yoyodyne Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Hello all! I've been curious about Canadian politics and how it relates to US politics for a while now. I'm a US citizen and a student of political science, so I'm aware of the broad differences between our two political systems (parliamentary democracy vs. federal republic). I have done some reading about the period of time in Canadian history where Kim Campbell was PM, but I'm interested in it from the perspective of a Canadian citizen. 1) I've seen Kim Campbell on Real Time with Bill Maher, which is really what got me interested in this in the first place. She seems like she's very bright and articulate, but yet Canadian history isn't very nice to her. I understand that she was PM at the end of a bad run for the Torys, but what was it exactly that the Progressive Conservatives did that crushed them so badly? What do you, as a Canadian, remember as being the reason that the Torys were crushed? 2) Was Kim Campbell a terrible PM or was she just in the wrong place at the wrong time? 3) The Torys suffered a huge loss in 1993, but arguably conservative power in the US continued to grow (yes, Clinton was president, but I believe the Republicans had control of both the house and the senate). Now the conservatives in the US have control of the house, senate and the executive branch. I know there isn't any correlation between the two governments, but I just wonder why the Canadian people got more "liberal" at a time when the US people continued to get more "conservative." Any thoughts? 4) Are the Progressive Conservatives the same as the Conservatives? And the Progressive Conservatives are called the Torys, correct? From what I can tell from the Canadian Conservative web site, the ideas are similar to those of the Republicans, which would be the conservative party in the US. 5) Have the Torys in Canada attached themselves to the moral issues (anti-Hollywood, pro-church, anti-abortion) that the US Republicans have? If not, is there a party in Canada that has crossed over from political issues into moral issues? A lot of this information is available online, but it's hard to determine what is fact or opinion or propaganda. I'm just looking for real person opinions on this. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 1) I've seen Kim Campbell on Real Time with Bill Maher, which is really what got me interested in this in the first place. She seems like she's very bright and articulate, but yet Canadian history isn't very nice to her. I understand that she was PM at the end of a bad run for the Torys, but what was it exactly that the Progressive Conservatives did that crushed them so badly? What do you, as a Canadian, remember as being the reason that the Torys were crushed? Brian Mulroney was unpopular, partly owing to his new tax - the GST. The economy was bad as well. There were two political errors made in her campaign. 1) A decision to start off with a fluffy-feel-good campaign. She gaffed by saying something like "I don't think elections are the time to discuss issues" or somesuch. 2) An ad that appeared to make fun of Liberal Jean Chretien's appearance, which is unsightly and affected by some kind of palsy as well. 2) Was Kim Campbell a terrible PM or was she just in the wrong place at the wrong time? She wasn't in power long enough for anybody to tell. She wrote a book, too. I read part of it but it was a little dull. She seems practical and bright, and might have done better at a different time. 3) The Torys suffered a huge loss in 1993, but arguably conservative power in the US continued to grow (yes, Clinton was president, but I believe the Republicans had control of both the house and the senate). Now the conservatives in the US have control of the house, senate and the executive branch. I know there isn't any correlation between the two governments, but I just wonder why the Canadian people got more "liberal" at a time when the US people continued to get more "conservative." Any thoughts? The Liberals are a middle-of-the-road party in Canada. They are liberal compared to American parties. The key thing to note is the economy was doing badly at that time, and both incumbants were thrown out of office - Mulroney and Bush Sr. 4) Are the Progressive Conservatives the same as the Conservatives? And the Progressive Conservatives are called the Torys, correct? From what I can tell from the Canadian Conservative web site, the ideas are similar to those of the Republicans, which would be the conservative party in the US. The Progressive Conservative party and Alliance party merged late last year to form the Conservative party. They're slightly to the right of centre in Canada, but to the left of the Republicans in that they officially support socialized medicine and other programs. They tend to shy away from social issues, preferring to leave those items to a free vote of the members in parliament. 5) Have the Torys in Canada attached themselves to the moral issues (anti-Hollywood, pro-church, anti-abortion) that the US Republicans have? If not, is there a party in Canada that has crossed over from political issues into moral issues? There are elements of social conservativsm in the Conservative party, mostly (but not completely) from ex-Alliance members which was generally viewed as a more socially conservative party. A lot of this information is available online, but it's hard to determine what is fact or opinion or propaganda. I'm just looking for real person opinions on this. The big difference between Canada and the US is the effect of regionalism. While the US and Canada both have a Rural Vs Urban bias, Canada also has more regional biases. The cities tend to support the Liberals. The west (except for cities) tended to support Alliance, now support the conservatives. Quebec supports the Bloc Quebecois. The Maritimes tend to support the Liberals. Ontario is a battleground. The Liberals held almost all of Ontario seats for 10 years, but the Conservatives are making steady gains in that province. The NDP (far left party compared to US parties) holds a handful of seats scattered across the country. Make sure that you study an electoral map to see what I'm talking about. Here's one that takes awhile to load. Electoral Map Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 IMHO, those are good answers, MH. The "traditional" difference between the two countries is that the US has a "violent" past - revolution, civil war whereas Canada has a "peaceful" past - negotiated independence from the UK, "peace, order and good government". I would add that Canada's population is about 50% Catholic (not all practicing) whereas the US population is about 20% Catholic. In addition, the black population in the United States creates a unique minority with a unique history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceemes Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Campbell was also bascially a scarficial goat thrown to the Canadian electoric by the PC party. Ex-PM Brian Mulroney has so angered the Canadian electoric and people, that had the PC ran Jesus himself for PM, they still would of lost. There seems to be a tradition in Canadian politics to offer up a scaraficial goat to the public when a ruling party has pissed off the population to the point where they have no chance of re-election. This is especially true in my Province of BC where we have had two such Premiers. Ms. Rita Johnston of the Social Credit who took the punishment due to Bill Van der Zalm when he stepped down and Ujjal Dosanjh of the NDP during our last Provincial elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 I agree with August ( ) when he said that Michael offered some good explanations. It was inappropriate for Campbell to become leader that early in her career and she had little time to organize an effective campaign. The PC's were burnt out in general. I think there was a little bit of sexism in the media too because they spent too much time analyzing her earings (apparently she rarely changed them). What was rather strange was how she had been a pretty articulate person who imploded once she took the leadership i.e. "I don't think elections are the time to discuss issues" or somesuch. She claimed it was fatigue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Campbell was also bascially a scarficial goat thrown to the Canadian electoric by the PC party. Ex-PM Brian Mulroney has so angered the Canadian electoric and people, that had the PC ran Jesus himself for PM, they still would of lost.She was no sacrificial lamb. She was a suicidal lemming.The best account of the 1993 campaign is the short description in Crosbie's "No Holds Barred". Campbell brought her boyfriend on the campaign bus and then the two canoodled. She showed up late or unprepared for events. The PCs chose her because they thought she would be a deus ex machina. Instead, she was a flake. Under the glare of media attention, this became obvious and the PCs tanked. I've seen Kim Campbell on Real Time with Bill Maher, which is really what got me interested in this in the first place. She seems like she's very bright and articulateRemember Jerry Brown, Governor Moonbeam? How about Howard Dean? Both might sound articulate in a half hour interview too.I just wonder why the Canadian people got more "liberal" at a time when the US people continued to get more "conservative." Any thoughts?I agree with MH. Canadian federal politics are driven at the moment by regionalism. There is a streak of anti-Americanism in Canada's urban centres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceemes Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 She was no sacrificial lamb. She was a suicidal lemming. Okay, lets split the differance and say she was a bit of both.....half sacrificial goat (she was no lamb by any stretch of the imagination) and half suicidal lemming. As I said, at that point in Canadian Federal Politics, the PCP could of ran Jesus Christ for PM and backed up with Allah, Buddha, Istar and whatever other diety you can come up with and they still would of gotten wiped out at the polls. Same thing happened with the Social Credit Party of BC, Van der Zalm destroyed it completely and Rita Johnston was tossed to the electoric wolfes to appease their anger and appitite for blood. Right now, I am wondering if history is about to repeat itself here with Campbell. From what I am hearing from people inside the BC Liberal Party and business contacts, knives are being sharpened as we speak. Trouble is, no one within the caucus is really willing to fill deadman's shoes come the next election. I agree with MH. Canadian federal politics are driven at the moment by regionalism. There is a streak of anti-Americanism in Canada's urban centres. I would argue that Canadian Politics no matter if they are Federal, Provincial or even Civic have always been and will alway be driven by regionalism. East vs West, North vs South, Rural vs Urban, that is the nature of Canadian Politics since Confederation. And there has always been a streak of anti-Americanism throughout the entire nation and not just in the urban centres. Let's be honest about it, the one thing that the majority of Canadian do identify themselves by is, "We are not Americans". In some such attitudes are very overt, but in the main it is just simmering below the surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyodyne Posted September 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Thanks for the replies folks. Let me ask a few followups if I may: 1) You mention anti-Americanism. Is this a feeling that runs fairly steadily no matter the US regime, or does this feeling change based on leadership? I look at, for example, Ireland, and the Irish seemed to LOVE Bill Clinton, but aren't very enthusiastic about Dubya. Does this feeling change based on the relative "sanity" of the US leadership? Is it anti-Americanism or anti-Bush? 2) How does the high percentage of Catholicism affect Canadian politics? In the US with how the Republican have neatly wrapped themselves around the anti-abortion issues (and neatly forgotten the death penalty and war issues), it would certainly spell trouble for the Democrats. Are you Canadians more "sane" about the church and state issues than we are in the US? 3) Are your liberals the environmentalists, like in the US? 4) Off the wall question here: do you think that it is the violent, cowboy history of the US, and the peaceful non-violent history of Canada that accounts for the extreme differences in the use of guns in violent crime? 5) Seriously, since you guys are so close to the US and you see what goes on in our country, do you just sometimes point and laugh at our political system? That we allow ourselves to get sidetracked by Swift Boat Vets, because that way the people really don't focus on the real issues? Or is the political system in Canada as dirty and distracting as in the US? Thanks for the discussion so far! Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idealisttotheend Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 My comments, feel free to correct them for those who will inevitably disagree: 1) You mention anti-Americanism. Is this a feeling that runs fairly steadily no matter the US regime, or does this feeling change based on leadership? I look at, for example, Ireland, and the Irish seemed to LOVE Bill Clinton, but aren't very enthusiastic about Dubya. Does this feeling change based on the relative "sanity" of the US leadership? Is it anti-Americanism or anti-Bush? MLW thread: Are you Anti-Usa or Anti Bush This is a popular thread though it veers off and on topic as we usually do. My own opinion is to go with the common wisdom that Canada tends to get along well with a Democratic president and poorly with a Republican. The right will say that Mulroney and Reagan got along famously and they would be right but I would argue that this was acquiesce by Mulroney to the American agenda (dismantling energy and investment controls and the eventual signing of the FTA) and Mulroney's influence on this country was politically disastrous (economically arguable but politically disastrous). All in all, Bush is not very well liked and like the rest of the world there is a polarization between people who get on the anti-terrorism "war" lazier faire capitalism bandwagon and people who develop a visceral hate for the man. The centre just tends to shrug and accept the inevitability of it all. 2) How does the high percentage of Catholicism affect Canadian politics? In the US with how the Republican have neatly wrapped themselves around the anti-abortion issues (and neatly forgotten the death penalty and war issues), it would certainly spell trouble for the Democrats. Are you Canadians more "sane" about the church and state issues than we are in the US? IMO it doesn't. Catholicism is concentrated in Quebec and while historically it has been a huge issue (Ontario and the rest of Canada were Protestant) the Church isn't even very influential among Quebecois after the secularization of the 1960s. There is a small (generally religious) fundamentalist movement that was loudest under the previous leader of the Canadian Alliance (that just merged to form the conservatives) one Stockwell Day. However after Harper was elected leader it lost a lot of it's voice and in the previous election "morality" issues were seen as a critical weakness of the Conservatives and the party tried to silence their discussion. The reason for that is the majority of Canadians are liberal on social issues such as abortion and such, considerably more liberal than Americans. Are your liberals the environmentalists, like in the US? The green party is liberal in the traditional sense (leaning right on economic issues) but environmental issues are generally associated with the left and the young. Kyoto is an issue here and it tends to break down along right/left lines though there are notable exceptions. f the wall question here: do you think that it is the violent, cowboy history of the US, and the peaceful non-violent history of Canada that accounts for the extreme differences in the use of guns in violent crime? Canada has heavier gun control laws and no second amendment. Guns have always been frowned upon by the federal government which resists arming even the customs and parks staff. It is much harder to get a gun in Canada than the US though legal means. I think a bigger issue though is the perception and the reality that Canadian urban areas are considerably safer than American ones so there is no need for citizens to have guns to protect themselves. Furthermore, while this is changing, there has been a lower incidence of gang crime in Canada historically than in America and I think that makes a difference. I'm not sure political traditions have anything more than an ancillary effect on gun crime. 5) Seriously, since you guys are so close to the US and you see what goes on in our country, do you just sometimes point and laugh at our political system? That we allow ourselves to get sidetracked by Swift Boat Vets, because that way the people really don't focus on the real issues? Or is the political system in Canada as dirty and distracting as in the US? Canada, so far, has resisted the worst of the Americanization of it's politics (though the right is associating ever more frequently with the Republican party and has even been called the republican party north by some commentators.) It was funny during our election to see what were derided as "attack ads" which were quite tame compared to American "attack ads" like SBVT. Someone else point out earlier in the thread that one of the things that contributed to Campbell’s demise was an ad making fun of Chretien’s deformatity (he can only speak out of one side of his mouth). This was seen as “American” and unacceptable. Frankly I think there is a lack of American critism in the media. The CBC tries sometimes but then gets attacked as almost un patriotic (anti-American seems much worse than anti-Canadian these days). Even on trade issues where we get screwed, people blame our government instead of yours which never ceases to erode my personal confidence in the political realism, to say nothing of the patriotism, of my countrymen. America is becoming more anti-democratic and Canada is going right along…. but we’re not there yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 The CBCReading your post makes me feel good to be "Canadian" again. Thanks Idealist!The CBC is NPR, financed heavily by the Canadian Federal Government. The same whackos get free rein, but on taxpayer money. Radio-Canada? Une autre histoire. In Canada, we get NPR in two languages everywhere! Is all this a good thing? Interesting talk and no ads. No requests for donations. Imagine if American blacks had their own cable/radio channel. I like CBC, but it drives me nuts. Radio-Canada is maybe normal. (Detestable Europe parachuted here.) Canadians get a chance to listen/see this across the country. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Dear yoyodyne, Hilarious that you picked up poli/sci during Kim Campbell's 'run'. She was indeed the sacrificial lamb. Brian Mulroney was alledged to be crooked, and the PC party was well on it's way down to 2, count em 2, seats in the next election. 'Lyin Brian' then went down to the states to be on the board of directors for a large multinational who then were charged with price fixing and fined 100 million dollars. ( I believe they made food additives such as citric acid and lysine). Kim Campell reaped her 'fall Gal' reward with a post as Ambassador to California. As for anti-americanism versus anti Bushism, I believe the world is more and more becoming 'anti-american'. The media (the US media) would have everyone believe that anyone who opposes US foriegn policy must ergo hate freedom and democracy, when the opposite is true. The world (and especially the Muslim world, but it is not limited to them) dislikes 'America' for what it does, not what it stands for. They are two different things, and often polarized, but the media spin keeps trying to deny this reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceemes Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 1) You mention anti-Americanism. Is this a feeling that runs fairly steadily no matter the US regime, or does this feeling change based on leadership? I look at, for example, Ireland, and the Irish seemed to LOVE Bill Clinton, but aren't very enthusiastic about Dubya. Does this feeling change based on the relative "sanity" of the US leadership? Is it anti-Americanism or anti-Bush? Anti-Americanism in Canada stems from a number of issues. At the Highway 99/I-5 crossing between BC and Washington State there is the Peace Arch on which is inscribed on the American side the word “Children of a common mother” and "Brethren together in unity" on the Canadian side, and that is how I see Canada and the US, two brothers. However, the US is seen by many Canadians as the bigger brother who although is rich, powerful and successful, he is also a loud obnoxious jerk. You know that type, the guy who comes to family reunions flashing his cash, fancy car, success, bimbo of the week in everybody’s face and thinks he is loved and respected and all the while, you are quietly thinking to yourself, “What an asshole”. It doesn’t help matters much when that big brother (The US) feels that he has every right to take your (Canada’s) toys and things to do with as he wishes, when he wishes without asking. There of course if the fact that Americans are very self-centred, even when visiting other nations including Canada. I hate to say it, but most Americans have little or no knowledge of Canada, our history, our laws or even our culture. Indeed, many seem to feel that because they are American, they are due some kind of special treatment not afforded to other foreign nationals when visiting Canada. Many fail to realize that their Constitutional Rights ends as soon as they cross the border into Canada. I was an MP in the CAF in the early 80’s and during a joint US/Canadian Engineering exercise in BC, I had a US soldier offer to sell me some cocaine, even though I was clearly an MP. I of course arrested him and while searching him for more drugs and or weapons, he was screaming about his Constitutional Rights and how I was violating them. Apparently US MP’s need a search warrant to check an inside shirt pocket or some such nonsense. He just could not get it through his head that he was now in Canada and subject to Canadian Laws and that the Constitutional Rights he enjoyed in the US did not apply here. Then there is America’s foreign policy, which in the eyes of many Canadians is seen as expansionistic and imperialistic. Canada is by and large, a quiet nation, willing to let other nations govern themselves as they wish, live and let live if you will. America on the other hand seems to feel it has some god given right to interfere with the governance and affairs of other nations even to the point of overthrowing democratically elected governments. This is something that goes against the very core of Canadian nature. Most Canadians have family or close friends who are American, so our anti-Americanism is not directed at individual Americans, but rather it is directed at the group dynamic that is America and what it means to be American. As for the anti-Bush sentiment, many here feel that he is a dangerous idiot, who is being lead by the nose by blind ideologist and who could in a moment of religious furor, trigger a catastrophic world war. 2) How does the high percentage of Catholicism affect Canadian politics? In the US with how the Republican have neatly wrapped themselves around the anti-abortion issues (and neatly forgotten the death penalty and war issues), it would certainly spell trouble for the Democrats. Are you Canadians more "sane" about the church and state issues than we are in the US? The majority of Canadians are religious to one degree or another (personally, I tend to lean towards Buddhism), but like our patriotism, we are quietly religious and do not wear it on our sleeves. Again, this is another glaring example on how Canadians and Americans differ. Americans tend to identify with their religion and are loud about it, just as they are with their patriotism. Canadians generally do not like having religion mixed with politics. This could be because we are a multi-cultural society made up of many peoples and religions. Any party that claims to be strictly Christian or whatever will not do well in polls. Canada also has history of religious tolerance within the political spectrum. In the 1800’s, Jewish Canadians won the right to sit in Parliament and swear the oath on the Torah instead of the Bible. Canada was the first nation of the old Empire to grant such rights to Jews and long before the US Jews enjoyed such freedoms. I would say that Canadians are more “sane” about mixing politics and religion. So far, we have avoided having something like the Christian Fundamentalist organizations of the US grabbing political power or positions of undue influence. This allows us to debate issues gay marriage with the minimum of religious rhetoric clouding the issue. 3) Are your liberals the environmentalists, like in the US? All Canadian political parties are environmentalist to one degree or another. Canada’s population is a little over 1/10th that of the US and a landmass that is just under 1/3rd greater and so is not as greatly developed. Canadians in general are very in tune with their natural wealth, and thus are generally more pro-environmental then the average American. Any party that ignores the environmental concerns of Canadians would soon find themselves losing votes and seats in Parliament. Conversely, any party that focuses solely on radical environmental issues would soon find themselves relegated to the far fringe of Canada’s political spectrum. In ascending order, you can say that the Green Party is the most pro-environmental party, followed by the NDP, then the Liberals with the Conservative Party being the least environmental party. 4) Off the wall question here: do you think that it is the violent, cowboy history of the US, and the peaceful non-violent history of Canada that accounts for the extreme differences in the use of guns in violent crime? Again, you have hit on a fundamental difference between Canada and the US, our lack of a gun culture. That doesn’t mean we don’t have guns here, in fact it is estimated that Canadian gun ownership is almost equal to that of the US on a per capita basis. However, gun ownership in Canada is mainly for hunting or vermin control in farmlands and not for personal protection. I think our respective histories shaped our attitudes toward guns and the gun culture. The US is a nation that was birthed by the gun; expanded by the gun; and settled by the gun. Take the settlement of the both the US and Canadian west. In the US, that settlement was done by armed settlers and the US Army, the rule of law came later and even then it was a rough and tumble law enforced by the gun. Canada on the other hand sent a quasi-military police force, the NWMP (later known as the RCMP) out west to bring the rule of law to the land before the main wave of settlers headed out. This allowed Canada’s west to be settled rather more peacefully then in the US. Canadians generally do not settle their differences with guns. However, there has been a marked increase in gun crimes in our major cities. A fair percentage of gun related crimes in the Vancouver region have been committed by South East Asian crime gangs seeking to control the drug trade. But in the main, the majority of urban and rural Canadians feel that they are safe and secure enough and do not need a gun to protect them or their family. 5) Seriously, since you guys are so close to the US and you see what goes on in our country, do you just sometimes point and laugh at our political system? That we allow ourselves to get sidetracked by Swift Boat Vets, because that way the people really don't focus on the real issues? Or is the political system in Canada as dirty and distracting as in the US? You have to understand, we do not use the same system as you do, and so find your system rather convoluted and confusing (in between pissing ourselves with laughter at times). As for dirty and distracting politics, they do happen here, however any party or party leader that relies on suchhttp://www.mapleleafweb.com/dialogcentral/black_fb_english.gif http://www.mapleleafweb.com/dialogcentral/..._fb_english.gif tactics alone without addressing the issues or putting forth their platform will soon find themselves out on the fringe with no hope of winning a single seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Idealist: Someone else point out earlier in the thread that one of the things that contributed to Campbell’s demise was an ad making fun of Chretien’s deformatity (he can only speak out of one side of his mouth). This was seen as “American” and unacceptable. Funny you should mention mudslinging as being a 'conservative'/'American' thing, maybe you should have watched the Liberal ads this past election, especially in Ontario =p cemees: America on the other hand seems to feel it has some god given right to interfere with the governance and affairs of other nations even to the point of overthrowing democratically elected governments. This is something that goes against the very core of Canadian nature. 'Evil' does exist in the world, and that means evil governments. I believe its up to those who are 'good' to do battle with the 'evil' to protect the innocent, have you ever truly thought of the people under these 'democratically elected governments'? Let me guess you believe Iraq was a democratically elected state? rofl As for the anti-Bush sentiment, many here feel that he is a dangerous idiot, who is being lead by the nose by blind ideologist and who could in a moment of religious furor, trigger a catastrophic world war. The truth is that the anti-Bush sentiment is primarily in the east and contained to hardcore Liberals, they hate Bush with the same vehement anger as American Democrats. I have seen Canadians with slogans ranging from pictures of Bush with a sniper hair between his eyes to depictions of him killing children for oil. This isn't reasoned, this isn't enlightened, this is merely immature, horrendous hatred of something they can't control. I live in Western Canada and we are far more pro-US-relations than the East, we are alienated from the rest of Canada since we dont vote Fiberal and are generally ignored unless there are bills to pay =p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Dear Hawk, Let me guess you believe Iraq was a democratically elected state? roflActually, Iraq was a democratic state. Saddam even went so far as to claim 100% of the votes with a reported 100% voter turn out! I believe its up to those who are 'good' to do battle with the 'evil' to protect the innocent,I think Osama Bin Laden said those very words. It is therefore a question of one's viewpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyodyne Posted September 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 You know, it's interesting to hear you guys talk about Canadian culture. At this point in US politics, I feel as though I relate much more to the feelings expressed by you Canadians than I do with the US. For example: Self-centered Americans - what better example of this than the autos that Americans drive? I see Humvees driven by rich soccer moms all the time. Why, oh why would someone pay upwards of $50K just to have the biggest, baddest SUV out there? For that matter, unless you live in rocky wilderness (I live in a metro area BTW), there's no legitimate reason to own an SUV at all. I tie the rise in SUVs in the US back to heavy corporate influence on the part of big oil and the big 3 auto manufacturers. Foreign policy - I have no idea what we are doing in Iraq. It was a sham from the beginning, it's been proven to be a sham, and yet about half of the voting population in the US seem to be ignoring that fact. How can you support a leader that involves you in a war that didn't need to be fought? How many more needless wars are we going to get into? And what happens when we attack someone who does have chemical / biological / nuclear weapons? As for Bush being a dangerous idiot, I'm with you 100%. I'm afraid that the guy sees himself as being the second coming of Christ, and that it's his job to bring about the Rapture or something similar. He honestly scares me as much as the bad old days of the cold war. Religion - I agree with your ideas about religion as well. Religion and politics should not mix in my opinion, and unfortunately, the conservatives mixed it up 30 or 40 years ago and created a huge mess. Now nobody can just "live and let live," because it's a political battle. What I wonder is what happens if Roe vs. Wade does get overturned and abortion is made illegal in the US, what bandwagon do the Republicans go after then? Porn, premarital sex, sneezing without covering your nose? And religious tolerance in the US is pretty much a joke unless your religion looks and smells like Christianity. I think that the tenents of Scientology are strange, but no more strange than Christianity... yet the Scientologist are harassed to no end. Environment - This has to be the biggest example of corporate influence on government that I can think of. Bush has rolled back 50 years of environmental laws, all in the name of larger profits. I almost fell on the floor when I read that the US was supporting commercial whaling, now that the population of whales is starting to bounce back. The one thing in the ocean that isn't getting totally wiped out, so we've got to go after it to make a buck. These bastards would sell their own mothers if it were profitable, I swear. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that even in the backwards midwest US where it seems as though everyone votes Republican without thinking about how much long-term damage it's doing to the world economy, environment, and foreign relations, there are a few of us that think for ourselves. I appreciate your comments about not being anti-American towards specific Americans, but being anti-American toward our culture and our leaders. I support that idea, because I think our culture and our leaders are pretty screwed up too. I almost feel as though I'm a Canadian living in an American body. I've got more questions to ask later if you all don't mind further enlightening this ignorant American. And Hawk, I appreciate your comments too. It keeps us tree-hugging lefties in line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceemes Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Idealist:Someone else point out earlier in the thread that one of the things that contributed to Campbell’s demise was an ad making fun of Chretien’s deformatity (he can only speak out of one side of his mouth). This was seen as “American” and unacceptable. Funny you should mention mudslinging as being a 'conservative'/'American' thing, maybe you should have watched the Liberal ads this past election, especially in Ontario =p Actually, the mudslinging of the Liberals during that last election was rather mild, especially compared to what is going on down south. At their worse, the Liberals simply feed back Harpers own words and quotes on TV and ran a webpage that had the entire quote and the context in which he had said it. It was a very effective tactic and did not distort the truth of Harpers past statements. On the other hand, Harper and the neo-Conservatives did attempt to paint the Liberals as a party of liars, thieves and child porn supporters. Plus there were the ads of Harper trying to look Prime Ministerial, which made him look to me as a dobious, oily used car salesman. Funny thing is, for the past 20 years (except during Kim's run when I decided not to vote), I have voted PC in every Federal Election. This election I found myself being forced to vote Liberal if only to keep Harper out of the PMO's office. Basically I saw Harper as yet another Gordon Campbell...a man who will say one thing to get elected and do the complete opposit once in power. I just didn't trust him or those around him. cemees:America on the other hand seems to feel it has some god given right to interfere with the governance and affairs of other nations even to the point of overthrowing democratically elected governments. This is something that goes against the very core of Canadian nature. 'Evil' does exist in the world, and that means evil governments. I believe its up to those who are 'good' to do battle with the 'evil' to protect the innocent, have you ever truly thought of the people under these 'democratically elected governments'? Let me guess you believe Iraq was a democratically elected state? rofl Trouble is Hawk, a lot of the evil that is in the world has been supported by various past and and still is by the current US Administration. Lets not forget that both Saddam and UBL both got where they were (before their fall from grace) because of US support, money, arms and intelligence. It was the same with Suharto of Indonesia, Pinochet of Chile, the Shah of Iran, the House of Suad and many too numerous to count. And no, I do not think of Saddams Iraq or the current Vichy Iraqi Ruling Counsel when I think of Democratically Elected Governments. No, I was think more along the lines of Jacobo Arbenz, the first democratically elected leader of Guatemala, ousted in a CIA coup in 1954 and replaced by a military dictatorship. Then there was El Salvador during the 1980's, Hondorus etc. As for the anti-Bush sentiment, many here feel that he is a dangerous idiot, who is being lead by the nose by blind ideologist and who could in a moment of religious furor, trigger a catastrophic world war. The truth is that the anti-Bush sentiment is primarily in the east and contained to hardcore Liberals, they hate Bush with the same vehement anger as American Democrats. I have seen Canadians with slogans ranging from pictures of Bush with a sniper hair between his eyes to depictions of him killing children for oil. This isn't reasoned, this isn't enlightened, this is merely immature, horrendous hatred of something they can't control. I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The anti-Bush sentiment is not because people be they leftist or not ( and I am certainly not of lefty) have a knee jerk hatred of him, but because of his action and his rhetoric. He is seen and rightly so as a loose cannon. Two days ago I stopped in Hope for gas and food and ran across a Texan tourist driving a big assed truck and trailer. Plastered on the back of his trailer were stickers, one reading, "Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot, Vote Bush Out." and the other more telling read "Proud to be Texan, Proud to be Repubilican, Proud to support Kerry" This tourist was no long haired freaky friend of Jesus, he was your stereotypical late middle aged, god fearing, white conservative American. We had an interesting discussion over coffee and basically he was fed up at being lied to left, right and centre by the Bush Administration and was voting Democrate just to get rid of Bush. I live in Western Canada and we are far more pro-US-relations than the East, we are alienated from the rest of Canada since we dont vote Fiberal and are generally ignored unless there are bills to pay =p Unless you live in BC, yer just another easterner to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 I believe it was an American writer who said we are all liberals now (Harrington, I think) and I accept the thesis. He identified two strands of liberalism; one that leads togreater government control and another that tends to extreme individualism. It was long ago that I read the work and I am a little hazy on it. However, I agree that there is no conservatism now. The conservatives are reactionary liberals who have not a conservative bone in their bodies or value in their heads. And the parties that are vilified for being Socialist are simply left leaning liberals; vilified only by those reactionary liberals on the other side of the liberal divide. Canada was born to be anti-American. Canada had twice been invaded by American forces and fought two wars to beat back America before it was born. It had also suffered the raids by the Fenians which had the same objective of annexing Canada. Canada was created to be a force large enough to withstand America. That anti-Americanism certainly does exist todat with the difference that more of us now are able to distinguish between American and American administration. Perhaps this, in part, explains the antipathy to Bush who, BTW, I see as the greatest danger to world peace extant. Most of us know too much about America and know too many Americans to be anti-American. We are, however, astonished at the ignorance of Americans with respect to their own system and shortcomings. Religion no longer plays much of a role in Canada. The one area that has been dominated by religious vales as recently as a half century ago - Quebec - is now the most secular in its values. America, conversely, has moved in the opposite direction. There, in a nation that thinks it has separation of Church and State, 46% of the population are "Born-again" Christians. That is a frightening statistic when people of that persuasion cannot separate the two. That is also something of a phenomenon that is sweeping a number of poorer nations. Pentecostals claim to have 553 million adherents world-wide and are as much a factor as Islam in providing services that governments are unable to provide in some poor nations. That is an American led phenomenom and bodes poor;y for the future peace and stability since they share with Islam the idea of the inevitably of class conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Actually, the mudslinging of the Liberals during that last election was rather mild, especially compared to what is going on down south. That does not change anything, you just supported my argument that the Liberals are being 'American' according to your standards. At their worse, the Liberals simply feed back Harpers own words and quotes on TV and ran a webpage that had the entire quote and the context in which he had said it. It was a very effective tactic and did not distort the truth of Harpers past statements. What?? I live in WESTERN Canada (where Liberals aren't liked) and WE got ads quoting Liberal dogma, not real-life quotes. Threats about what would happen if we elect a conservative government, things that they claim the Conservatives have done to Canada (scandals ironically that only the Liberals themselves could have done, since they have been in power 4+ terms =p) Mudslinging is not honest claims, it is personal attacks that are often unfounded and meant to destroy the credibility of the target to those who are too lazy/ignorant to double-check the information they are being fed. On the other hand, Harper and the neo-Conservatives did attempt to paint the Liberals as a party of liars, thieves and child porn supporters. Plus there were the ads of Harper trying to look Prime Ministerial, which made him look to me as a dobious, oily used car salesman. First off, the Liberals ARE liars, thieves, and DO support the degradation of society under the disguise of tolerance and understanding. Here are some of their scandals: http://www.davidchatters.com/parliament.cfm Have fun convincing people who know the truth that the Liberals are angels. Funny thing is, for the past 20 years (except during Kim's run when I decided not to vote), I have voted PC in every Federal Election. This election I found myself being forced to vote Liberal if only to keep Harper out of the PMO's office. Yeah, that was rational, re-elect the guy responsible for 20 years of corruption in the treasury, claim he is a 'new man' with a 'new government', and all his responsibility in the scandals are suddenly forgotten? I dont think so, at least you know you are a true Socialist for your blind hatred and fear of anything not wearing Red. Basically I saw Harper as yet another Gordon Campbell...a man who will say one thing to get elected and do the complete opposit once in power. I just didn't trust him or those around him. Oh you mean like what the Liberals did 5 times in a row? *cough* flip-flop *cough* You have the right idea, sadly you just dont act correctly on it. Because you keep re-electing the proven corrupt government and ignorantly reject a TRULY 'new government' simply because the already-corrupt government claims the 'new government' isn't going to keep their promises. You confuse me (read my quote =p) Trouble is Hawk, a lot of the evil that is in the world has been supported by various past and and still is by the current US Administration. Lets not forget that both Saddam and UBL both got where they were (before their fall from grace) because of US support, money, arms and intelligence. It was the same with Suharto of Indonesia, Pinochet of Chile, the Shah of Iran, the House of Suad and many too numerous to count. Exactly, but you must look at the REASONS they were supported. Everything has a context, did the US Administration support those evil regimes so that those evil regimes could become more evil or so they could keep a worse evil from coming to be? With Saddam the USA supported him to keep in check the radical sect of islam that was spreading rapidly through Iran. Also, none of these evil regimes were originally evil, they were puppets who turned on their masters =p Now the USA is cleaning up their mess, and they are getting roasted for trying to do it while at the same time people are condemning them for NOT doing it. Can't win these days. And no, I do not think of Saddams Iraq or the current Vichy Iraqi Ruling Counsel when I think of Democratically Elected Governments. No, I was think more along the lines of Jacobo Arbenz, the first democratically elected leader of Guatemala, ousted in a CIA coup in 1954 and replaced by a military dictatorship. Then there was El Salvador during the 1980's, Hondorus etc. Jacobo Arbenz is ALOT more complicated than you give it credit. After he and his military supporters overthrew the reigning dictator they went faaar to the left, grabbing land from people, massively rupturing their economy with payouts to the people, and pissing off the wrong people =p He wasn't all that strongly in place as it was, there was a friend of the past dictator who ran opposite him in the elections and gained over 40% of the support from free elections. That tells you that the people didn't whole-heartedly support Jacobo Arbenz in the first place. Then he goes and starts passing veeery socialist legislation with regards to centralization of almost everything. What caused his fall was when he took vast amounts of land from the United Fruit Company, offering only $2.99 in compensation per acre they took and gave away. This resulted in the United States interceding and demanding they pay $75 per acre which was of course refused. This led to furthur problems, in addition to a shaky reign as it was, and communist sects rising up against him (Since he wasn't a total communist, but he was practically fostering it) his reign collapsed when Carlos Castillo attacked him (Castillo was actually one of the men who helped in the first overthrow) Anyways I fail to see how the USA was at fault for their actions, they acted to protect United Fruit Company from a left-wing government and Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown by one of his own. I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The anti-Bush sentiment is not because people be they leftist or not ( and I am certainly not of lefty) have a knee jerk hatred of him, but because of his action and his rhetoric. He is seen and rightly so as a loose cannon. No he is seen primarily as someone who isn't going to flipflop at every breeze of change. He is steadfast, something that no left-winger would understand. Look at Kerry, the man is a blithering idiot, instead of studying his contradictions people STILL publish books on Bush and his interesting word combinations back in his rookie year =p THAT is blind hatred of something they can't understand, and that is wrong. Two days ago I stopped in Hope for gas and food and ran across a Texan tourist driving a big assed truck and trailer. Plastered on the back of his trailer were stickers, one reading, "Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot, Vote Bush Out." and the other more telling read "Proud to be Texan, Proud to be Repubilican, Proud to support Kerry" This tourist was no long haired freaky friend of Jesus, he was your stereotypical late middle aged, god fearing, white conservative American. We had an interesting discussion over coffee and basically he was fed up at being lied to left, right and centre by the Bush Administration and was voting Democrate just to get rid of Bush. Then he isn't Republican. George W Bush is the Republican candidate, if the man is too left-wing for Dubya then he is a Democrat. Simple. As. That. He is also one brainwashed Democrat, if he believes Bush has lied left, right, and center. That is a paranoid dillusion from a core group of Bush/America-HATERS, whenever you try and reason out or debate what they believe Bush has lied about it always ends in 'you can't know that for sure' or 'for all we know' or 'its all the right-wing media propoganda, Bush is obviously lying about something' I mean seriously people, I could say right now 'KERRY IS AN ALIEN' and that has as much credibility as 90% of the crap I have heard from 'Professors' at Universities and Colleges... its rather sad when the Elites actually believe the unbelievable crap they spout, and they will hold onto anything regardless of its' credibility until it is impossible to defend and then suddenly they will flip-flop (they are infamous for it) Unless you live in BC, yer just another easterner to me Well... I live 1 1/2 hours from the BC border, that has to count for something rofl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 eureka you bring up some interesting points, and I agree with quite a few especially regarding Canada and an inbred anti-Americanism. I got over my anti-Americanism simply because I can forgive and forget, however I am Canadian and if the USA tried to take over Canada with force I would be on the front lines with my .22 (since it would work better than the guns the Canadian Military would supply... if it still existed) I just refuse to harbour grudges over things that happened decades/centuries before my time, something I think alot of people should be doing (including minorities) On your comments about true conservatism no longer existing, I totally agree with you. I am personally not 100% right-wing, and being a 21st century Canadian I have enjoyed free health-care and schooling for my whole life. These things affect you and therefore to a certain point every Canadian is socialist. However on our political spectrum I am on the right compared with those who are on the left, that is the only difference up here in the great North. As for your comments on religion, and the danger when church isn't kept seperate from State you are right on the main point, which is that religion should not be whole-heartedly accepted into politics. (Because for all we know some Pastor or Bishop could be using the elected as a puppet or some other such situation where the government suddenly becomes more of a theocracy than a democracy) However, I believe that the Morals and Principles of religion should be welcomed whole-heartedly. There is nothing and should be nothing wrong with a Christian leader being elected simply because he is a Christian, that goes for any tolerant religion (this means cults DONT count, or radical sects). Accountability can be found in a truly religious man/woman, and THAT is the kind of leader you want because they are going to be less likely to lie to you, less likely to thieve you, less likely to needlessly screw you over for a couple extra bucks. yoyodyne And Hawk, I appreciate your comments too. It keeps us tree-hugging lefties in line. No problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceemes Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 That does not change anything, you just supported my argument that the Liberals are being 'American' according to your standards. All parties engage in mudslinging to one degree or another, it's probably been like that ever since the Classical Greek Democratic (democratic being loosely termed) City States. However, none of the parties here engaged in the types of personal attacks we have seen coming from the pro-RNC groups against Kelly. Comparing the mudslinging going on in the US to the mudslinging that happened during our last Federal Election is like comparing the explosive power between a firecracker and a Hydrogen bomb..... At their worse, the Liberals simply feed back Harpers own words and quotes on TV and ran a webpage that had the entire quote and the context in which he had said it. It was a very effective tactic and did not distort the truth of Harpers past statements. What?? I live in WESTERN Canada (where Liberals aren't liked) and WE got ads quoting Liberal dogma, not real-life quotes. Threats about what would happen if we elect a conservative government, things that they claim the Conservatives have done to Canada (scandals ironically that only the Liberals themselves could have done, since they have been in power 4, terms =p) Mudslinging is not honest claims, it is personal attacks that are often unfounded and meant to destroy the credibility of the target to those who are too lazy/ignorant to double-check the information they are being fed. As I said, we had ads from the Liberal Campaign quoting past statements made by Harper that called in question the direct he wanted to take Canada. These questions must of struck a resonant chord in many Canadians to make them grit their teeth, hold their noses and put the Liberals back in power after so many scandals. Basically what Harper had stated in the recent past did not jive with what he was saying during the election. On the other hand, Harper and the neo-Conservatives did attempt to paint the Liberals as a party of liars, thieves and child porn supporters. Plus there were the ads of Harper trying to look Prime Ministerial, which made him look to me as a dobious, oily used car salesman. First off, the Liberals ARE liars, thieves, and DO support the degradation of society under the disguise of tolerance and understanding. Have fun convincing people who know the truth that the Liberals are angels. You don't have to prove to me the Liberal aren't angels, after all I have been living in Campbell's Liberal BC for years. However, as bad as the Federal Liberals were and are, the neo-Conservatives under Harper struck me as being potentially worse. But I am curious, just how are the Federal Liberals degrading Canadian society? We are after all a multi-cultural society and always have been. Is it their pro-gay marriage stances that worries you? I would be more concerned and worried about the religious right that plays a major if quiet part of Harpers Alliance Faction of the neo-Conservative party. They would roll back many of the rights and freedoms we all enjoy if they had their way. Funny thing is, for the past 20 years (except during Kim's run when I decided not to vote), I have voted PC in every Federal Election. This election I found myself being forced to vote Liberal if only to keep Harper out of the PMO's office. Yeah, that was rational, re-elect the guy responsible for 20 years of corruption in the treasury, claim he is a 'new man' with a 'new government', and all his responsibility in the scandals are suddenly forgotten? I dont think so, at least you know you are a true Socialist for your blind hatred and fear of anything not wearing Red I looked at it as buying time. I figured at best the Liberals would win a minority government lasting no more then 2 years max. In that time, I hope my Conservative Party will find the balls to rid itself of the more radical elements of the old Reform/Canadian Alliance that came with the merger. I miss the Progressive element of the old PCP and I am not overally thrilled with the Regressive elements that have taken over the party. I am no socialist by any stretch of the imagination, although I do agree with some of socialist type programmes we as Canadians enjoy, ie health care, education, CPP, EI etc. I take no great joy in having the Liberals in power still, but as far as I was concerned, the Liberals winning a minority government was the lesser of many evils. Basically I saw Harper as yet another Gordon Campbell...a man who will say one thing to get elected and do the complete opposit once in power; I just didnt trust him or those around him. Oh you mean like what the Liberals did 5 times in a row? *cough* flip-flop *cough* You have the right idea, sadly you just dont act correctly on it. Because you keep re-electing the proven corrupt government and ignorantly reject a TRULY;new government; simply because the already-corrupt government claims the;new government; isn;t going to keep their promises. You confuse me (read my quote =p) All parties flip flop to one degree or another, and as I said voting in a Liberal minority was to me a way of buying time for the true Conservatives to take back the party. I confuse you? Guess you are easily confused eh? Trouble is Hawk, a lot of the evil that is in the world has been supported by various past and and still is by the current US Administration. Lets not forget that both Saddam and UBL both got where they were (before their fall from grace) because of US support, money, arms and intelligence. It was the same with Suharto of Indonesia, Pinochet of Chile, the Shah of Iran, the House of Suad and many too numerous to count. Exactly, but you must look at the REASONS they were supported. Everything has a context, did the US Administration support those evil regimes so that those evil regimes could become more evil or so they could keep a worse evil from coming to be? With Saddam the USA supported him to keep in check the radical sect of islam that was spreading rapidly through Iran. Also, none of these evil regimes were originally evil, they were puppets who turned on their masters =p Now the USA is cleaning up their mess, and they are getting roasted for trying to do it while at the same time people are condemning them for NOT doing it. Cant win these days. And yet, radical Islam came into power because of the Shah of Iran, who was put into power after the CIA overthrew Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 with Operation AJAX. Mossadegh lead a nationalist party that was nationalising Irans oil fields, much to the great displeasure of British and American oil companies. You say that none of these evil regimes were evil to begin with. You are totally wrong on that account, both the Shah's regime and Saddams were evil from the getgo. Both used secret police, torture and summary/secret executions to silence any and all opposition within their countries. However, not only did the US turn a blind eye to these crimes, it actually aided and abetted them by training these various internal security agencies and financed them. I take you have have heard of CIA training institute called the School of the Americas? The message to all despots was loud and clear, "You can do as you wish with your own people as long as you do not screw with American business or commericial concerns." The message was also loud and clear to any reformers "Screw with American business or commericial concerns and we will crush you completely." You also seem to think it is okay for the US to overthrow government at will and install puppet regimes? Tell me, how can you justify this? And they are not cleaning up their messes are they? Take Afghanistan for instance, after arming the anti-Soviet forces including the Taliban and UBL's AQ, the US turned its back on the country after the Soviets left, leaving it to fall in to endless civil war and extreme Islamic fundalmentist control. And ever after ousting the Taliban, the US has all but ignoreed the mess there. As we speak, the Taliban are regaining control of the southern end of Afghanistan and various warlords are fighting over the rest. Its the same in Iraq and in other parts of the world where the US has put in and supported military dictatorships. And no, I do not think of Saddams Iraq or the current Vichy Iraqi Ruling Counsel when I think of Democratically Elected Governments. No, I was think more along the lines of Jacobo Arbenz, the first democratically elected leader of Guatemala, ousted in a CIA coup in 1954 and replaced by a military dictatorship. Then there was El Salvador during the 1980's, Hondorus etc. Jacobo Arbenz is ALOT more complicated than you give it credit. After he and his military supporters overthrew the reigning dictator they went faaar to the left, grabbing land from people, massively rupturing their economy with payouts to the people, and pissing off the wrong people =p He wasn't all that strongly in place as it was, there was a friend of the past dictator who ran opposite him in the elections and gained over 40% of the support from free elections. That tells you that the people didn't whole-heartedly support Jacobo Arbenz in the first place. Then he goes and starts passing veeery socialist legislation with regards to centralization of almost everything. What caused his fall was when he took vast amounts of land from the United Fruit Company, offering only in compensation per acre they took and gave away. This resulted in the United States interceding and demanding they pay $75 per acre which was of course refused. This led to furthur problems, in addition to a shaky reign as it was, and communist sects rising up against him (Since he wasn't a total communist, but he was practically fostering it) his reign collapsed when Carlos Castillo attacked him (Castillo was actually one of the men who helped in the first overthrow) I would say 60% of the popular vote makes for a strong support and a strong mandate, hell any Canadian PM or American President would give his left nut for such support. What you are glossing over is that United Fruit held vast tracts of land along with a strangle hold of the economy. The people of Guatemala were being paid peanuts even by the standards of the day. The lands that were taken from United Fruit to be given to the peasents were land that were not in production at that time. Here a little history to put it in perspective In 1944, the people of Guatemala overthrew the right-wing dictator then in power, Jorge Ubico. Guatemala held its first true elections in history. They elected Dr. Juan Jose Arevalo Bermej to the presidency. A new constitution was drawn up, based on the U.S. Constitution. Arevalo was a socialist and an educator who built over 6,000 schools in Guatemala and made great progress in education and health care.At this time in Guatemala, just 2.2 percent of the population owned over 70 percent of the country's land. Only 10 percent of the land was available for 90 percent of the population, most of whom were Indians. Most of the land held by the large landowners was unused. Arevalo was succeeded in another free election by Jacobo Arbenz who continued the reform process begun under Arevalo. Arbenz proposed to redistribute some of the unused land and make it available for the 90 percent to farm. Here is where the problem arose: United Fruit was one of the big holders of unused land in Guatemala. The pressure mounted against UFCO and finally the company complained to the many friends it had within the U.S. government including President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, saying that Guatemala had turned communist. The U.S. State Department and United Fruit embarked on a major public relations campaign to convince the American people and the rest of the U.S. government that Guatemala was a Soviet "satellite". The campaign succeeded and in 1954 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a coup, code-named "Operation PBSUCCESS". The invading force numbered only 150 men under the command of Castillo Armas but the CIA convinced the Guatemalan public and President Arbenz that a major invasion was underway. The CIA set up a clandestine radio station to carry propaganda, jammed all Guatemalan stations, and hired skilled American pilots to bomb strategic points in Guatemala City. The U.S. replaced the freely elected government of Guatemala with another right-wing dictatorship that would again bend to UFCO's will. and a bit of US political history with United Fruit Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother CIA Director Allen Dulles had a personal interest in protecting United Fruit's businesses. Both had investments in firms with heavy investments in United Fruit. In addition, the American ambassador at the UN was a stockholder of United Fruit and President Eisenhower's personal secretary was the wife of United Fruit's public relations director. The Dulles brothers convinced Eisenhower that Arbenz was a real threat to American national security and got his appoval to develop a plan to get rid of the Guatemalan President. Anyways I fail to see how the USA was at fault for their actions, they acted to protect United Fruit Company from a left-wing government and Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown by one of his own. So you are saying that the only the US and US companies have the right to decide how other countries are to be governed or how to utilize their lands, products and resources? No he is seen primarily as someone who isn't going to flipflop at every breeze of change. He is steadfast, something that no left-winger would understand. Look at Kerry, the man is a blithering idiot, instead of studying his contradictions people STILL publish books on Bush and his interesting word combinations back in his rookie year =p THAT is blind hatred of something they can't understand, and that is wrong. You have got to be kidding me.......Bush flip flops so much that he reminds me of fish landed on the deck of a boat. It would take an entire thread just to list all his flip flops and broken promises. Then he isn't Republican. George W Bush is the Republican candidate, if the man is too left-wing for Dubya then he is a Democrat. Simple. As. That. Oh Iam pretty sure he was a Republican, the NRA decal and gun rack in the truck cab would seem to indicate more right wing leanings then left wing. Like it or not, a lot of Republicans are disallusioned and put off by Bush and his crew. And Bush has lied, all too often to count....it seems when he isn't lying, he is flip flopping about.....sad. Unless you live in BC, yer just another easterner to me Well... I live 1 1/2 hours from the BC border, that has to count for something rofl In that case, you are just an easterner with a fetish for cowboy hats and boots : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 All parties engage in mudslinging to one degree or another, it's probably been like that ever since the Classical Greek Democratic (democratic being loosely termed) City States.However, none of the parties here engaged in the types of personal attacks we have seen coming from the pro-RNC groups against Kelly. Comparing the mudslinging going on in the US to the mudslinging that happened during our last Federal Election is like comparing the explosive power between a firecracker and a Hydrogen bomb..... I wasn't comparing, you said that the primary reason Campbell was beaten was because he used mudslinging against Jean Chretien and it was seen as 'American'. Therefore I just pointed out that the current day Liberals are mudslinging yet you dont paint them as 'American'. As I said, we had ads from the Liberal Campaign quoting past statements made by Harper that called in question the direct he wanted to take Canada. These questions must of struck a resonant chord in many Canadians to make them grit their teeth, hold their noses and put the Liberals back in power after so many scandals. Basically what Harper had stated in the recent past did not jive with what he was saying during the election. Policies change, platforms conform, at least he didn't lie to get in power and simply ignore his promises like the Liberals you are defending. The true mud is on the left-wing, not on the right-wing. You don't have to prove to me the Liberal aren't angels, after all I have been living in Campbell's Liberal BC for years.However, as bad as the Federal Liberals were and are, the neo-Conservatives under Harper struck me as being potentially worse. I find it hilarious that you can one second admit the problems of the Liberal party you know, yet in the very next you say they are better than a party you have no clue about simply because it 'struck you' that they are. That is what is re-electing this destructive government, that kind of thinking. Stop fearing what you dont know. But I am curious, just how are the Federal Liberals degrading Canadian society? We are after all a multi-cultural society and always have been. Is it their pro-gay marriage stances that worries you? Its actually been a long-term process, nothing that happened overnight. First off we elected a Liberal government that listens not to the majority because in Canada the majority is silent. No, its the lobbyists who run this country, and the minorities. The Liberals know this, the left-wing plays on this. That is the fundemental problem, you have lobbyist groups of all forms that have been gaining power, a government that is all the more eager to succomb to any and everyones demands (left-wingers are very comfortable with the flipflop) and so you have a weak foundation for a country. Then you get the state-sanctioned blockage of religion from school, this helps nothing and only adds to the problems of an already sick society. Religion might be seen as some as a disease, but it is a disease that encourages and teachs moral standards which hold society together. After all this you get the lobbyists working harder and harder to have their own way, more and more religion is suppressed, more and more morals decay as the new generations are encouraged to live wild and carefree, sex, drugs, and alcohol are shown as being essential parts of everyday life and anyone not taking part is a bible-thumping hillbilly. Then the weak-kneed government, realizing that their new generation has been properly indoctrinated in socialist ways of life, gains power by implementing more and more lobbyist legislation (such as gay rights, gun registration, etc) simply because it pleases the elites who now control our next generation and therefore earns them browny points and the next election. One problem with this whole plan is that every society in history that has gone down this road has ended in destruction. I only hope we stop ours before it happens to us too, a society without morals, without accountibility, and without responsibility isn't a society at all. Its a group of criminals and anarchists. I would be more concerned and worried about the religious right that plays a major if quiet part of Harpers Alliance Faction of the neo-Conservative party. They would roll back many of the rights and freedoms we all enjoy if they had their way. You fear what you dont know, I blame left-wing propganda. What can the conservatives do? I mean its preposterous to claim they would roll back rights and freedoms, they CANT do that nor would they get the support to do that. What they WOULD do however is make the Liberals change the way they do business, and they might get our country's policies and economy back under control =p "Make sure the shadow you hunt isn't the shadow you cast" I looked at it as buying time. I figured at best the Liberals would win a minority government lasting no more then 2 years max. In that time, I hope my Conservative Party will find the balls to rid itself of the more radical elements of the old Reform/Canadian Alliance that came with the merger. I miss the Progressive element of the old PCP and I am not overally thrilled with the Regressive elements that have taken over the party. What you want is a Liberal government called the Canadian Alliance, I find that blatantly undemocratic and beyond pointless. Just vote Liberal, you are a Liberal, we aren't. Its also funny how you claim there are radical elements in the ROC, yet you fail to see how truly radical the Liberal's acted in their last term... intended ignorance or victim of Liberal propoganda? I am no socialist by any stretch of the imagination, although I do agree with some of socialist type programmes we as Canadians enjoy, ie health care, education, CPP, EI etc. If you aren't a socialist you wouldn't vote Liberal or NDP, the Conservatives support health care, eduction, etc... you should probably check this stuff out before blindly believing what the CBC tells you. I take no great joy in having the Liberals in power still, but as far as I was concerned, the Liberals winning a minority government was the lesser of many evils. In truth I am glad they did too, simply because whoever won this minority election is going to burn. Its too close and tensions are far too high, if the Conservatives had won the minority it would simply be a repeat in history and we would be blasted for another couple decades. At least now there is a chance that the Eastern Canadians will finally see how corrupt their government is (with more and more scandals popping up this is actually happening) and get the courage to change their vote. All parties flip flop to one degree or another, and as I said voting in a Liberal minority was to me a way of buying time for the true Conservatives to take back the party.I confuse you? Guess you are easily confused eh? Yes, such as the Liberals using the GST to gain power and then as soon as they gain power conveniently admitting that the previous administration was actually telling the truth and the new tax was needed =p Truly conservative people are more right-wing than the current Stephen Harper team, if you want them in power then you REALLY confuse me x.x If however you want the PCs to become more left-wing then vote Liberal (as I said earlier) And yet, radical Islam came into power because of the Shah of Iran, who was put into power after the CIA overthrew Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 with Operation AJAX. Mossadegh lead a nationalist party that was nationalising Irans oil fields, much to the great displeasure of British and American oil companies. You make it sound like the act was done directly, however it was not. Remember that the Shah was merely convinced by Kermit Roosevelt (senior CIA) that Mossadeq was a potential communist puppet. When the Shah ordered him to retire and Mossadeq refused, but after a short stay in Italy the Shah returned to Iran and fired his rebellious PM. Also keep in mind that during this time Russia was a VERY real danger, the Iron curtain still existed, and Iran was under constant danger from Soviet takeover. There was no way the Shah wanted to risk having a puppet Prime Minister. You say that none of these evil regimes were evil to begin with. You are totally wrong on that account, both the Shah's regime and Saddams were evil from the getgo. Both used secret police, torture and summary/secret executions to silence any and all opposition within their countries. However, not only did the US turn a blind eye to these crimes, it actually aided and abetted them by training these various internal security agencies and financed them. I take you have have heard of CIA training institute called the School of the Americas? No, Saddam rose to power in his government, which was considered at first a liberation front from the old regime. But things went terribly wrong after he decided to kill all his political brethren and assume full dictatorial control =p As for the Shah, true there may have been some violations in Iran, but nothing comparable with extermination of minorities or mass graves. The message to all despots was loud and clear, "You can do as you wish with your own people as long as you do not screw with American business or commericial concerns." The message was also loud and clear to any reformers "Screw with American business or commericial concerns and we will crush you completely." That is a perfectly good message to send, I would argue that Canada should be sending the same message to ensure the protection of Canadian workers in other areas of the world. You also seem to think it is okay for the US to overthrow government at will and install puppet regimes? Tell me, how can you justify this? Not at will, no no no, there must be a justification for the overthrow. As far as I know the USA has acted VERY well for a superpower (compared with other nations such as Russia, who by the way was reported by American papers near the end of the cold war as being a misunderstood nation of enlightened people), I am always surprised at how the left-wing can find 1,000 things that they percieve as problems with a right-wing government but show them a left-wing government (such as Russia, North Korea, China, etc) and they have infinite praise. And they are not cleaning up their messes are they? Take Afghanistan for instance, after arming the anti-Soviet forces including the Taliban and UBL's AQ, the US turned its back on the country after the Soviets left, leaving it to fall in to endless civil war and extreme Islamic fundalmentist control. And ever after ousting the Taliban, the US has all but ignoreed the mess there. As we speak, the Taliban are regaining control of the southern end of Afghanistan and various warlords are fighting over the rest. Its the same in Iraq and in other parts of the world where the US has put in and supported military dictatorships. Hey, if it was up to the right-wing we would keep the troops there, however its the left-wing lobbyists who keep forcing more and more restrictions on the USA military operations. They demand that the occuptional forces be removed, so the USA removes them, then the USA is blamed for the escalations that result from the departure. I mean, I don't understand how you can't see the contradictions of the left-wing =p I would say 60% of the popular vote makes for a strong support and a strong mandate, hell any Canadian PM or American President would give his left nut for such support. Not when you have such enemies in an unstable region, especially not when you have almost half the country against you from the get-go. In Canada anyone with 60% would most likely have fragmented opposition. What you are glossing over is that United Fruit held vast tracts of land along with a strangle hold of the economy. The people of Guatemala were being paid peanuts even by the standards of the day. The lands that were taken from United Fruit to be given to the peasents were land that were not in production at that time. That is a matter he should have taken to the United States, or at least compensated as the USA wanted. His actions against an international company that was headquartered in the United States was a foolish and terrible plan that led to his downfall. Theft is theft, regardless of the circumstances. So you are saying that the only the US and US companies have the right to decide how other countries are to be governed or how to utilize their lands, products and resources? Heck no, however I dont believe that the US government should ignore and turn a blind eye to a government who is stealing land from US companies or a country that suddenly turned very socialist and was led by a leader who kept making things much much more left-wing. You have got to be kidding me.......Bush flip flops so much that he reminds me of fish landed on the deck of a boat. It would take an entire thread just to list all his flip flops and broken promises. Please do list them, and make sure you dont mix up Governor promises with Presidential platform promises. Also Clinton era decisions that affect his promises are nullified Oh Iam pretty sure he was a Republican, the NRA decal and gun rack in the truck cab would seem to indicate more right wing leanings then left wing. Like it or not, a lot of Republicans are disallusioned and put off by Bush and his crew. No true Republican would vote for Kerry, and that is the truth. He may be ex-Republican, he may have Republican ideals to some degree, but he isn't Republican. The Republican party is defined by Dubya's policies and platform, so you cannot define someone who disagrees with Dubya's policies and/or platform as a Republican. Its not possible. Also you can't please everyone, look at the Liberals... Its hard to meet two Liberals that support the same policies/idealogies. And Bush has lied, all too often to count....it seems when he isn't lying, he is flip flopping about.....sad. Still waiting for some proof of flip-flopping... if you provide some I will provide more of Kerry hehe In that case, you are just an easterner with a fetish for cowboy hats and boots : *gasp* never =o Although those cowchicks at rodeos are rather attractive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clean_and_Green Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 what was it exactly that the Progressive Conservatives did that crushed them so badly? What do you, as a Canadian, remember as being the reason that the Torys were crushed? The Progressive Conservatives under Mulroney racked up a record high deficit throwing the country into the red, thus forcing them to implement a nationwide 7% goods and services tax. Their reckless spending caused a split in the Conservative movement, leading to the emergence of the Reform Party in 1987, a western based populous movement that would split the conservative vote in years to follow.However, the greatest factor leading to Tory downfall was their percieved corruption in the eyes of the public. The Mulroney years led to an all time low in Canadian trust for politicians, something I'de argue we have never fully recovered from. Finally the Free Trade Agreement was very controversial, ecspecially in manufacturing regions of Ontario and Quebec. It was loathed amongst the working class who suffered wage declines due to job flight and the shutting down of American branch plants. During the election year of 1993 Canada was in steep recession and unemployment was at 11%. Was Kim Campbell a terrible PM or was she just in the wrong place at the wrong time?Kim Campbell was never officialy elected as PM by the Canadian public, she was appointed, ran and lost. To be blunt, she was a sacrafical lamb.The Torys suffered a huge loss in 1993, but arguably conservative power in the US continued to grow (yes, Clinton was president, but I believe the Republicans had control of both the house and the senate). I just wonder why the Canadian people got more "liberal" at a time when the US people continued to get more "conservative." Any thoughts?I wouldn't say this is necessarily true, the Candain British Parlimentary system is more centralized than the Presidential system, we don't vote for our executive and legislative branch seperatly as you do in the United States, and our Senate and Judicial branch are appointed not elected. Despite this, the Reform Party as an official opposition was far further to the right than the PC"s, greatly influencing the policy direction of our country. Are the Progressive Conservatives the same as the Conservatives? No! The term Progressive was added onto the Conservative Party in 1942 as a result of Manitoba premier John Bracken becoming leader of the federal Conservative Movement. Bracken was part of the populous Proggressive movement in western Canada and the Maratimes during the 1920's. The federal Proggressives were the first successful third party in Canada becoming the second largest party in 1921. However the party would soon split along ideaological lines with the radical proggressives helping to form the CCF and its more conservative members aiding in the rise of the social credit, and later the proggressive conservative movment. Progressive Conservatives were farther to the left than our modern day Conservative movement, and are most fondly remembered for the Diefenbaker years, 1967-63. Although Mulroney took the PC movement farther to the right, it was never quite reformed to the extent the Republican Party was under Reagan, or the Tories in britain under Thatcher. Hence today's PC's or "Red Tories" are more likely to be part of the federal Liberal Party than the Conservatives. Like the rest of the west, Canada took a step to the right after the oil shocks of the 1970's. Have the Torys in Canada attached themselves to the moral issues (anti-Hollywood, pro-church, anti-abortion) that the US Republicans have? If not, is there a party in Canada that has crossed over from political issues into moral issues? Publicly no, privately yes. The christian fundamentalist movement has been relatively small and ineffective in Canada, historically confined to Alberta and rural areas of British columbia. Because Alberta recieved such a large degree of American immigration in the initial stages of the Province's development, its history is tied into the American midwest. Thus if you follow the history of the U.S. midwest from the 1880's (Jennings, Greenback Party) till present day, you'll get a good grip on our fundamentalist movement. The other western Provinces went a different route and never made that post war turn to the right. Typically social conservatism in Canada has been represented federally by the Social Credit Party which temporally merged with the PC's under Mulroney, split again with the emergence of the Reform Party, and are now back together again under the new Conservative banner. In general there is little support for social conservatism in Canada, and the alliance between urban libertarians and rural fundamentalists has been a shakey one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 Dear Hawk, You make it sound like the act was done directly, however it was not. Remember that the Shah was merely convinced by Kermit Roosevelt (senior CIA) that Mossadeq was a potential communist puppet. The CIA bragged that installing the Shah was their 'greatest coup to date' because it was done for only 60,000 dollars. This boasting was made public in a CIA factbook, produced and distributed by the CIA themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyodyne Posted September 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 If I may present some of President Bush's flip-flops: Social Security BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01] ...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02] North Korea BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02] ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04] OPEC Note: This one doesn't technically count, as he wasn't president when he promised this one, but it was a campaign promise that was reversed. BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00] ...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04] Iraq Funding BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04] ...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04] Osama BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01] ...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02] The Environment Note: Another campaign promise broken. BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[if elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00] ...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03] Gay Marriage Note: More campaign talk BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00] ...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04] Nation Building Note: Campaign talk BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00] ...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03] Saddam/Al Qaeda Link BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02] ...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03] UN Resolution on War in Iraq BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03] ...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03] Palestinian Conflict BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02] ...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03] 527s and Campaign Finance Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02] …Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04] BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000] ...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02] Confidentiality of Medical Records Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01] …Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department…asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [businessWeek, 4/30/04] Winning the War on Terror Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04] …Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04] …Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04] (Taken from http://www.americanprogressaction.org) That should be a good start. But really, here's the thing to me. The whole idea of "flip-flops" is silly anyway. Do you want a leader who can't admit mistakes? Someone who can't learn from mistakes? Someone who can't change their mind about an issue? Political issues are ever evolving, and this idea about "flip-flops" is just plain silly, only because it's saying that not learning from your mistakes and not admitting that you've made mistakes is a good quality, and being able to change your mind based on new information is a bad thing. Is "staying the course" when you've determined that that course is wrong a good quality in a leader? I know that the neocons are pushing the idea that John Kerry is wishy-washy and changes his mind on things, but I think what the conservatives tend to do is look at issues as black or white, right or wrong. Personally, I think that most political issues are many shades of gray, and as time progresses and new information comes out, those shades of gray change to reveal new answers. What do you think? Are political issues shades of gray that can change over time, or are they black and white answers that never change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceemes Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 A few more Bush Flip Flops and outright lies. Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it. Bush is against a WMD investigation; then he's for it. Bush is against nation building; then he's for it. (Even before 9/11 it was part of his foreign policy, PNAC. So drop the "everything changed after 9/11" malarky.) Bush said he'll provide money for first responders (emergency services); then he doesn't. Bush is against deficits; then he's for them. Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again. Bush said he'll reduce Greenhouse gases; then doesn't do it. Bush is for a patient's bill of rights then; then he fights against it. Bush say that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts benefits. Bush talks about helping education; then he cuts funding. Bush says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea; then he says we will. Bush campaigns at racist Bob Jones University; then says he shouldn't have. Bush says he will demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq; then he announces he won't call for a vote. Bush says the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the Navy; then he admits it was his advance team. Bush is for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US; then he's against it. Bush is for a state's right to decide on gay marriage; then he's for amending the constitution to prevent it. Of course the dirtiest and viliest lies and flip flops said by Bush were against the same regular, reserve and guard troops he sent to Iraq, this betrayal alone is worthy of him being line up against the wall and shot. “Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.”-- Walter Reed Army Hospital, 1/17/03 -That same day the Bush Administration cut off access to its health care system from approximately 164,000 veterans. These are but a few of the lies and flip flops GW Bush has made or told in the past 3.5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.