Jump to content

Up the Revolution!


Recommended Posts

Must be imitating Howard Dean or Tom Cruise.

I must say, the applause of his audience didn't match the passion of his "rise up! rise up!" If his own audience didn't rev up....then it most probably was ineffective.

The lethargic rise and quite applause of the audience was so, so, so funny... Maybe I have a strange sense of humour, but I couldn't stop laughing at the unenthusiastic (and obedient) response. They were like drones.

Check out the huge crowds being drawn from former Liberal hero Paul Martin.

pmpm001.jpeg

pmpm002.jpeg

pmpm003.jpeg

<found those photos are a hilarious blog>

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I must say, the applause of his audience didn't match the passion of his "rise up! rise up!" If his own audience didn't rev up....then it most probably was ineffective.

Clearly, Ignatieff will make his "rise up" routine standard fare for the rest of the campaign. The thing is, to come out sounding authentic, he has to pump himself up each time he uses it otherwise it will fall flat. He's used it in Sudbury, Edmonton and today in North Van. In a variation, today he intoned, "in the year of our lord 2011". Oh man, I just knew he would start taking this thing too far. Can't wait to see his next performance. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Liberals seem quite excited about this. "Rise up, Canada! Watch the speech that everyone is talking about!" invites the front page of Liberal.ca. They've set the speech to music (though, sadly, not Parachute Club.)

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToadBrother,

As someone who takes democracy very seriously, I find the degree to which you continue to defend the status quo with regards to Constitutional Monarchies disturbing. A monarchy is the exact opposite of democracy, it is a dictatorship. The constitution itself is a manifesto for that dictatorship. Real or ceremonial, allowed or not, a government that finds ways to undermine that is a good thing for every one. It's real democracy in action where the elected representatives are able to govern without being beholden to the dictates that were borne out of a dictatorship. The consequence that matters is the voters, not a dusty piece of paper or a crusty monarch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must be imitating Howard Dean or Tom Cruise.

I must say, the applause of his audience didn't match the passion of his "rise up! rise up!" If his own audience didn't rev up....then it most probably was ineffective.

Maybe he's really referring to what goes on on in his boudoir LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToadBrother,

As someone who takes democracy very seriously, I find the degree to which you continue to defend the status quo with regards to Constitutional Monarchies disturbing. A monarchy is the exact opposite of democracy, it is a dictatorship. The constitution itself is a manifesto for that dictatorship. Real or ceremonial, allowed or not, a government that finds ways to undermine that is a good thing for every one. It's real democracy in action where the elected representatives are able to govern without being beholden to the dictates that were borne out of a dictatorship. The consequence that matters is the voters, not a dusty piece of paper or a crusty monarch.

Your response to my issues with Parliamentary supremacy are to moan about the monarchy? As to your position that monarchies are the opposite of democracies, it's an absurd and easily falsified claim. Isn't Denmark a democracy? Isn't Sweden? What about Belgium? How about Norway? Wonder if Japan is a democracy?

Is this the best you can come up with as a defense of the Tories? To yap on about the monarchy? You're even a lighter weight than I thought you were.

Maybe someday, when you're not too busy trying to find new ways to defend the indefensible, you might try to look up the Glorious Revolution. The answers to your moronic inaccurate points can be found there.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also that, irrespective of legalities, a lot of Canadians think the opposition were acting disrespectfully towards the prerogatives of the government of the day and playing cheap political games with those mechanisms. I don't remember the Martin minority government very much, but I don't believe the opposition ever used committees in the same way they did against Harper. We didn't see them demanding a parade of ministerial and parliamentary aids to come and testify under oath before them during fishing expeditions. We didn't see demands for truckloads of papers on every possible issue the opposition thought it might be able to make some cheap political points on. We didn't see the opposition passing bills the government opposed, such as the one demanding all supreme court judges be french.

Now you'll say it's LEGAL for them to do all that, and you're quite right. But a lot of people have very little sympathy for that sort of behavior from an opposition, and consequently have some sympathy for the government trying to stymie them. I'm not saying the government has the right to refuse the information, but I understand them delaying it.

In our parliamentary democracy, the Government is to assume responsibility for its actions before the elected representatives of the people. Period. If the Conservatives have a problem with that, then they are not worthy of forming the Government.

BTW, there was no law mandating 5that all Supreme Court judges be french, or even French-speaking Canadians. There was a law mandating that all SC judges be bilingual. Not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToadBrother,

As someone who takes democracy very seriously, I find the degree to which you continue to defend the status quo with regards to Constitutional Monarchies disturbing. A monarchy is the exact opposite of democracy, it is a dictatorship. The constitution itself is a manifesto for that dictatorship. Real or ceremonial, allowed or not, a government that finds ways to undermine that is a good thing for every one. It's real democracy in action where the elected representatives are able to govern without being beholden to the dictates that were borne out of a dictatorship. The consequence that matters is the voters, not a dusty piece of paper or a crusty monarch.

Eve n if one was to accept the absurdist notion that we do not live in a democracy because we have a Monarch, let's not be fooled there. What the Conservatives have done over the past few years is to avoid facing the elected House of Commons every time the heat became too much to bear. Heroes of democracy against an evil Monarchy they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Liberals seem quite excited about this. "Rise up, Canada! Watch the speech that everyone is talking about!" invites the front page of Liberal.ca. They've set the speech to music (though, sadly, not Parachute Club.)

-k

Rise up isn't from Springsteen! It's from Parachute Club! A Canadian band! Why does Michael Ignatieff hate Canada!? Why does he prefer American music!? Is Michael Ignatieff intending to destroy the Canadian recording industry and flood the market with American music!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, there was no law mandating 5that all Supreme Court judges be french, or even French-speaking Canadians. There was a law mandating that all SC judges be bilingual. Not the same thing.

Given the number of bilingual anglophone judges outside Quebec it was pretty damned close to the same thing. A shameless, stupid pandering to the French vote by the Liberals and NDP which would have resulted in intellectually impoverishing an already weak supreme court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rise up isn't from Springsteen! It's from Parachute Club! A Canadian band! Why does Michael Ignatieff hate Canada!? Why does he prefer American music!? Is Michael Ignatieff intending to destroy the Canadian recording industry and flood the market with American music!?

:lol:

Plus Parachute Club is more apropos for Ignatieff. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the number of bilingual anglophone judges outside Quebec it was pretty damned close to the same thing. A shameless, stupid pandering to the French vote by the Liberals and NDP which would have resulted in intellectually impoverishing an already weak supreme court.

If I was a French speaking Canadian and I had to go into court knowing my defense had to depend on a Translator to get my defense across with the proper legal wording I would pretty nervous that is for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were obviously looking in the mirror when you typed that.

Wow, brilliant retort there. You make a moronic statement that constitutional monarchies are basically some sort of tyrannies, I throw names of several nations apart from the Commonwealth Realms that are also constitutional monarchies and finish up by mocking your idiotic position, and this is what I get in return, a weak and half-hearted "I know you are but what am I."

Put the down the Tory talking points and pick up a book on the history of our constitution. What you said was some absurd, it wasn't even wrong. If you seriously think Canada is a absolutist dictatorship, then you must have fallen asleep some around 1640 and just woke up now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eve n if one was to accept the absurdist notion that we do not live in a democracy because we have a Monarch, let's not be fooled there. What the Conservatives have done over the past few years is to avoid facing the elected House of Commons every time the heat became too much to bear. Heroes of democracy against an evil Monarchy they are not.

If Bryan wasn't pretty much a historical ignorant, he'd recognize the irony of calling me a defender of tyranny. What Harper and his ministers were doing was basically aping the claims of Charles I, who also had a restive Parliament out to thwart him at every turn, and who made almost identical claims of executive privilege. The parallels are even better when one considers that Harper, like Charles I, had Parliament prorogued to put an end to those rotten MPs asking him pesky questions about his finances and foreign ventures.

Oooh, the irony drips thick with Bryan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a French speaking Canadian and I had to go into court knowing my defense had to depend on a Translator to get my defense across with the proper legal wording I would pretty nervous that is for sure.

Mind you, the quality of the translators at the Supreme Court is more than pretty good. One reason why the law in question was not necessary... That being said, it is interesting to see that most of those who denounced the legislation in question had nothing to say or propose in terms of the need to ensure that people coming before the SC have the same access in both official languages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Bryan wasn't pretty much a historical ignorant, he'd recognize the irony of calling me a defender of tyranny. What Harper and his ministers were doing was basically aping the claims of Charles I, who also had a restive Parliament out to thwart him at every turn, and who made almost identical claims of executive privilege. The parallels are even better when one considers that Harper, like Charles I, had Parliament prorogued to put an end to those rotten MPs asking him pesky questions about his finances and foreign ventures.

Oooh, the irony drips thick with Bryan.

Keep digging that hypocritical hole. Seems like all you've got is strawman attacks. You fit right in with the Liberals on that front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were obviously looking in the mirror when you typed that.

Bryan, arguments about how our democracy is somehow limited due to the monarchy is strictly philosophical. It's just not really important in the Canadian context, and it's certainly irrelevant to current affairs. When you made that self-aggrandizing statement expressing your deep concern for democracy and how the current monarchy is an affront to those values (or something to that effect), you portray yourself as Mr. Amateur Hour when it comes to politics. This is justifiably an unimportant "issue" to Canadians. I'm not trying to dis you, I'm just saying that ToadBrother has a right to mock you for that statement.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, the quality of the translators at the Supreme Court is more than pretty good. One reason why the law in question was not necessary... That being said, it is interesting to see that most of those who denounced the legislation in question had nothing to say or propose in terms of the need to ensure that people coming before the SC have the same access in both official languages.

I think a lot of people who are critical of the law are also critical of official bilingualism in Canada. At the risk of being presumptuous, I think many critics of the proposal to require bilingualism of Supreme Court judges are opposed to bilingualism in Canada.

Aside from that, bilingual policies, necessarily, are advantageous to Francophones in Canada, broadly speaking. This is due to the fact that Francophones are more likely to learn English in Canada than Anglophones are to learn French.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people who are critical of the law are also critical of official bilingualism in Canada. At the risk of being presumptuous, I think many critics of the proposal to require bilingualism of Supreme Court judges are opposed to bilingualism in Canada.

No doubt about that. Which is why I get a chuckle when some of them hide behind the "it's about getting the best judges" arguments instead of just saying upfront that French-speaking Canadians shouldn't have the same access to the SC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt about that. Which is why I get a chuckle when some of them hide behind the "it's about getting the best judges" arguments instead of just saying upfront that French-speaking Canadians shouldn't have the same access to the SC.

That's not what I meant. Unless of course, you're referring to French-only speakers. I certainly think a French-only judge on the Supreme Court would be quite ridiculous. I don't think the critics of the proposed law to require Supreme Court judges be bilingual have anything against Francophones, but they are simply opposed to French being given official status in Canada. I'm ambivalent about the issue, myself. I just think that Canada should do a lot more to improve the emphasis on bilingualism in school. The standards for high-school graduation, for example (outside of Quebec and other French communities), are generally quite low with respect to French language requirements. If we're going to declare ourselves as bilingual, Canada should do a better job of really promoting bilingualism and imposing higher standards on English-first students to learn French.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I meant.

And I didn't say that's what YOU meant. That being said, there is no shortage of people who believe exactly that.
Unless of course, you're referring to French-only speakers. I certainly think a French-only judge on the Supreme Court would be quite ridiculous.
How about an unilingual English-speaking judge? No more and no less ridiculous, if English and French have the same status in this country.
I don't think the critics of the proposed law to require Supreme Court judges be bilingual have anything against Francophones, but they are simply opposed to French being given official status in Canada.
The fact you miss on some of the pearls some of them use to describe French-speaking Canadians aside (my personal favorite is to have been compared to a cancer)... opposition to equal status for french and English in Cabnada is opposition to the rights of french-speaking Canadians and to their identity as Canadians... call it whatever you want, but when someone is opposed to my rights and to my identity, they're opposed to me. Edited by CANADIEN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that Canada should do a lot more to improve the emphasis on bilingualism in school. The standards for high-school graduation, for example (outside of Quebec and other French communities), are generally quite low with respect to French language requirements. If we're going to declare ourselves as bilingual, Canada should do a better job of really promoting bilingualism and imposing higher standards on English-first students to learn French.

I have a tendency to agree with you but... realistically, how much more could we do? I did French immersion in an Ottawa high school but, still, my French has become hopelessly rusty now that I haven't had to use it for years. How much more could we expect from someone in Regina or Vancouver (especially if e.g. French is their fourth language), no matter how much we improve the standard of French education?

(I had an excellent education in calculus too, by the way. I even took a year and a half of it in university. I didn't remember a damn thing until I studied it again on my own last year.)

Edited by Evening Star
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...