A great Canadian forum

[daniel]

...MLW is not representative of mainstream Canada. ....

There you have it, UShaditcoming. Straight from the horse's mouth. Now you know you can't take these guys seriously.

[UShaditComing]

You got that right. MLW is not representative of mainstream Canada. Thank God for that!

If the whole damn country is turning left then why, pray tell, do we have a Conservative government in power?

The anti-war sentiment in Canada is not the product of a left turn. This has been the case in this country as long as I can remember, regardless of the government in power. You really should hone up on your Canadian history.

Typical leftist rhetoric. You need to revise your talking points. And if you think things are honky dory in Europe, man you need to read more.

Anytime you pull something out of a rectum, sorry but the last thing you'll smell is flowers.

You're confused capricorn, I was meaning that the US is turning to the left. Canada turned from the Liberals because of the socalled sponsorship scandal. That was really only John Chretien keeping Canada together by appeasing the Quebecers at a time when they were most likely to try to separate from Canada. I personally congratulate him for his work and I also congratulate him for keeping us out of Iraq. Harper wouldn't have done the same in either case because he wanted us in Iraq and he didn't care about Quebec being a part of Canada.

Also the Canadian people need to begin to understand that the Conservatives under Harper are liars. Their latest scam on environmental protection is a good example. Harper doesn't believe in global warming and never has but he needs to pretend he does and so he comes up with plans such as the current one which does nothing more than appease the tarsands indurstry. It's completely phoney otherwise and doesn't fool any of the oppositon parties. Sadly it may fool some Canadians and along with the right which doesn't believe in global warming and doesn't care anyway, he may just get elected again.

So now you know and thanks for being my sounding board which let me get it off my chest.

[capricorn]

I was meaning that the US is turning to the left.

So you did. Yet it doesn't lessen the fun we're having here.

Canada turned from the Liberals because of the socalled sponsorship scandal. That was really only John Chretien keeping Canada together by appeasing the Quebecers at a time when they were most likely to try to separate from Canada.

Jean Chretien did not constitute the entire Liberal Party. There was more to the downfall of the Liberals than the sponsorship scandal. With your in-depth knowledge of Canadian politics, I'm certain you're aware of this fact.

I personally congratulate him for his work and I also congratulate him for keeping us out of Iraq.

A decision I endorsed.

Harper wouldn't have done the same in either case because he wanted us in Iraq and he didn't care about Quebec being a part of Canada.

Well we'll never know what Harper would have done, will we. What might have been is of no consequence.

Also the Canadian people need to begin to understand that the Conservatives under Harper are liars.

An election would tell us if Canadians think the Conservatives are liars. The Liberals don't seem to have a problem with this government otherwise they wouldn't keep propping them up.

Their latest scam on environmental protection is a good example. Harper doesn't believe in global warming and never has but he needs to pretend he does and so he comes up with plans such as the current one which does nothing more than appease the tarsands indurstry. It's completely phoney otherwise and doesn't fool any of the oppositon parties. Sadly it may fool some Canadians and along with the right which doesn't believe in global warming and doesn't care anyway, he may just get elected again.

If Harper is to fool anybody it may as well be the electorate. The opposition parties seem to have dropped the environment as a priority so why bother with them on this issue? I agree with you that Harper may well get re-elected.

[UShaditComing]

So you did. Yet it doesn't lessen the fun we're having here.

Jean Chretien did not constitute the entire Liberal Party. There was more to the downfall of the Liberals than the sponsorship scandal. With your in-depth knowledge of Canadian politics, I'm certain you're aware of this fact.

A decision I endorsed.

Well we'll never know what Harper would have done, will we. What might have been is of no consequence.

An election would tell us if Canadians think the Conservatives are liars. The Liberals don't seem to have a problem with this government otherwise they wouldn't keep propping them up.

If Harper is to fool anybody it may as well be the electorate. The opposition parties seem to have dropped the environment as a priority so why bother with them on this issue? I agree with you that Harper may well get re-elected.

We both understand why the Liberals don't take a stand on the Conservatives don't we. I'm just being honest and I'm wondering if you can be too. The Liberals don't want a non-confidence motion unless if's at a time and on an issue which will be favourable to them. It's our system and we shouldn't try to fool each other on that.

You seem to acknowledge that the Conservatives are lyiing on the environmental issues but you may think that the lies are entirely justified. I would think that the Cons know that many people are smart enough to figure it out but they are depending on their backers to be of the opinion that all the global warming hype is just nonsense. I'm pretty sure Harper thinks that.

I think the sponsorship scandal is what did the Liberal in and I don't agree that it was many other things but I ackowledge that you could have a case there. To what are you referring?

Edited March 11, 2008 by UShaditComing

[capricorn]

We both understand why the Liberals don't take a stand on the Conservatives don't we. I'm just being honest and I'm wondering if you can be too. The Liberals don't want a non-confidence motion unless if's at a time and on an issue which will be favourable to them. It's our system and we shouldn't try to fool each other on that.

The Liberals have adopted this strategy at their own peril. In recent months, the Liberals have gone from a party that has no policies to speak of, to a party that is fast becoming the laughing stock among those who pay attention to politics.

You seem to acknowledge that the Conservatives are lyiing on the environmental issues but you may think that the lies are entirely justified.

Not at all. I happen to agree with the Conservatives' moves on the environment. The Liberals did nothing except sign Kyoto which they had no intention of abiding by. Which begs the question, which party lied or is lying to Canadians on the environment?

I would think that the Cons know that many people are smart enough to figure it out but they are depending on their backers to be of the opinion that all the global warming hype is just nonsense. I'm pretty sure Harper thinks that.

I don't know what you're getting at here.

I think the sponsorship scandal is what did the Liberal in and I don't agree that it was many other things but I ackowledge that you could have a case there. To what are you referring?

A thread titled "a great canadian forum" is hardly the place to re-hash Liberal party sins which have been debated ad nauseam on this board and many others. If you want to re-visit this debacle, perhaps you should start a new thread. I may or may not participate.

[Charles Anthony]

A thread titled "a great canadian forum" is hardly the place to re-hash Liberal party sins which have been debated ad nauseam on this board and many others. If you want to re-visit this debacle, perhaps you should start a new thread.

Agreed.

Keep the political discussions focussed in the political sub-forums.

[UShaditComing]

Agreed.

Keep the political discussions focussed in the political sub-forums.

I certainly agree too if that is going to become policy on this forum. Since I joined there has been a great deal of off topic conversation going on in all the threads. And fair enough, I think it is the right move.

[UShaditComing]

You got that right. MLW is not representative of mainstream Canada. Thank God for that!

If the whole damn country is turning left then why, pray tell, do we have a Conservative government in power?

The anti-war sentiment in Canada is not the product of a left turn. This has been the case in this country as long as I can remember, regardless of the government in power. You really should hone up on your Canadian history.

Typical leftist rhetoric. You need to revise your talking points. And if you think things are honky dory in Europe, man you need to read more.

Anytime you pull something out of a rectum, sorry but the last thing you'll smell is flowers.

I find it quite interesting capricorn that you made this post yesterday which was completely off topic and ended with a profane insult, yet all of a sudden you seem to need to take the high road. What are we to make of that when it appears you came here to this thread to talk about off topic issues? Would you propose that you just continue to do that and nobody answer you back?

What makes this forum great for me is that the moderators don't seem to be US biased and on the US forums they are and it's difficult for them not to be because of their patriotism. This is one of the main reasons I started this thread which was derailed long ago.

Edited March 12, 2008 by UShaditComing

[capricorn]

I find it quite interesting capricorn that you made this post yesterday which was completely off topic and ended with a profane insult, yet all of a sudden you seem to need to take the high road. What are we to make of that when it appears you came here to this thread to talk about off topic issues? Would you propose that you just continue to do that and nobody answer you back?

What makes this forum great for me is that the moderators don't seem to be US biased and on the US forums they are and it's difficult for them not to be because of their patriotism. This is one of the main reasons I started this thread which was derailed long ago.

Nice attempt at ingratiating yourself with the moderators.

You, boy-o, are the ultimate master at hijacking threads. You even derail your own.

[rover1]

Of course, I notice the sometimes unusual names of contributors to this and other forums, but if they make reasonable postings, agreeing with me or not, I soon forget the 'handle' and respond to the point made, or not.

Foolish posts do not require an unusual name, and deserve no response.

[jbg]

Which post qualifies?

This one mostly:

"So did Harper. You're in good company".

That was a joke, since I couldn't possibly think that Harper eats children.

[jbg]

Well that's why a two state solution is more desirable. Do you think that Israel has any intention at all of ever letting it happen? I am now of the opinion that all of the offers are nothing but an ongoing smokescreen.

You probably know something about it being a Jew and I suspect that you are going to be extremely biased but I'm interested in hearing your opinions still.

Fair question. Israel would favor a two-state solution if and only if it's a permanent resolution and a "houdna" or truce for rebuilding. As a Jew of course I'm biased in favor of Israel. But I would be as a citizen of the Western world as well.

[UShaditComing]

Fair question. Israel would favor a two-state solution if and only if it's a permanent resolution and a "houdna" or truce for rebuilding. As a Jew of course I'm biased in favor of Israel. But I would be as a citizen of the Western world as well.

Thanks for your answer but after doing a fair amount of studying the situation I really do fear that Israel has absolutely no intention of ever giving up any amount of it's gains as according to UN resolutions. Mainly because even as the promise of Sharon and Olmert were being made the expansion of settlements on land which was declared to be Palestinian land never ceased. Did it ever even slow down other than the worthless smokescreen offers of abandoing settlements which were mostly unoccupied anyway?

Have you read Jimmy Carter's book? It's worth reading even though it's condemned outrageously by the Zionist suppporters. Jimmy Carter does know his stuff on the region.

Edited March 12, 2008 by UShaditComing

[Shady]

Jimmy Carter does know his stuff on the region.

Yes he certainly does. He removed the Shah of Iran which led to Ayatollah Khomeini coming to power. Great stuff Jimmy!

[UShaditComing]

Yes he certainly does. He removed the Shah of Iran which led to Ayatollah Khomeini coming to power. Great stuff Jimmy!

Ignored nonsensical lies as requested. Please start an appropriate thread.

[buffycat]

Ignored nonsensical lies as requested. Please start an appropriate thread.

Good luck!

[jbg]

Have you read Jimmy Carter's book? It's worth reading even though it's condemned outrageously by the Zionist suppporters. Jimmy Carter does know his stuff on the region.

I read Carter's book int he last six (6) months. The book is well-written but its thesis is ahistorical and ultimately fraudulent. For example, Carter starts the book, in the intro, with a "timeline" that implies that an independent Jewish state had almost no duration during the period before the Common Era. This is highly misleading.

Other parts of his book were also pejorative and flat out wrong.

[Smallc]

[Guest]

Are any of the people on this forum people who used to post on Sympatico or the CBC forum. Those two were closed down because they got too hot to handle and probably it had a lot to do with pressure to not hurt the feelings of Americans. Anybody here take part in those two?

Sorry to go back so far to get this quote, but it's so hilarious. The CBC worried about the feelings of Americans

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry to go back so far to get this quote, but it's so hilarious. The CBC worried about the feelings of Americans

I've always really appreciated that about the CBC.

[Guest]

I've always really appreciated that about the CBC.

One of the things I like to do when I'm watching the CBC is try and gauge the glee when someone like Terry Milewski or Neil MacDonald reports on something that is bad for either the US or Israel. Sometimes they are beside themselves.

[Michael Hardner]

Why not ? As a vilified Canadian liberal, I don't like the anti-American sentiment that is expressed constantly by those of my ilk. The US and Canada are so similar... to scrutinize Americans as individuals that way is ridiculous. I had a dinner party where a loud dinner guest was bad mouthing 'Americans' ... not the US government, or even America. There were several (liberal) Americans in attendance who I'm sure weren't impressed. They didn't have ball caps and Georgia accents, so I guess they didn't appear to be American to that bloke.

[bleeding heart]

Why not ? As a vilified Canadian liberal, I don't like the anti-American sentiment that is expressed constantly by those of my ilk. The US and Canada are so similar... to scrutinize Americans as individuals that way is ridiculous. I had a dinner party where a loud dinner guest was bad mouthing 'Americans' ... not the US government, or even America. There were several (liberal) Americans in attendance who I'm sure weren't impressed.

Just so. I had a recent discussion about "anti-Americanism," and opined that it is an overblown phenomenon, mostly trivial, and too-often used as a pejorative term for even legimtimate criticism of the superpower's international behaviour.

But what you're talking about is genuine anti-Americanism, and it's silly at best.

Or: when the double standard is invoked: "America is wrong to be in Afghanistan." Well, ok, maybe so...but we're there too, for crying out loud.

[August1991]

One of the things I like to do when I'm watching the CBC is try and gauge the glee when someone like Terry Milewski or Neil MacDonald reports on something that is bad for either the US or Israel. Sometimes they are beside themselves.

English CBC radio has Michael Colton (?). He loves Obama, and anything "non-mainstream America". Michael Enright on Sunday Morning is another egregious example.

At first, I wondered whether Americans understood that many foreigners liked Obama because, in the mind of these foreigners, Obama was not "mainstream America". Then I realized that Obama is a typical American politician despite what foreigners think, and Americans admirably make choices without great thought for what anyone else thinks.

Enright, Milewski etc are mistaken if they think that Obama is an "anti-American" US president. IMV, Obama is a typical American politician. The only question, IMV, is whether he is competent or not.

Well, he may be America's first black president but he's no Laurier and certainly no Trudeau. Kennedy was the first Catholic US president and he arguably raised the level of debate more than Obama has done.

Edited October 13, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

Why not ? As a vilified Canadian liberal, I don't like the anti-American sentiment that is expressed constantly by those of my ilk. The US and Canada are so similar... to scrutinize Americans as individuals that way is ridiculous. I had a dinner party where a loud dinner guest was bad mouthing 'Americans' ... not the US government, or even America. There were several (liberal) Americans in attendance who I'm sure weren't impressed. They didn't have ball caps and Georgia accents, so I guess they didn't appear to be American to that bloke.

Many Canadians wear ball caps, and many drawl - in French or English.

The English-Canadian nationalism turned into anti-Americanism has always surprised me. America is America, and English-Canada is ROC, or Canada.

The US and Canada are separate countries. Get on with life. Canadians should be happy that they are not Polish, and English-Canadians should be happy that the minority in their midst are Quebecers. In Lebanon, Ireland, Sri Lanka, Africans in America, the experience has been different. Quebecers are a civilised people; and maybe English-Canadians will be as civilised as the Norwegians/Swedes or the Czechs/Slovaks.