Charon

You submitted no quote of Orwell whatsoever. What you submitted was simply not a quote from Orwell. You are absolutely shameless in your overtly clear intellectual dishonesty here. Here is the article that I drew on for Orwell's writing 1984 on his deathbed. It's an excellent article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/10/1984-george-orwell As for the original Kipling bit, which was taken out of context and reinvented to be a fake Orwell quote. Kipling and Orwell were talking about overt imperialism in its most basic form. Are you really going to use that as an example of what should be the basis of Canadian Policy?

Wow if that's not a misleading I don't know what is. You would have to bend over backwards 360 degrees to have one = the other. 2+2 does not = a 5. Not only is there gross misleading going on, but what he's said has not only been taken out of context and then a new quote completely fabricated based on that, but the context is not presented at all, and another context is suggested. Some vague mis-quote on some essay he wrote on Kipling in mid life, is far less indicating of his final opinions than the masterpiece he frantically and passionately wrote practically on his death-bed outlining his thoughts on the current situation. The book being 1984. If I was to use the same technique I could just as soon take some quote of Orwell's from his socialist days and say that Orwell believed this. Sure he did at one point of his life, but he had many differing opinions throughout his life, which were constantly changing. Compare that quote to say Animal Farm and you can present two entirely different people. If you want to actually use the real original quote from Orwell's obscure work on Kipling in context and apply it to this thread topic as a whole in the present day, it doesn't look particularly good. Kipling was promoting imperialism with no apologies attached. "It is true that Kipling does not understand the economic aspect of the relationship between the highbrow and the blimp. He does not see that the map is painted red chiefly in order that the coolie may be exploited. Instead of the coolie he sees the Indian Civil Servant; but even on that plane his grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound.He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." Do you really want to go back to Imperialism? Should we have coolies and Rickshaw drivers, or even slaves powering our economy? Should we be seizing other nations by force and rule over them? If so you're a better man than I Gunga Din.

If you paraphrase you have to indicate that you are paraphrasing. Posting an image which intimates that the man said a quote which he didn't, is intellectual dishonesty at best and black propaganda at worst. Here once again is the grossly misleading picture that you posted:

I underlined the point just for you. 1984 was fiction, but it was based on current events, at the time, and to this day its a starkly accurate dystopian prophecy.

This coming from the guy who quoted a snippet that was a false quotation? Gold truly gold. That's a laugh. Didn't they teach you in university about falsely quoting people?

Now here is an actual and real quote by Orwell written shortly before he died: " Chapter III War is PeaceThe splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet. In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one’s own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon. To understand the nature of the present war — for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war — one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces, Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power." http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html

I've read Orwell and I guarantee you'd never heard of that Kipling bit until you read the link I sent you showing that the quote you attributed to Orwell was never uttered by the man.

Derek L the quote you ascribe to Orwell was never uttered by Orwell. Which is ironically rather Orwellian isn't it? http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/

He posted "Stephen Harper and the Canadian Conservatives work hard to compensate Canada by adding the word 'Armed' to 'Canadian Forces." An exciting video clip of the event: http://www.canada.com/Canadian+Forces+quietly+name/8085657/story.html The video clip was from the Python episode: "Man's Identity Crisis in the Latter Half of the 20th century." I bookmarked it because it was so funny.

He posted a Monty Python video that upset the moderator. This was the moderator's response to his heinous crime: http://youtu.be/_zaoyhlUPWA?t=25m38s

Army Guy Canada is not the U.S.'s 51st overseas legion. The U.S.'s interests are not neccessarily our interests, and I see no reason why we should do their international bidding. Just because you personally aren't ready for a life without war, doesn't mean the rest of us aren't.

Again who are we defending ourselves against? We have no enemies. China is not a real threat to Canada, at best its a threat to Taiwan, and Taiwan isn't Canada. Why don't we do something sensible with our resources like paying down the debt so we don't have to borrow money from China etc just to keep our economy alive. Or how about not selling off our resources to foreign countries? That seems like a lot more sensible way to defend our interests than spending billions upon billions of dollars on threats that don't really exist. Trying to conquer Africa and Central Asia doesn't seem all that intelligent given the history of it. And even if policing Africa (yet not helping them from starving to death in the millions with the resources we spend on military domination) and Central Asia is the goal, the last thing we need are F35s to do it.

PIK and Clark is doing her best to ensure she loses. See running the red on the way to her son's hockey game, which her kid said she does all the time. Its a team effort.

How do you think PIK?