Is canada in worst shape now ?

[Canuck E Stan]

North Americans in general NEED to be more tolerant.

Considering how much crap we hear about each and every day on the news, we HAVE to be, or we'd all go bloody bananas.

Every once in a while, I'll sit and watch, REALLY watch the news.

I'll take every story personally, like it's happening to me, or a close friend or family member.

It doesn't take long before I have to walk away from the set.

Try it some time. You'll realize exactly why we've all become inured to all the crap.

It's simple self-preservation.

PocketRocket,

What a wonderful inspiring thought, said from a person who feels "charisma" is the number one important requirement for someone to be leader of his country.

[err]

He quite clearly stated that their was something wrong with Canada today because Canadians elect parties which he claims have 'a record of sleaze, waste and dishonesty' and that he questions whether he would fight for the country today. Yet he seems to have forgetten that the same kinds of things happened in the 30s and 40s. His memory is selective and coloured by his political predispositions. There are many problems in Canadian society today but there where many equally serious problems with Canadian society in the 40s that no longer exist today - yet the vet chooses to ignore this in his rant.

It appears he came from a time when "men were men" who listened to "real music", and homosexuals didn't exist.

Spar and Pocket are right on the money on this thread....

[Riverwind]

To immediately discount his comments as a conservative rant and homophobic just because they don't jive with what's commonly accepted today shows an intolerance that is worse than anything expressed by the veteran.

Why should the comments be treated any differently than a young persons? For the most part his comments are a typically conservative rant that is repeated over and over in the media and on this board: the script goes something like: "The Liberals are corrupt to the core and since Canadians seem to still want to re-elect these crooks then Canadians must be <fill in a suitable list of insults>". If the vet wanted his letter to be taken as a non-political statement about where Canada is going then he should not have brought up the Liberals as the primary 'evidence' of how Canada is going to hell in a hand basket.

In any case, I did not dismiss his comments about ethics in politics - I addressed them fairly by pointing out that similar things have happened in the past and that he appears to have forgotten that. Yet, instead of actually addressing the contradiction between the vet's view of politics in the past and the reality I brought up - other posters try to shut me up by accusing me of not showing proper respect for an old man who fought for our country.

As far as my comments about homophobia goes - there was nothing in his letter to suggest that was something that was an issue for him in particular, however, there are people I know from that generation who have a big problem with homosexuality which led me to believe he may feel the same. In any case, I regret making that comment because those kinds of comments make civilized discourse impossible.

[sharkman]

To the question of whether a young person's (or any person's) comments should be treated the same I offer this: any comments should be taken with an open mind as long as they are offered with respect. Sparhawk, many of your comments on this thread have been inflammatory and you repeatedly called the letter a rant when it was very clear it was not. So don't be surprised to find opposition. It's clear you don't think much of conservatives, but at the end of the day I suppose we're all just trying to relate ideas and I know I don't let it bother me.

At any rate, I'm sure the Liberal movement is strong enough to survive the comments of an old man.

[August1991]

For the most part his comments are a typically conservative rant that is repeated over and over in the media and on this board: the script goes something like: "The Liberals are corrupt to the core and since Canadians seem to still want to re-elect these crooks then Canadians must be <fill in a suitable list of insults>".

There you go again, Sparhawk. Stick a label on someone and then you can safely ignore them. For some reason, you have decided that this old guy is a homophobe/Liberal-basher and in your book, that means he's not worth listening to.

I went so far as to agree with you that the 1940s - when this guy went to war to defend his country - the country had many ignorant people and gays, for example, had to hide themselves. Keep in mind however that nowhere in the letter does the writer refer to gays. You alone insinuated the rant.

I happen to think the old guy has a point. In some ways, Canada has changed for the worse in the past 60 years ago.

It strikes me that since 1968 and Trudeau, our federal government has taken on a missionary role to change the moral values of the population. In his own eyes, Trudeau was as much teacher as politician. When the government attempts to change the moral opinions of people, little good will come.

[err]

For the most part his comments are a typically conservative rant that is repeated over and over in the media and on this board: the script goes something like: "The Liberals are corrupt to the core and since Canadians seem to still want to re-elect these crooks then Canadians must be <fill in a suitable list of insults>".

There you go again, Sparhawk. Stick a label on someone and then you can safely ignore them. For some reason, you have decided that this old guy is a homophobe/Liberal-basher and in your book, that means he's not worth listening to.

August, do you not conclude from the old man's rant that he was a "Liberal basher"....

I went so far as to agree with you that the 1940s - when this guy went to war to defend his country - the country had many ignorant people and gays, for example, had to hide themselves. 

Some things haven't changed.... but at least many of the gays can come out of the closet now...

Keep in mind however that nowhere in the letter does the writer refer to gays.  You alone insinuated the rant.

Since you are obviously so much smarter than all of the rest of us, could you please fill us in on some other potential topics the old man was alluding to that we should have seen to be as obvious as that assumed by Sparhawk and the majority of the rest of the readers ???

I happen to think the old guy has a point.  In some ways, Canada has changed for the worse in the past 60 years ago.

And in many others, it has improved....

It strikes me that since 1968 and Trudeau, our federal government has taken on a missionary role to change the moral values of the population.  In his own eyes, Trudeau was as much teacher as politician.  When the government attempts to change the moral opinions of people, little good will come.

Your opinion of Trudeau differs from that of John Lennon (the British guy, not the Russian one)

If all the world's leaders were like Pierre Trudeau, there would be no more war.

[Riverwind]

Stick a label on someone and then you can safely ignore them.  For some reason, you have decided that this old guy is a homophobe/Liberal-basher and in your book, that means he's not worth listening to.

Perhaps, I should have simply said that I have heard this arguement before from many Conservatives and that I think he is looking at the past with rose coloured classes.

Keep in mind however that nowhere in the letter does the writer refer to gays.  You alone insinuated the rant.

I acknowledged that - It is easy to make that leap if you spend an hour having dinner with a vet who is a great guy but dislikes homsexuals intensely and then read about another vet complaining about unnamed 'changes' in the country.

I happen to think the old guy has a point.  In some ways, Canada has changed for the worse in the past 60 years ago.

And in many ways it is much better - the fact that he is unwilling to acknowledge the good and the bad is what led me to criticize his comments. Society is extremely complex, all social changes have negative consequences as well as positive ones. For example, allowing woman equal rights in the workspace and making divorce a lot easier by mandating child support does undermine the stability offered by two parent households with a dedicated caregiver. Does that mean I wish we could roll back the clock? not on your life.

It strikes me that since 1968 and Trudeau, our federal government has taken on a missionary role to change the moral values of the population.

I will agree that Trudeau tried to build a country that fitted his moral view, however, that is what all politicians do. Harper is trying to take on that same missionary role to build a country that fits his moral view. The only difference is Trudeau was better at it.

[Army Guy]

Sparhawk:

I was responding to another poster who held his opinion up as a some profound analysis of what is wrong in Canada.

Actually i thought it would be an interesting topic, and yes i did say he had some interesting pionts. But nor where did i hold it it as a "profound analysis"

What i did get from your post was that you are sugesting that Mackenize king had as many scandals as the Crietien liberal goverment. And that today's Canadian is no more tolerant as yesterdays.

I researched Mackenize and yes there were a few scandals but unless i'm missing something it is no where near the number that Crietien has had. Even taking into account the instant media coverage that we have today, todays Canadian is more tolerate to the piont it has become normal behavior, expected behavior for politions. And like some of the comments made here the people vote for the lesser evil not the best party, because they know what to expect.

[Chimera]

I'm not so sure his "rant" is at all politically motivated. He stated that the country has been on a decline since '68. He did not state since '68 except for a brief time when the conservatives were in power.

I don't know where to find the numbers, but what was voter turn out like in the first half of the last century. It is abysmal now. Why fight to defend a country where over half the population can't bother to take 30 mins out of their day, ONCE EVERY FOUR YEARS, to contribute to.

[August1991]

I'm not so sure his "rant" is at all politically motivated. He stated that the country has been on a decline since '68.

Pierre Trudeau became PM in April 1968 and led the Liberal Party to a majority in June 1968. Any Canadian of his generation would mark that year for that reason. There is no question that the old man's reference to 1968 is political, and refers specifically to Trudeau.

I will agree that Trudeau tried to build a country that fitted his moral view, however, that is what all politicians do. Harper is trying to take on that same missionary role to build a country that fits his moral view. The only difference is Trudeau was better at it.

Politicians used to present themselves as honest defenders of the public interest, and that's all.

Trudeau was a pied piper, and he attracted a following of adolescent baby-boomers who still remember him as a "teacher". Since for them politics is connected to adolescence, these same baby-boomers prefer to measure politicians by their ability to "teach". The baby-boomers do this because they want to remain "young".

Harper has stated on numerous occasions that he will allow free votes on moral questions but he is adamant about the accountability of Canadian taxpayers' money.

BTW, Layton was born in 1950, the middle of the baby-boom and Harper was born in 1959, towards its end.

[err]

Harper has stated on numerous occasions that he will allow free votes on moral questions but he is adamant about the accountability of Canadian taxpayers' money.

Harper has stated numerous positions on numerous occasions on moral issues. Just look back a year or so on his party's stand on abortion... They were going to bring in a bill ..... and the public reacted negatively...

so they adapted...

The "party" wouldn't bring in the bill, but they wouln't stop a private member's bill... nudge, nudge, wink, wink...

and the public still didn't like it... so it became...

The party wasn't going to pursue any such bill....

tell me August, what's the latest story... What do they feel is necessary to say so that they can get elected and implement their agenda... whatever their agenda really is...

[Canuck E Stan]

What do they feel is necessary to say so that they can get elected and implement their agenda... whatever their agenda really is...

Err,

Sorta like Layton and the CCF/NDP guys.

Jack the bong will first decriminalize the stuff and then nudge,nudge,wink,wink, he'll legalize it.

Or support the Liberals, get what they want and "talk" to the public about making parliament work, but once they don't get what they want, the government is has no moral authority to govern.

Such a perfect party who "adapts".

[Black Dog]

I for one am shocked-shocked!-that a 90-year-old veteran would write a letter decrying the current state of the country. Surely such a thing is unprecedented?

[PocketRocket]

I think we're all getting agitated without good cause.

Regarding this particular thread, if you look at the title. it says....

Is canada in worst shape now ?.....

The answer is simply "no".

Why???

Worst is an absolute. It means as bad as it can possibly get.

Canada could easily get a lot worse that this.

[Guest eureka]

Are you sure it could? Some of the participants here seem to think we are already at the bottom and that Canada will not exist much longer.

If it is at the botom or does not exist, can it realy get worse?