kengs333

It's not relevant to this particular discussion. We're talking about the influence of white supremacism on conservative parties in Western Canada, and how this has been an issue since the early 1900s. If you can find me evidence that members of the KKK were active in the Liberal party, I'd be more than interested in researching that further.

It's being released two weeks after the election, I believe; these are only "leaks". Whatever the case, it is insignificant; electors are concerned about what the party can do now rather than past problems with infighting.

Agreed. Martin's ruthless determination to do what his daddy couldn't, and is protracted campaign to undermine Chretien are well known.

Like I said, the laws are determined by a judiciary representing the government that would be being seceded from. Is a fair, objective, and reasoned ruling expected in such a case? No, absolutely not. Also, case law is not set in stone; it can, and is always, being challenged and modified. If that wasn't the case, then your country would still have significant civil rights issues. Moreover, the case law that you refer to predates the Civil War and is from a period where slavery was legal. Okay, so the only way to create a state from a democratic country is to wage a war. How peachy... So what if they don't do it for the Crown; the fact that they do it for a republican democracy underscores the fact that it is an even more flawed system.

There is a secesionist movement in New Hampshire and in New England in general.

1) it's a legitimate question 2) yes

What is your definition of mainstream? If 12% of people in Vermont want to secede, that's not mainstream, but if 8% of Quebecers do, that is mainstream? I wouldn't be so sure. People were convinced that the Cold War was going to last for a very, very long time, but the Soviet Union collapsed and Iron Curtain came down quite rapidly.

1) bald-faced liar 2) sweater-vests 3) hypocrite 4) war-monger 5) questionable overspending for the military 6) connection to big oil 7) his stance on the environment 8) he's from Alberta 9) former western seperatist 10) was a member of the Reform Party 11) was a member of the Canadian Alliance 12) backstabbing that led to the forming of the CPC 13) Michael Fortier affair 14) muzzling members of his party 15) control freak 16) relationship with the media 17) lack of accountability and transparacy 18) attitude towards the arts etc. etc. etc.

Do you actually know anything about his political career? His unpopularity stems from his attitude towards Kennedy and the American government in general, and an active campaign within his own cabinet to undermine his image and credibility. As much as I admire him for being a true patriotic Canadian, he was somewhat of an eccentric and wasn't exactly suited for being PM.

Of course it's "far worse" because you're a card-carying Conservative. Too bad that the Liberals were able to manage Canada's finances quite well, so any such attack against the party's finances will be largely ineffectual, and will just open him up to criticisms about how the Cons had finance issues with their own party; in-and-out, and all that jazz... remember? Face it, the Conservatives are floundering, and election day can't come soon eneough.

So you're saying that the only way that a group of people can secede from the so-called beacon of democracy is by armed insurrection? And that the United States has now evolved into what the British Empire once was? This doesn't substantiate your claim that Canada has been involved in staging coups, funding revolutionary movements, and other subverse tactics. Yes, duress. Why? They have every right to remain where they are and demand self-determination.

Oh, you really think that this is going to be a big issue? Harper's speech was copied from that of another Prime Minister and dealt with sending troops to Iraq. Borrowing from an environmental report is not quite as serioes. Anyway, the damage has been done. Maybe had it been found towards the beginning of the campaign, but I don't think anyone will care. Harper has discarded the attack ads for a reason, if he goes on the attack with this issue now he'll just come out looking worse.

Goodness! how silly can you get... The Ojibway originated from southern Europe, so are you saying that the Ojibway are direct descendants of black Africans? As for white Europeans, everyone knows that they are descendants of Odin and do not come from Africa. Please get your facts straight. So you're admitting that you're a bigot and a racist?

Sure it did. It was known as the Canadian Alliance, the Reform Party, Social Credit Party, United Farmers of Alberta, etc. etc. Klan activity in the West was a noted aspect of politics in the region in the 1920s and 1930s. And then there is western seperatism, republicanism, and all that nonsense. We're talking about white supremacism in western Canada, not the expulsion of Jews from Nazi Germany. Funnily enough, I have about a score [that means 20] on the go at any given time... Are you incapable of making at least one post that is entirely measured and civil?

Oh, okay, so the whole deal with the founding of the "United States" is not legitimate then? I'll agree with that. When and where. Give one example. Canada always acts in duress. And why do you keep mentioning Iraq? We will get to that when you've finally managed to comprehend the fact that groups of people have a right to self-determination, and that this gives states within the US the right to seceded if there is a political and social desire to do so.

The concept of self-determination entails that the people (ie. human beings) have the right to form a nation. That is considered a human right. Canada doesn't orchastrate coups, fund revolutionary movements, send troops into foreign country without sanction, etc. Remember, the problems in Afghanistan originated in large part because of American interference in the region...

Hmmm... no. I think any political scientist will tell you that the Liberals are the only party that is and has consistantly has been a national party. What were Harper's words when he made his post-victory speech in 2006? Something about the West finally being in? I think when the leader of a party is simply concerned with the representation of one region of Canada being represented in Ottawa, that makes his party a regional party. Face it, your party doesn't care much for Maritimers... thinks that you're all lazy and useless...

Oh, yeah, you're soooo above that... The truth is, though, I don't think there is a mainstream party in Canadian history that has such a sordid, dubious past as does the Conservative Party. Well back to the early 1900s the party has had problems with seperatism, religious fundamentalism, and white supremacism, and these problems continue although they are much more muted. The party is just not what it claims to be, and if you think it's "partisan stupidity" to suggest that voters are being deceived, then that is just as much the "epitomy" [epitome] partisanship. I think you should know better by now not to refer to, or to allude to, the fact that someone, in your opinion, is stupid.

Yes they are. They're still basically the Reform/CA, but have support in the east because people are too delusional to see them for what they are or there are no better alternatives.

Wouldn't that mean that you'd be championing the cause, then? It's already been often effectively proven that PR is a more democratic system because the representation more closely reflects the popular vote. Our system favours regionally based parties such as the Bloc and Conservatives, whereas parties that have a more broad-based support like the Greens and NDP don't get the proper representation. The only party that has succeeded in overcoming this is the Liberals. It could easily be argued that people who support the FPTP aren't truly democratic and want to maintain a system that caters to their narrow political outlook and maintains the status quo. Canada faces some serious problems, but the system is so rigid that it is very slow to respond.

Arguably, though, by joining Confederation, Michigan would become part of a more stable economy and more just society, and some of the problems would no doubt decline. It would take time, but I think it could work.

So you're admitting that states within the Union don't have the right to self-determination, a fundamental human right, and a right that the US has used as a pretex for war and other meddling in foreign countries?

European origin means they were from what is now Europe. Has nothing to do with race. Which explains why they are genetically related to Asians and have a similar physiology... Why must you interpret everything in terms of race and racism? The scientific evidence is based upon voluntary participation of numerous Native groups, and we have to be thankful to those people that they don't share your archaic notion of race and are willing to accept scientific evidence as to their origin.

That's right. The Federal government went to war against a group of states exercising their right to self-determination and self-government. I'm not agreeing with the politics of the South, but they had every right to do what they did.

Yes, it's quite possible, or they would simply revolt. The United States will not last forever; that is a fact born out by history.