The Trouble With Canada .........Still

[lukin]

You're right Waldo, I would like more. I just don't find even the idea of it very convincing.

What do you want smallc? A summary of each of the 450 pages?

Anyways, I'm off to play hockey tonight. Waldo and Jack, you guys should try to interact with live human beings once in awhile. It may help you get over some of your insecurities. I wish the both of you another stimulating, invigorating, exciting night and morning of posting on this forum.

I'll read your response (lukin way, duck and dodge, blah, blah, blah)in the morning. Jack, let me know if any of those dating sites work out for you. Remember, when talking to someone on computer you can pretend to be all kinds of things you wished you were. Who'll really know the difference. Ciao.

Edited December 10, 2010 by lukin

[waldo]

What do you want smallc? A summary of each of the 450 pages?

Anyways, I'm off to play hockey tonight. Waldo and Jack, you guys should try to interact with live human beings once in awhile. It may help you get over some of your insecurities. I wish the both of you another stimulating, invigorating, exciting night and morning of posting on this forum.

I'll read your response (lukin way, duck and dodge, blah, blah, blah)in the morning. Jack, let me know if any of those dating sites work out for you. Remember, when talking to someone on computer you can pretend to be all kinds of things you wished you were. Who'll really know the difference. Ciao.

hey lukin, while I've been away the last couple of days, I see you posted up a storm! Who became your substitute stalkee?

[Smallc]

What I would like, Lukin, is for you to explain the main points. I don't think it's that difficult.

[Jack Weber]

What I would like, Lukin, is for you to explain the main points. I don't think it's that difficult.

My guess is that he probably has'nt read it yet...

It seemd to have the necessary right wing invective ie.Trudeau was an autocratic Communist and he sucked!...So it must be an eye opening piece!

[bloodyminded]

What I would like, Lukin, is for you to explain the main points. I don't think it's that difficult.

I agree. Saying "Read the [450 page] book" is not terribly enlightening.

[lukin]

I agree. Saying "Read the [450 page] book" is not terribly enlightening.

It's easy to criticize something you haven't read, isn't it bm?

[bloodyminded]

It's easy to criticize something you haven't read, isn't it bm?

I made the fundamental error of assuming your little precis of the book was a summation.

I am only criticizing the main thesis of the book as you presented it.

My mistake.

[lukin]

My guess is that he probably has'nt read it yet...

It seemd to have the necessary right wing invective ie.Trudeau was an autocratic Communist and he sucked!...So it must be an eye opening piece!

So you've read it?

It's juvenile to criticize something you haven't read.

Any luck in the dating rooms last night, Jacky? 40 years old and patrolling dating sites......

[lukin]

I made the fundamental error of assuming your little precis of the book was a summation.

I am only criticizing the main thesis of the book as you presented it.

My mistake.

It's a very detailed and well researched book bm. Like I said, I don't agree with everything in it. Many things are discussed such as welfare, health care, foreign aid hypocrisy, criminal justice and the power of unelected judges, and multiculturalism.

The funny thing is that I've voted Liberal/NDP more often in elections than PC/CPC, so i am hardly a right-wing fundamentalist. Have a nice day bm.

[lukin]

I found the book to be very interesting. I don't expect everyone to read it. I also don't think people can really criticize something before they've read it. just my opinion.

Edited December 10, 2010 by lukin

[bloodyminded]

It's a very detailed and well researched book bm. Like I said, I don't agree with everything in it. Many things are discussed such as welfare, health care, foreign aid hypocrisy, criminal justice and the power of unelected judges, and multiculturalism.

The funny thing is that I've voted Liberal/NDP more often in elections than PC/CPC, so i am hardly a right-wing fundamentalist. Have a nice day bm.

Thanks for the friendly post. It's always kinda interesting to hear people speak outside of our usual debate patterns, when we learn that one another are human beings, not mere anonymous politicized voices; I too have voted Conservative, Liberal, and NDP.

(I'm sure some people say this just to sound as if they aren't bound by partisanship...but some of us really mean it.)

I voted NDP in our last provincial election, although everybody knew (knew...no doubt) that the PC's would beat the Liberals.

But the NDP got zero seats, so my votew was not a great help to them.

[lukin]

Thanks for the friendly post. It's always kinda interesting to hear people speak outside of our usual debate patterns, when we learn that one another are human beings, not mere anonymous politicized voices; I too have voted Conservative, Liberal, and NDP.

(I'm sure some people say this just to sound as if they aren't bound by partisanship...but some of us really mean it.)

I voted NDP in our last provincial election, although everybody knew (knew...no doubt) that the PC's would beat the Liberals.

But the NDP got zero seats, so my votew was not a great help to them.

I also voted for the NDP in our last provincial election, and CPC in the Federal election. I voted for Chretien twice and Joe Clark once during those federal elections. People often ask me how that can be.

BM, I will only attack after I've been attacked. I may not be as politically astute as many posters on here, but no one needs to be ridiculed for what they say or what they post. If you go back and read my posts you will realize that certain members of this forum, wyly/waldo/jack weber resort to petty personal attacks when someone says something they don't like.

For example, take a look in the Cancun thread. TrueMetis disagreed with something TimG said, so the first line in his rebuttal is to call Tim a moron. I don't think that is necessary BM.

Edited December 10, 2010 by lukin

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, at first look, I don't know why this book wouldn't be considered as credible as any other on the topic....it has the usual comparisons and references to the United States!

[Shwa]

I found the book to be very interesting. I don't expect everyone to read it. I also don't think people can really criticize something before they've read it. just my opinion.

A million atheists just gasped...

[Wild Bill]

You ask a serious question and the guy gives you the sales pitch crapola from the back cover...

Fine...

I suspect this book is just the same synopsis of the same whimpering and whining from the hard right in this country..

Not the latest stuff,however,what would be the author's solutions to the nefarious plots of the "Left" in this country?

Lemme guess!!!

1.Smaller government

2.Lower taxes

3.Curb,if not stop immigration

4.More individual freedom

What have I missed?

Not quite, Jack! The problem in this thread seems to be that Mr. Lukin has not done the best job of explaining why someone would be interested in reading a book by Gairdner. Meanwhile, some others have made no attempt to become familiar with the book and are just using it as a cheap straw man to attack it as some sort of right wing totem.

I read Gairdner's first book, the Trouble With Canada. It came out in the early 90's and caused a firestorm of flames from the left wing media. This was kinda pre-Internet, remember. This new book is really just a re-visitation of his first book, after some years have passed.

Anyhow, Bill Gairdner's book was no simple right wing rant. Nor was it just a slam of Trudeau. Trudeau was used more as a figurehead for a cultural trend that began at that time.

What these books do is establish definitions for the classic political philosophies and then definitions for the modern political Canadian parties. He gives some historical background to Canadian history, particularly with the different regions.

Then he lays out changes in demographics and cultural values over the years, along with the disconnect between what mainstream Canadians wanted or believed was happening and what was actually being done. He examines the justice system, immigration, majority and minority views on abortion, how politicians say one thing in English but have it deliberately mis-translated when they speak it in French.

What particularly inflames his left wing critics is that he loves to use sources like StatsCan for his evidence, instead of right wing, more extreme journals. StatsCan of course is considered non-partisan.

At times even a Libertarian like me finds him a bit harsh. He doesn't constantly blather about it but he doesn't attempt to hide that he is a strong Christian. Still, he also fervently believes in the separation of Church and State so I can forgive him.

I think if I had to name the most important factor of his writing I would be torn between two points. One is how clearly he can define political classic philosophy and contrast it with its modern practicing parties. The other would be how well he shows how modern Canadian parties don't really give we citizens what we actually want and are very good at keeping us fooled about it.

If you're the kind of person who likes this sort of stuff then a Gairdner book is for you, even if you don't agree with his own politics. If you're more of a partisan thinker who believes that only his way is right and everything else is 'evil' then save your money!

[wyly]

BM, I will only attack after I've been attacked. I may not be as politically astute as many posters on here, but no one needs to be ridiculed for what they say or what they post. If you go back and read my posts you will realize that certain members of this forum, wyly/waldo/jack weber resort to petty personal attacks when someone says something they don't like.

bull shit you hypocritical jerk...you follow other posters from one thread to another just to continue personal attacks that have no relationship to the OP thread...your first attack on me was many months ago and I never even addressed you in my general post, it was directed at no one in particular...I never insult first but I've no hesitation hitting back...

[lukin]

bull shit you hypocritical jerk...you follow other posters from one thread to another just to continue personal attacks that have no relationship to the OP thread...your first attack on me was many months ago and I never even addressed you in my general post, it was directed at no one in particular...I never insult first but I've no hesitation hitting back...

Sorry buddy, you have insulted me and many other members whom you disagree with. Sorry, but your rebuttal is wrong. You've insulted groups of people, yet you claim to be intellectually superior. I exposed your hypocrisy. I have no use for your arrogance and lies.

[lukin]

At times even a Libertarian like me finds him a bit harsh. He doesn't constantly blather about it but he doesn't attempt to hide that he is a strong Christian. Still, he also fervently believes in the separation of Church and State so I can forgive him.

The funny thing, WB, is that Gairdner describe himself as a "cocky atheist" before he became a Christian.

[bloodyminded]

BM, I will only attack after I've been attacked.

With the possible exceptions of the gentlemen M. Dancer and bush_cheney, everybody here pretty much believes this of themselves.

It's almost true, I believe, of Michael Hardner. Maybe one or two others.

I may not be as politically astute as many posters on here, but no one needs to be ridiculed for what they say or what they post. If you go back and read my posts you will realize that certain members of this forum, wyly/waldo/jack weber resort to petty personal attacks when someone says something they don't like.

While no doubt these three guys have, like myself, occasionally performed this way, I don't see them easily going on the attack. They're reasonable men. Sometimes they might mock certain ideas, sure, but I don't see how you can divorce yourself from this. You've gone on the attack plenty of times.

For example, take a look in the Cancun thread. TrueMetis disagreed with something TimG said, so the first line in his rebuttal is to call Tim a moron. I don't think that is necessary BM.

TimG dishes out plenty, don't worry.

[Jack Weber]

So you've read it?

It's juvenile to criticize something you haven't read.

Any luck in the dating rooms last night, Jacky? 40 years old and patrolling dating sites......

I prefer Mel Hurtig and David Orchard's vision for this country...

I've never been fond of Gairdner's...

[lukin]

I prefer Mel Hurtig and David Orchard's vision for this country...

I've never been fond of Gairdner's...

Fair enough.

You know what jack, I've carried things too far. I apologize for my previous comments directed at you. They were wrong.

[Jack Weber]

Fair enough.

You know what jack, I've carried things too far. I apologize for my previous comments directed at you. They were wrong.

Well..That was big of you...

My wife will be pleased to know that I no longer use online dating services for kicks...

[Bonam]

What do online dating services have to do with the trouble with Canada?

[bloodyminded]

What do online dating services have to do with the trouble with Canada?

It was a response to lukin's insults about Jack being "unmarried and using dating sites...."

Why was it there in the 1st place? I dunno....

[lukin]

Here is a recent interview with the author.

http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?videoid?756053785001