Reverend Blair

That's the way I force things too. That's what MP's are for. The east isn't a huge monolithic block, taxedman. Parts of it, including in the urban areas, would benefit from pr as much as the rest of us. By making it an issue we can get them to push their MPs for it, especially now that they've been faced with the spectre of a far-right Conservative government from Calgary.

That leaves people feeling unrepresented though. Look at what happened with agricultural issues this past election. Not one of the major parties talked about them. I think the NDP could have held Nystrom's and Proctor's seats if they had gone after the Conservatives on the Wheatboard, not fining Cargill for contempt of Parliament, and not introducing law limiting the rights of corporations in genetically modified crops. Those are actually NDP stances on those issues, ones that the farmers in the area agree with. They are the opposite of the Conservative policies. If you go to Nystrom's riding and sit in the bar with a bunch of farmers and actually listen to what they are saying, they support the NDP policies (most of them don't know that because of the political silence on those issues, but they do). Shouldn't a Conservative MP be able to stand up in the House and vote to keep family farms alive for his voters? That's where my support in principle comes from. Like I said, I don't think it can be made to work within the current system. I could see it working under proportional representation, depending on the model chosen, because discussion and cooperation between parties and factions within parties would have to become a working reality.

Now is the time to force change, taxedman. The Liberals are in a minority situation. The next time around that is likely to change. If the Conservatives don't take a huge step to the left, becoming more like the Liberals, the Liberals will likely begin forming majority governments again. Now is the time to press for proportonal representation.

Which specific article? There isn't one that fits this thread exactly, but there are several with links that are related to what we are talking about. That link is at the bottom of one of the articles as well. Iraq has arguably been a war zone since the first Bush was in office. The US didn't just imprison members of the press there, it blew up the offices af al Jazeera, it fired at the Palestine, a hotel anybody who watches major news networks knew the press was staying in, killing a couple members of the international press, and limited access by the press while seeking to control content through embedding. Those are not the actions of a nation that respects press freedom, even in a war zone, and the results are valid. The US did it for oil and corporate profit, not for the betterment of the US, but for the enrichment of the friends of George Bush. Most of the other countries did for trade and aid. Either they wanted more or were afraid of losing what they already had. They thought it would be a short war and the controversy would die down. They were wrong. I've never been able to figure out why Tony Blair is adamant about backing George Bush. My personal feeling is that Maggie Thatcher impregnated Pat Nixon and Tony Blair is the bastard result of that unholy union. Actually I think Tony is influenced by tails of the British Empire and feels guilty about the way the Middle East was divvied up after WWI. He wants to make a difference but isn't bright enough to understand that he's making things worse instead of better. I'm pretty sure I missed a point there someplace, but i'm sure somebody will be able to point it out to me. Krusty: Other than linking to the same article twice (the New Zealand News story is part of the Capitalist article) you've linked to the only story (twice) I know of that tried to spin claiming that Moore was merely pulling a stunt. It has been quoted and requoted until it seems to be coming from all directions, but the original source seems to be from New Zealand. I don't don't that Moore is beyond stunts, they are part of his schtick, but he did have trouble getting funding for the movie to begin with, then a distribution deal was turned down. Considering Moore's recent success I'll stick against Disney on this. The company has never done anything except for money and, since Moore's movie was sure to be profitable, it can be assumed the money for Disney is coming from someplace. Lookie said, Apparently. Don't tell Mrs. Rev. I haven't been to the coast in six or seven years, when's the last time you were in Winnipeg? The whole supposition is based on me staying up until the wee hours. My mother lives in Saskatchewan though, so I'm allowed to stay up as late as I want. Krusty also doesn't like the way I don't bother to set my local time. Why would I? I know what time it is here.

I think our regionalism makes proportional representation more, not less, obvious. The Reform/Alliance/Conservatives are almost as regionalised as the BQ. Proportional representation would encourage them to break out of that. As for whether PR gives more or less democracy, MS has already posted the vote percentage vs. seats won elsewhere on the form. It is clear that the Conservatives and the Liberals are over-represented in the House of Commons and the smaller parties are under-represented.

How about more recent examples where the world is not given any say. Where has the US brought democracy, on its own, since 1960. Your rule is invalidated. Not if you are dropping weapons of mass destruction on them and not if those weapons will continue killing after you go home. There's this: from Human Rights Watch.There is also the matter of the US refusing to ban landmines and continuing the use of depleted uranium ammunition. Not only has Krusty not debunked that idea, but the US has committed far more crimes than just the invasion. The bigget uprising since Bush declared the war over was triggered by the closing of a press outlet. The 2003 Press Freedom Ranking from Reporters Without Borders Place the US in Iraq in 135. Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the same year ranked 124. The US allowed less freedom of the press than Saddam did. Now there's something to be proud of. The answer to your pop quiz is Michael Moore, Hugo. He had a lot of trouble getting the movie made and having it released. The right in the US is still discouraging theatre owners from playing it even though it is sure to draw people and make money.

I'm not at all sure that they can develop a strategy and platform and stick to it, DAC. Harper has been trying to silence those in his party who would openly discuss their right-extremist views since he was a policy guy for Manning. He has been unable to do so. One of the things Harper is forever pushing is free votes in the House of Commons. While I support free votes in principle, within our present system it does not work well. Too many voters vote for a party, not an individual, and there is too much emphasis on the leaders. That leaves Harper in a position where he can either say where he really personally stands, or he can impose party discipline.

I posted a couple of individual links, but it was pretty clear that they hadn't been read. I posted something about context earlier too because quotes, even if a link is provided, can be very misleading.

No, and the way I presented it was not to read my opinion, but to read the links that were instrumental in forming that opinion. That seems to have set you off because you didn't like the links. Tough. Lookie has a pretty good grasp of what you're all about, Krusty.

There, was that so hard?

It is cleared up. I accept that you do not agree with me and I do not agree with you. I think everybody else here understands that too. Now please answer my question, it does not have to pertain to Iraq and Iraq is, in fact, only a part of it. Let me rephrase the question. Is it unpatriotic for an elected representative of Canada to criticise the United States on Kyoto, BSE, Iraq, the war on terror, the war on drugs, etc?

You did not prove the law on the other thread. You gave your legal opinion based on your view. You would accept no evidence that contradicted it. You refused to partake in a wider argument, instead choosing to take the thread off topic. I do not care how long you have been here, Krusty. I do care that you refuse to accept the links of others as valid unless it suits you. I do care that you took the time to go to another site in an attempt to discredit me. I, as I stated on the other thread (the one where you have so far refused to answer a direct question pertaining directly to the subject of the thread), will not play your silly little game. Others here are more reasonable and I will provide links for them, but there is no point in providing links for you. August has shown a similar tendency, so my answer to August was the same.

I asked you a direct question, Krusty.

Perhaps I mis-spoke. There are people here who it is pointless to offer evidence to. I'm not tired of providing proof, I'm tired of people who will not read and discourage others from reading and thinking for themselves. I'm tired of people who will not accept evidence unless it is provided by a source they personally approve of. If a reasonable person here, and I've seen quite a few, asks for a link I will provide it.

I'm not playing this stupid little game of yours anymore, Krusty. You only have one point and it has little or nothing to do with the thread. The majority of those who have spoken out on the legality of the US invasion do not agree with you. I will continue to say that the war was, and still is, illegal. I will not argue that point with you anymore because you are apparently incapable of considering any evidence that you do not agree with. Now, if you can, please answer this question. Is it unpatriotic for a Canadian, especially a Member of Parliament, to criticise the United States? Why?

I heard the noise along time ago. Everywhere I looked things were screwed up. When I looked for evidence it kept coming back to the greed of a very few. You may not be comfortable admitting it, but the evidence of our lifestyle is all around us, from environmental problems to Iraq to health problems right here at home. No. It is like blaming Fleming for letting people die if he could not profit from allowing them to live. If all of the terrorists are dead, and that simplistic statement implies that you think they are, why is the war on terrorism not over? No, I talk about business interests and prejudice encouraging governments to act in ways that cause harm to people. Yes it was. Greed is still the driving force behind the drug wars all this time later. The rhetoric has changed, the problem remains the same. Quite frankly I've grown tired of providing links on this site. It seems that unless you quote the US government around here, the link is not valid. Attempts at democracy in South America, Asia, and Africa have largely failed. Various governments, most notably the US, have supported undemocratic regimes, overthrown elected governments, fought dirty little secret wars, and just generally tried to control things in some very undemocratic ways. Maybe you should read a little bit of history after World War II. Germany and Japan were the exception, not the rule. Because you cannot bring about democracy by killing women and children, pretending that laws do not apply to you, and crushing freedom of the press while enriching your corporations and attempting to control who governs a country. Don't be an idiot, Krusty. You may excel at it, but it is nothing to aspire to.

I've been saying it for a long time too, Caesar. Ever since I first heard of it as a matter of fact...back in the eighties. This Irish guy was speaking from the Irish experience though...they turned things around there. Hopefully the industry and government will pay some attention to him.

I see that you are still unwilling to concede that, despite the many opinions given by people who specialise in international law, that your only point is open to argument, Krusty. The US did not have a right to lift a finger against Iraq without the express approval of the Security Council. The former resolutions do not matter because they did not provide enough evidence that Iraq was a real and immediate threat. Claim victory if you like, child. That doesn't make you right. Now can we move on to another subject? The one the thread is supposed to be about? Are you capable of that or are just a robot that posts the same drivel over and over again?

We can encourage democratic institutions, we can nurture democratic movements. We cannot install democracy by going in with guns blazing and installing puppet governments. Do I think the Middle East would be better off with a democracy? Yes. Do I think we can successfully "move" democracy to the Middle East? No.

Yet you, without much evidence at all, are willing to conceive notions about me and my writing, where and how my viewpoints were developed, and whether I have a right to express those viewpoints. I submit that when you realised I wrote a column that speaks out against imperialism of all sorts you decided that I'm anti-trade, anti-corporate, anti-US and probably that I eat granola and ride a bicycle to work at some emporium for avante garde art. I'm stating that we have done too little too late and that corporate interests in the US have fought what we have done every step of the way. I'm stating that foreign policies that make people increasingly desperate lead those people to follow zealots like bin Laden. The war on drugs is a complicated issue that has effects and causes in countries outside of the US and Canada. It stems from a lot of business deals (put the hemp indistry out of business for the cotton growers) and racism (all those dope-smokin' migrant workers. Those things come out of history. The first drug war the west was involved in was Britain fighting to keep the opium coming, not to stop it. The present version of the war is being fought for the same basic reasons. I thought I already had. Perhaps you should read the links.

Fairly well, actually. North Korea was not as much of a threat as it is today. No, I'm assuming that it will cost a lot of money. I listed a few areas where it could come from. I based that on the Bush administration's spending habits and the influence they try to buy with that spending. You cannot pull $57 billion out of an economy and not have it come from somewhere.

An educated population is a public good. Is the current system working? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I would say that it needs improvement. That improvement will not come if we do not properly fund it. That improvement will not come if we accept inner city schools having lower success rates that suburban schools. That improvement will not come if we use schools to turn out zombie workers. Those things take a public good and turn it into a private good.

Ah, this is just the kind of thread I love to read the day before Canada Day, a few extremists from Alberta and BC trying to tear the country apart because they don't fit in. Tell me, taxedman....When BC and Alberta split away from the rest of Canada are you going to, in turn, allow ridings that want to stay in Canada or form their own little countries to do so?

No, he ran a negative campaign that was not based on issues. His entire platform was basically, "Those damned Liberals wasted money and maybe even stole from you." Canadians aren't stupid. They already knew that. They also knew that the Conservatives would do the same thing with different beneficiaries or, more likely, the same greasy little buddies in different back rooms. Most voters were born at night, but it was at least eighteen years ago. So Canadians went looking for issues and look what came out...the new Conservatives are just like the old Alliance. The voting went according to that. People were a lot madder at the Liberals and likely less afraid of Stephen than Doris Day (I think that's a mistake but...) and that showed up in the polls.

Wrong, that's what the Liberals said. What Stephen Harper said was that he would hold a free vote and might use the notwithstanding clause to over-ride the Supreme Court's ruling in order to keep gays from marrying. Harper's party has also come out against abortion rights for women, the Supreme Court's duty to interpret laws, and they have spoken against hate crime legislation. I've seen George Bush's Amerika. We do not need that up here, thank you very much.