban Marxists hip hop dance instruction classes at Universities right across the country. The difference is that in the United States they tolerate differences of opinion, in Cuba they don't. But then again I suppose a suburban Marxist such as yourself doesn't mind while typing on the tyrannical keyboard that capitalism built.
  16. It definitely will, as long as spending is cut as well. Unlike yourself I prefer compassion to be dealt with by individuals and voluntary institutions instead of government bureaucrats. Once again, your ignorance of history is showing. Did you know that at one time nuclear missiles were being stationed in Cuba? Probably not. By all means: Well you see we used to have this thing way back in the day called charity. That was when compassion meant more than voting for your local idealistic socialist who promised to raise the wages of bureaucrats in the name of helping the poor. If you give me a Colt .45 and a parachute I will. I agree, let's start with useless social programs and the welfare trap. Education and healthcare are provincial responsibilities. There is another saying in Cuba, if you dislike the government get on the next raft to Miami. http://reason.tv/video/show/622.html
  17. Yes, World War 1 was a clusterf*ck, however that doesn't mean that fighting Hitler wasn't worth it. You keep on arguing about how this is for the children, well guess what, even if the west doesn't get involved in any conflicts children will still die. Children died under the rule of Saddam Hussein, children died under the Taliban, and children will always die under tyrannical regimes. Stop pretending that children only die if Canadian soldiers are on the ground, because no member of NATO purposely murders innocent civilians, if they do they'll be charged. As for Jesus talking about sharing the wealth and attacking the greedy, yes he did do that. But you've obviously never read the New Testament, if you did you'd realize that Jesus argued that INDIVIDUALS should be compassionate, not Ceasar. You're using this simplistic formula that says if someone is rich or greedy they must be a Conservative. You make the first mistake of thinking that New Democrats are without sin and will not be corrupt if they are in a position of power, as we all know politics is corrupting, regardless of where a politicians allegiance is. In addition, if you actually believe what you do then you must think that all Conservative voters are uncompassionate, greedy, or rich. This is absurd. In my old riding most of those Conservatives were rural folk who farmed for a living, went to Church, grew their own food, were volunteer firefighters, were charitable with their own money, and would help out in their community. Yet the vast majority were by definition conservative. Once again, theirs a large difference between being compassionate in a voluntary sense and being compassionate at the ballot box. Do you honestly believe that Jesus Christ ever advocated that people should be forced by the Roman Empire to be compassionate? One thing you'll notice in the NT is that Jesus gives his followers a choice in whether to follow him or not, let's make the clear, he gave them a CHOICE. What you're saying is that people shouldn't be given a choice in whether or not they're compassionate, but they should be forced by the government.
  18. Actually, the media reported on it because it happened while Obama was in Ottawa. Russia has been doing this often despite the complaints are country has had. By the way, here is what Peter Mackay said which is hardly what you made it out to be: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_32473.aspx Their is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be more firm with Russia in defending our airspace, I realize you don't think much of the military but sometimes we can't just get on our knee's for any hostile government. The Canadian government has always told the Russian government to respect our boundaries, they have not in recent years. Any person who is more willing to side with Putin over Peter Mackay is a moron.
  19. Yet you're up in arms because Harper referred to the separatist Bloc as 'separatists.'
  20. Dude, that's like asking Tom Cruise if he's critical of Ron Hubbard's dishonourable military service. It's obvious that Progressive Tory's entire world is defined like this: Stephen Harper = Evil king of darkness mixed with Adolf Hitler Michael Ignatieff = Reincarnation of Jesus Christ and Buddha
  21. Progressive Tory, you never answered my question about Ignatieffs support for the war in Iraq and torture? Do you think Ignatieff deserves a spot in hell along with George W Bush for supporting that venture? I know that sometimes cults don't like to criticize the leader, but criticism is healthy once in a while.
  22. Don't worry, I won'd ad hominem attack Ignatieff like you did Harper. But listen I understand, you really hate Stephen Harper. I hear that kind of hatred come from the left all the time, it's normal. Most scholars are typically boring, which is a good thing. By the way it's hard not to play partisan politics with the opposition leader, since, you know, he's apparently in politics. That is unless you think it's abhorrent that a politician would be criticized. Considering that Ignatieff is in favour of the deficit, but I won't try to hit you to much on your little cult built around a politician. Of course not, otherwise all of the Jews would have been exterminated in Europe. Actually, Flahrety stated that it would be in the next election that the CPC would abolish said funding. But then again it's really not a surprise that the parties of left require taxpayer dollars to survive.
  23. Osama Bin Laden? Agreed, their has been no country on earth since the 1940's which could have threatened the west. [with the exception of that dustup in Cuba] Well you need to have some knowledge of history though, which you obviously don't have since you think the United States was never targeted in the 1990's. I do care for the elderly, it's just that my compassion isn't confined to paying taxes. Caring for the elderly isn't really a priority, if it was you'd do it on your own time. My compassion extends beyond the ballot box my friend, I can assure you of that. However I don't mind shooting at Osama Bin Laden or any person who wishes to destroy innocent life. I'm certain that you shrug when seeing this, but I don't: But yes, you're 100% right. We don't require any soldiers, police officers, intelligence officers, border guards, etc. to ensure our country is safe.
  24. Yes, you're a 100% correct, Obama is reaching Putinesque levels of popularity amongst Canadian's. But that's largely because most Canadian's never bothered to actually look at Obama's policies. The reality is that Bill Richardson would have been the best candidate to have in the White House for Canada, but I suppose charisma is a good substitute for substance. By the way, Ignatieff did make the comment about "we American's" when George W Bush was actually in power. At the time he was also supportive of the war in Iraq and torture. Actually I've got a question, since you think George W Bush deserves a spot in hell for Iraq and you routinely attack the right for "killing Muslim children" in Iraq, would you then have any criticism of Michael Ignatieff for taking the same position? In other words, does Michael Ignatieff enjoy seeing Muslim children killed in Iraq due to his support of the invasion?
×
×
  • Create New...