Liberals: What is it about them?

[betsy]

I'm not talking about the party....but the liberal way of thinking....the attitude.

When you try to figure them out by what they're called, "liberals"....one can easily assume that this way of thinking/attitude is quite "easy-going". That it is about "live and let live" philosophy.

But when you really look closely....it is exactly the opposite. It is about "control".

And they even interfere with the cultures and laws of other foreign countries, or at least try!

They are busy-bodies!

If there aren't too many busy-bodies bossing others around...chances are, there wouldn't be too many wars!

[kimmy]

This was hardly so awesome that it needed to be posted once, let alone twice.

I take your opposition to bossing others around and interfering with other cultures to mean you support a Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan?

-k

[betsy]

This was hardly so awesome that it needed to be posted once, let alone twice.

I take your opposition to bossing others around and interfering with other cultures to mean you support a Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan?

-k

I was trying to remove the other post but can't.

No, I was not thinking about that. It's just something that just "amaze" me (can't find the right word).. not confined to politics in particular....but just the overall way of thinking and attitude.

But now that you've mentioned it, it's an example.

I have wondered what if fate had had it the other way...that the suicide planes did not hit the Twin Towers but instead obliterated downtown Toronto or Ottawa. How would we have reacted then? What if the US proceeded to do Afghanistan and Iraq because of Canada...would we still have the same hostile reactions towards the US?

I guess this topic just meant to point out. I'm sure the other side will have something to say too about the Conservatives.

[justcrowing]

This was hardly so awesome that it needed to be posted once, let alone twice.

I take your opposition to bossing others around and interfering with other cultures to mean you support a Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan?

-k

I was trying to remove the other post but can't.

No, I was not thinking about that. It's just something that just "amaze" me (can't find the right word).. not confined to politics in particular....but just the overall way of thinking and attitude.

But now that you've mentioned it, it's an example.

I have wondered what if fate had had it the other way...that the suicide planes did not hit the Twin Towers but instead obliterated downtown Toronto or Ottawa. How would we have reacted then? What if the US proceeded to do Afghanistan and Iraq because of Canada...would we still have the same hostile reactions towards the US?

I guess this topic just meant to point out. I'm sure the other side will have something to say too about the Conservatives.

If Toronto or Ottawa were attacked in the manner of the Twin Towers, we would be sending aid to the families of the suicide bombers. We don't have the military to retaliate nor the backbone [thanks to Liberals] but we might proceed to tell them how naughty it was and never to do it again. My tinfoil hat is on.

[newbie]

I'm not talking about the party....but the liberal way of thinking....the attitude.

When you try to figure them out by what they're called, "liberals"....one can easily assume that this way of thinking/attitude is quite "easy-going". That it is about "live and let live" philosophy.

But when you really look closely....it is exactly the opposite. It is about "control".

And they even interfere with the cultures and laws of other foreign countries, or at least try!

They are busy-bodies!

If there aren't too many busy-bodies bossing others around...chances are, there wouldn't be too many wars!

I think you are quite confused about Liberals and Conservatives. Let's take control. Whose "conservative" government is in the White House and wants to "control" the rest of the world (interfere with the cultures and laws of foreign countries ring a bell?)

The "conservative" right in the States started the Iraq war/invasion, never mind the interference into how many countries? Please do some research on this.

Seems to me it boils down to this: conservative = narrow/close-minded; liberal = open/fair minded. How's that for generalization. And oh, us modern Libs don't tend to start too many wars.

[newbie]

I have wondered what if fate had had it the other way...that the suicide planes did not hit the Twin Towers but instead obliterated downtown Toronto or Ottawa. How would we have reacted then?

We would not have attacked Iraq as it was irrelevant to even the least obvious of observers. We would have gone to the UN and secured the proper authority and allies to conduct an assault into Afghanistan where the enemy was. And since we undoubedtly would have had more allies than the US, we just might have been able to capture Osama and undermine his movement.

[Canuck E Stan]

And oh, us modern Libs don't tend to start too many wars.

You're right there,and as for starting anything, you don't do that either(Daycare,Cutting the GST,Aboriginal poverty,etc.,ect.,)

And what you do start, you never finish(Gun registry,scandals,waste,etc., etc.,)

[geoffrey]

I'm not talking about the party....but the liberal way of thinking....the attitude.

When you try to figure them out by what they're called, "liberals"....one can easily assume that this way of thinking/attitude is quite "easy-going". That it is about "live and let live" philosophy.

But when you really look closely....it is exactly the opposite. It is about "control".

And they even interfere with the cultures and laws of other foreign countries, or at least try!

They are busy-bodies!

If there aren't too many busy-bodies bossing others around...chances are, there wouldn't be too many wars!

I think you are quite confused about Liberals and Conservatives. Let's take control. Whose "conservative" government is in the White House and wants to "control" the rest of the world (interfere with the cultures and laws of foreign countries ring a bell?)

The "conservative" right in the States started the Iraq war/invasion, never mind the interference into how many countries? Please do some research on this.

Seems to me it boils down to this: conservative = narrow/close-minded; liberal = open/fair minded. How's that for generalization. And oh, us modern Libs don't tend to start too many wars.

The Liberals are not liberal and the Conservatives are not conservative. The parties are contrary to their name-sakes.

The US 'conservative' government is also not conservative. Unneccessary foreign interference and bloated government are not conservative values.

I have wondered what if fate had had it the other way...that the suicide planes did not hit the Twin Towers but instead obliterated downtown Toronto or Ottawa. How would we have reacted then?

We would not have attacked Iraq as it was irrelevant to even the least obvious of observers. We would have gone to the UN and secured the proper authority and allies to conduct an assault into Afghanistan where the enemy was. And since we undoubedtly would have had more allies than the US, we just might have been able to capture Osama and undermine his movement.

I think you over-estimate the world's opinion of us. Outside of Europe anyways.

[shoop]

No doubt. Canadians have such little influence in the world it is disturbing. Why would the world community ever rally around a Canadian-lead invasion of anywhere? (That is if we had the military to lead an invasion force.)

I think you over-estimate the world's opinion of us. Outside of Europe anyways.

[geoffrey]

No doubt. Canadians have such little influence in the world it is disturbing. Why would the world community ever rally around a Canadian-lead invasion of anywhere? (That is if we had the military to lead an invasion force.)

I think you over-estimate the world's opinion of us. Outside of Europe anyways.

Most of the world views us a small, apathetic, isolated nation of hockey players and beer drinkers.

[newbie]

No doubt. Canadians have such little influence in the world it is disturbing. Why would the world community ever rally around a Canadian-lead invasion of anywhere? (That is if we had the military to lead an invasion force.)

I think you over-estimate the world's opinion of us. Outside of Europe anyways.

I don't think so. This quote, Canada is a member of more international organizations than any other country in the world leads me to believe we are very well accepted in the rest of the world. Check out this link.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/04/cp-rc2_e.asp

[newbie]

Most of the world views us a small, apathetic, isolated nation of hockey players and beer drinkers.

And the sad thing is that there are a number of Canadians who feel the same.

[stignasty]

Most of the world views us a small, apathetic, isolated nation of hockey players and beer drinkers.

And the sad thing is that there are a number of Canadians who feel the same.

Even sadder, the prime minister is one of them.

[geoffrey]

No doubt. Canadians have such little influence in the world it is disturbing. Why would the world community ever rally around a Canadian-lead invasion of anywhere? (That is if we had the military to lead an invasion force.)

I think you over-estimate the world's opinion of us. Outside of Europe anyways.

I don't think so. This quote, Canada is a member of more international organizations than any other country in the world leads me to believe we are very well accepted in the rest of the world. Check out this link.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/04/cp-rc2_e.asp

Yup. Being a member doesn't mean we do anything though. Our foreign aid is ridiculously low per GDP dollar and our peacekeeping commitment is embarassing.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contribu...006/jan06_1.pdf

I love how Bangladesh, Senegal, Uruguay and Nepal (just a few small examples) are 3rd world countries and each of them commit over 10 times what we've do with the UN.

Money is nice, troops actually do things.

Canada has a reputation to commit to nice things, and never do anything about it. Like Kyoto for example. We are a hypocritical joke, thank the Liberals for that!

[uOttawaMan]

The real question, is what makes Liberals so sexy?

The bags of money they throw around, or the bags of money they throw around?

[tml12]

The real question, is what makes Liberals so sexy?

The bags of money they throw around, or the bags of money they throw around?

The Prime Minister of my nation has just informed me the likes of you will now need a visa to enter my right-wing utopia nation-state.

Be priveleged you're still welcome...

[newbie]

I love how Bangladesh, Senegal, Uruguay and Nepal (just a few small examples) are 3rd world countries and each of them commit over 10 times what we've do with the UN.

That chart you linked to was actual not proportional. And if you look at the U.S., they contribute the same as we do at 10 times the population. Same goes for Australia and England.

[geoffrey]

I love how Bangladesh, Senegal, Uruguay and Nepal (just a few small examples) are 3rd world countries and each of them commit over 10 times what we've do with the UN.

That chart you linked to was actual not proportional. And if you look at the U.S., they contribute the same as we do at 10 times the population. Same goes for Australia and England.

Don't justify our lack of foreign aid by saying someone else is worse, especially the Americans that pretty much just uni-laterally liberated a country.

We are a failure. So is half of the western world. Lets get our asses in gear and get to Sudan and those types of places. No excuse at all why we are not that, besides that we funded the damned thing.

For one example, Uruguay has 10% of our population, and has $10,000 per capita GDP, compared to our $32,800. And they have a 7 times larger commitment to UN peacekeeping. So yup, we are a failure.

We tend to lead the way inventing things, making things, ratifying things. And then we give up when its not in our political best interest domestically to send troops aboard. We set frameworks, when we ourselves are never willing to pay the costs.

[betsy]

No doubt. Canadians have such little influence in the world it is disturbing. Why would the world community ever rally around a Canadian-lead invasion of anywhere? (That is if we had the military to lead an invasion force.)

I think you over-estimate the world's opinion of us. Outside of Europe anyways.

I don't think so. This quote, Canada is a member of more international organizations than any other country in the world leads me to believe we are very well accepted in the rest of the world. Check out this link.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/04/cp-rc2_e.asp

Who comprise most of the members? Countries looking out for more monetary donations! Dictators and corrupt governments. Of course Canada, under the Liberals, is very well accepted indeed. Image-wise globally, they prop each other up.

[betsy]

Most of the world views us a small, apathetic, isolated nation of hockey players and beer drinkers.

And the sad thing is that there are a number of Canadians who feel the same.

Maybe those Canadians prefer to look at reality squarely on its face....so they'll know where and how to fix the problem. Some of us do not feel good about us patting ourselves on our backs.

With how the Liberal government behaved in handling the US, no wonder we're viewed as a nation of hockey players (with emphasis on brutality in this sport)...and beer-drinkers (since diplomacy was alien to the Liberals in what seemed like a drunken frenzy shadow boxing).

Talk about pathetic displaced "nationalism". The commentator on CBC was gushing that one Olympic gold winner from Australia was actually born in Vancouver! Was she trying to take some credits for the Australian's winning? Or trying to say that we've got a part on that gold.

[betsy]

I have wondered what if fate had had it the other way...that the suicide planes did not hit the Twin Towers but instead obliterated downtown Toronto or Ottawa. How would we have reacted then?

We would not have attacked Iraq as it was irrelevant to even the least obvious of observers. We would have gone to the UN and secured the proper authority and allies to conduct an assault into Afghanistan where the enemy was. And since we undoubedtly would have had more allies than the US, we just might have been able to capture Osama and undermine his movement.

So if you've been sure all along that the enemy was confined only in Afghaniztan, why didn't you volunteer that valuable information to intelligence? It would have saved Saddam a lot of grief...not to mention the courtroom spectators, of having him show protest in his dirty underwear.

It is easy for us to criticize because it was not us who was directly hit by those planes. We were not the ones who were directly challenged right on our shores.

[Hicksey]

Anyone seen the reports yet about the wire taps on Hussein, his sons and top advisors on how Hussein flew most of the WMDs out to Syria on gutted commerical passenger planes before the invasion?

[betsy]

Anyone seen the reports yet about the wire taps on Hussein, his sons and top advisors on how Hussein flew most of the WMDs out to Syria on gutted commerical passenger planes before the invasion?

No, never heard of that one. I haven't been following the news lately. So there were WMDs?

[Hicksey]

Anyone seen the reports yet about the wire taps on Hussein, his sons and top advisors on how Hussein flew most of the WMDs out to Syria on gutted commerical passenger planes before the invasion?

No, never heard of that one. I haven't been following the news lately. So there were WMDs?

The first two are news stories, the third is more editorial. Enjoy.

Saddam's General: 'WMDs Were Flown Out of Iraq!'

Former Iraqi general: WMDs did exist

Why powerful interests want to keep you in the dark about the war ...

The media must now want this one to get out. Do a news search on google about it and you'll get only these 3 results.

[Black Dog]

Anyone seen the reports yet about the wire taps on Hussein, his sons and top advisors on how Hussein flew most of the WMDs out to Syria on gutted commerical passenger planes before the invasion?

There's a thread on the wiretaps. And here's one thing that sticks out about the "WMD flown to Syria story": the complete absence of any actual evidence beyond this one dude's story, a dude who has no first hand knowledge of the operation in question, but claims he heard the story from the two other guys. Now, in my book, "I know a guy who knows a guy who says X" isn't evidence. It's a rumour. Now, the point I keep coming back to is this: if the U.S. has knowledge or evidence of Iraq's WMD, why would they stay mum instead of shouting such claims from the rooftops? Instead, we get an addenda to the ISG final report which states:

At best, barring discovery of original documentary evidence of the transfer, reports or sources may have been substantiated or negated, but fi rm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible.

Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.

Now, given that this thread is nothing more than a forum for unsupported spleen venting by certain posters, I shouldn't even bother. But I can't hep but notice the similarity between so many right-wing fringe memes about Iraq's WMD (there's usually some conspracy afoot involving the hated "MSM", and certain elements in the government) and fring lefty theories about 9-11. Yet the former are given serious consideration while the latter (justifiably) dismissed.

The media must now want this one to get out. Do a news search on google about it and you'll get only these 3 results.

Au contraire. there's hundreds of hits from such bastions of journalism as the 700 Club.