Canada wihtout Bush?

scribblet · November 11, 2006

Some of the protesters against the war were Quakers and Mennonites. I can't recall them hating either side but in principle are pacifists. Certainly there is an anti-American component to some protesters. However, many of them are against war as a basic philosophy.

Your right that the pacifist movement was a religious one, Quakers today for instance would still be pacifist, but these days it is not the same thing. Most anti war demonstrators today are coming from a pernicious reflexive anti Americanism and this year of course, it projects itself onto Harper as they view him as a friend of Bush.

Anti-war protests generally play to the enemy and give them moral support and more impetous, the recent audio confirms that.

This is not to say that we shouldn't be looking for a way to get out of both Afghanistan (and Iraq) as soon as possible and work towards peace, but keeping in mind that a large part of the world wants us dead, including the protesters. We have to watch our backs.

killjoy · November 11, 2006

And what diabolically evil manifestation does the US peace movement represent?

Because it as much as it tries to pretend, it is not a grassroots based spontaneous protest movement. It is a tool of whatever opposing party is in the country in question - so the actual here's or there's of a given conflict are no longer examined - beyond the pretentious claim that it is - and instead is the simple nay-saying of whatever the ruling (and supposedly responsible) party is. Just watch the republicans do it as soon as a democrat is in office. Remember Somalia and Yugoslavia?

Subsequently the "peace movement" has become little more than the refuge for terminal doom-sayers and fashion-bots and wannabies who wish to capture what has become the cliché romance of the '60's movement.

There is no reality to it. It's become blunt partisan tactics and simple commercial sensationalism. A farce. A comedy.

That's what's 'evil' about it. It lies as much as anyone. "Peace" really has nothing to do with it.

.

normanchateau · November 11, 2006

And what diabolically evil manifestation does the US peace movement represent?

Because it as much as it tries to pretend, it is not a grassroots based spontaneous protest movement. It is a tool of whatever opposing party is in the country in question -

That's what's 'evil' about it. It lies as much as anyone. "Peace" really has nothing to do with it.

So what you're saying is that the U.S. peace movement currently is nothing more than partisan Democrats out to undermine Republicans.

How about the U.S. peace movement protesting the Vietnam War when Lyndon Johnson was President? Are you saying that the Republicans were behind those protests?

Topaz · November 11, 2006

In the question period ech day, Harper or one of his ministers are always saying "In 13 years the Liberals " etc. I'm sick of hearing that phrase and Harper can only HOPE to get 13 MONTHS!! The Liberals didn't stay in power by themselves they were voted in, so when they talk about "13 years" I say, they are bad mouthing Canadians that put the Liberals there.

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

In the question period ech day, Harper or one of his ministers are always saying "In 13 years the Liberals " etc. I'm sick of hearing that phrase and Harper can only HOPE to get 13 MONTHS!!

I think Harper will last at least 13 months. In February, 2007, the Conservatives will release a budget which they hope will buy them sufficient votes. There'll be tax cuts and handouts to special interest groups.

I predict they'll reduce the personal income tax rate on those who earn the least. This past July they stupidly raised it. Come February, they'll reduce it.

I also predict that they'll introduce the capital gains tax rollover. They promised it in the last election and February would be a good time to deliver it. It'll please those who were angered by their broken promise on the income trusts.

Unfortunately for Harper, the best he can hope for is another minority government since a majority of Canadians will never vote for a socially conservative, religious extremist no matter how much of their own money he showers on them. So in spring, whether Harper loses to the Liberals or barely squeaks out another minority, the Conservatives will finally give him the boot and replace him with a fiscal consrervative who is not a social conservative.

Canadian Blue · November 12, 2006

Unfortunately for Harper, the best he can hope for is another minority government since a majority of Canadians will never vote for a socially conservative, religious extremist no matter how much of their own money he showers on them. So in spring, whether Harper loses to the Liberals or barely squeaks out another minority, the Conservatives will finally give him the boot and replace him with a fiscal consrervative who is not a social conservative.

Once again, we have gone over this many times. Harper's not a religous extremist, and never has been. Look at his past record, he was more of a libertarian then he ever was a social conservative. All you can really pin on Harper is the fact that he might go to church, and was opposed to C-250 based on possible negative implications for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. None of those actions makes a person a religous zealot, homophobe, xenophobe, bigot, etc.

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

Once again, we have gone over this many times. Harper's not a religous extremist, and never has been. Look at his past record, he was more of a libertarian then he ever was a social conservative.

A libertarian? You must be kidding. Anyone who thinks that a teenager should have a permanent criminal record and potential jail sentence for possession of as little as a few grams of marijuana is hardly a libertarian.

A majority of Canadians favour the decriminalization of marijuana. The Liberals had a decriminalization bill in place which never made it through because they lost the January election. Both the NDP and BQ favoured the bill but Harper stated publicly that he favoured the continued criminalization of this substance. Libertarian?? What a joke. His zero tolerance policy on this substance mirrors that of George Bush and the Republicans.

Canadian Blue · November 12, 2006

His zero tolerance policy on this substance mirrors that of George Bush and the Republicans.

As well as a large proportion of democrats. I love how whenever somebody sees somebody they disagree with, all they have to say is "that policy mirrors George W Bush and the Republicans". Even though the Republican party has various factions that disagree on policy, same as any other political party. I also think that it is once again state jurisdiction as to whether or not people can smoke dope, something that is out of Bush's hands. As well we can't jump the gun on marijuana until other issues are cleared up so their is a smooth transition.

I stand by my stance that Harper is more libertarian then social conservative. As well its also considered libertarian to support freedom of speech, expression, and religion. A Libertarian can be either conservative or liberal, Bill C-250 would be considered more totalitarian then libertarian since it restricts freedom of speech.

Personally, any hate speech law is an outdated method for combatting hate crime. If you want to combat racism and homophobia the best way to do that is through freedom of speech and expression.

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

His zero tolerance policy on this substance mirrors that of George Bush and the Republicans.

As well as a large proportion of democrats.

Yes, many Democrats would agree and no doubt so would some Liberals. But enough Liberals, NDP and BQ members supported the decriminalization legislation which is essentially liberetarian. And most Canadians support decriminalization. But Harper continues to oppose it which is consistent with his social conservatism.

Ricki Bobbi · November 12, 2006

Yes, many Democrats would agree and no doubt so would some Liberals. But enough Liberals, NDP and BQ members supported the decriminalization legislation which is essentially liberetarian. And most Canadians support decriminalization. But Harper continues to oppose it which is consistent with his social conservatism.

Is this true Harper loathing or are you just playing around?

Do show evidence of the majority of Canadians supporting decriminalization?

So when Parliament passed SSM despite the opposition of a majority of Canadians should their views have been respected?

Do you always favour a government acting on majority opinion, or only when the majority opinion shares your view? :lol:

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

Yes, many Democrats would agree and no doubt so would some Liberals. But enough Liberals, NDP and BQ members supported the decriminalization legislation which is essentially liberetarian. And most Canadians support decriminalization. But Harper continues to oppose it which is consistent with his social conservatism.

Do show evidence of the majority of Canadians supporting decriminalization?

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/364/canada.shtml

Ricki Bobbi · November 12, 2006

Nice selective editing Normie.

Any reason why you deleted this part?

So when Parliament passed SSM despite the opposition of a majority of Canadians should their views have been respected?
Do you always favour a government acting on majority opinion, or only when the majority opinion shares your view?

Imagine a poll commissioned by the National Organization for the Reform of Marjuana Laws supporting their raison d'etre. :lol:

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

Imagine a poll commissioned by the National Organization for the Reform of Marjuana Laws supporting their raison d'etre.

The poll was conducted in 2003 by SES Research and showed that 69% of Canadians favour decriminalization.

Here's the PDF:

http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W03-T113.pdf

The poll showed strong support from those who said they'd vote Liberal, BQ or NDP. Only among supporters of the Canadian Alliance was there a split with 50% supporting decriminalization and 50% opposing it. Also, a breakdown by age group showed that the only significant opposition came from those 60 and over. Harper's opposition to decriminalization puts him in the socially conservative, anti-libertarian half of even Canadian Alliance supporters. Yet this is the man who Conservatives think can appeal to mainstream Canada.

Do you think that if the Conservatives commissioned SES Research to conduct a poll, we should discount the results because the Conservatives commissioned it? That's what you seem to be saying. In any event, the SES results are consistent with those of Decima (2003) and Ipsos-Reid (2005).

More than 30,000 Canadians are charged with simple possession annually. About 5% of charges result in jail sentences. Simple possession refers to having less than 30 grams. Today approximately 1.5 million Canadians have criminal records for simple possession. Most Canadians, most Liberal supporters, most NDP supporters, most BQ supporters and probably at least half of Conservative supporters do not believe that simple possession should result in a permanent criminal record. Is the majority always right? No. But what special knowledge does Harper possess that compels him to ignore data-based evidence and support permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences for possession of a few grams of marijuana?

And if this were the 1920's when marijuana was legal and alcohol was illegal, what would Harper's position then be? Given that he's a social conservative, I suspect he'd support the 1920's status quo. Or do you think he'd be campaigning for the legalization of alcohol?

killjoy · November 12, 2006

So what you're saying is that the U.S. peace movement currently is nothing more than partisan Democrats out to undermine Republicans

Um, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Go find one "democracynow.org" or "undergrounddemocracy.org" site that isn't funded or run by the democrats. They ALL are....including AlternativeRadio. Anyone over 30 who's been paying an iota of attention in the past 20 years can see the obvious.

How about the U.S. peace movement protesting the Vietnam War when Lyndon Johnson was President? Are you saying that the Republicans were behind those protests?

No. As OBVIOUSLY (plain English, dude) written in my post I compared the others to the movement in the 60's that was much more grassroots and authentic....that you bring it up as a comparison only proves EVERY SINGLE THING I SAID.

.

jdobbin · November 12, 2006

Um, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Go find one "democracynow.org" or "undergrounddemocracy.org" site that isn't funded or run by the democrats. They ALL are....including AlternativeRadio. Anyone over 30 who's been paying an iota of attention in the past 20 years can see the obvious.

So are Republicans are part of the war movement?

killjoy · November 12, 2006

So are Republicans are part of the war movement?

Dunno what you're implying with that, but the bottom line here is that the Canadian "peace movement" of late didn't aim at Afghanistan until the liberals left power. Now that they're out they use it like any opposing party does and yes, the so-called "peace movement" has it's origins in their camp.

....and yes, it is fashion inspired for the most part....it certainly doesn't base itself in any truth. As I said, like religious fanatics they simply regurgitate whatever they're told to regurgitate with a complete lack of any of the "critical thinking" they like to pride themselves for. THey just repeat a mantra over and over again "Harper is Bush! Harper is Bush" like a child on the playground "So-and-so's got cooties!" They don't need any proof. Their proof he's a Bush-bot is that he's not liberal.

And I reinterate again: The only apparent difference between the liberals and the conservatives that makes Harper a bush-puppet is that he apparrently won't call Bush a moron in public.

.

jdobbin · November 12, 2006

Dunno what you're implying with that, but the bottom line here is that the Canadian "peace movement" of late didn't aim at Afghanistan until the liberals left power. Now that they're out they use it like any opposing party does and yes, the so-called "peace movement" has it's origins in their camp.
....and yes, it is fashion inspired for most....it certainly doesn't base itself in any truth.

Actually, I can remember many of the protests when Canada sent troops to Afghanistan. At first they were muted after September 11 but they grew in intensity throughout the Liberal government and especially when they moved the troops to southern Afghanistan.

I was not opposed to the war in the beginning. I have become convinced that NATO and the U.S. don't seem as committed to rebuilding the country. There is 25% less funding on the part of the Americans than they put into Bosnia. Many NATO countries are keeping Canada out on the frontlines.

I was opposed to the extension because I honestly didn't think we have the force to do it. I still don't and lately, the Defence minister and Defence chief of staff have indicated that we don't have the numbers to be on the frontline for two years straight without going to the same people for multiple tours.

gerryhatrick · November 12, 2006

Dunno what you're implying with that, but the bottom line here is that the Canadian "peace movement" of late didn't aim at Afghanistan until the liberals left power. Now that they're out they use it like any opposing party does and yes, the so-called "peace movement" has it's origins in their camp.

That is absolute nonsense.

I attended a peace rally in 2005 at which I saw MANY signs and heard many chants about getting out of Afghanistan.

Don't pretend to know things you clearly do not know.

Ricki Bobbi · November 12, 2006

That is absolute nonsense.
Don't pretend to know things you clearly do not know.

Wow.

killjoy · November 12, 2006

I attended a peace rally in 2005 at which I saw MANY signs and heard many chants about getting out of Afghanistan.
Don't pretend to know things you clearly do not know.

So speaks the resident grassrooter for the liberals. Coming from you that's hilarious. No, everything I said is true and you know it.

.

gerryhatrick · November 12, 2006

That is absolute nonsense.
Don't pretend to know things you clearly do not know.

Wow.

What "wow"? You got something to say Ricki? Don't troll me anymore.

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

How about the U.S. peace movement protesting the Vietnam War when Lyndon Johnson was President? Are you saying that the Republicans were behind those protests?

No. As OBVIOUSLY (plain English, dude) written in my post I compared the others to the movement in the 60's that was much more grassroots and authentic....

I see. So in 1970 or thereabouts, all "authentic" peace movements suddenly became extinct and were replaced with "fake" Democratic peace movements. And those people who "authentically" protested the Vietnam war when Lyndon Johnson was president insincerely and hypocritically protested the Vietnam war when Richard Nixon became president. Thanks for the history lesson. It helps to explain the Republican war movement.

scribblet · November 12, 2006

Once again, we have gone over this many times. Harper's not a religous extremist, and never has been. Look at his past record, he was more of a libertarian then he ever was a social conservative. All you can really pin on Harper is the fact that he might go to church, and was opposed to C-250 based on possible negative implications for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. None of those actions makes a person a religous zealot, homophobe, xenophobe, bigot, etc.

You might as well bang your head against a brick wall, he knows Harper is none of those things, but knows how to push buttons and how to spin an issue into a negative message. Say something often enough and people start to believe it. Some people are so fixated with Harper they they have a problem differentiating fact from fiction.

Harper as always had libertarian leanings but I believe he has actually described himself as a classical liberal (economics and limited gov't) - he has never been a social conservative.

gerryhatrick · November 12, 2006

I attended a peace rally in 2005 at which I saw MANY signs and heard many chants about getting out of Afghanistan.
Don't pretend to know things you clearly do not know.

So speaks the resident grassrooter for the liberals. Coming from you that's hilarious. No, everything I said is true and you know it.

Quite obviously when you said "the bottom line here is that the Canadian "peace movement" of late didn't aim at Afghanistan until the liberals left power." you pretended to know of something that you don't.

Since you posted that two people have informed you that they've witnessed things that demonstrate you to be wrong about your assurtion.

It is just a convenient claim to say the opposition is only there because Harper is in power, one I've heard before. The reality doesn't back it up, obviously.

killjoy · November 12, 2006

Actually, I can remember many of the protests when Canada sent troops to Afghanistan. At first they were muted after September 11 but they grew in intensity throughout the Liberal government and especially when they moved the troops to southern Afghanistan

Um we didn't send any troops to Afghanistan until after sept. 11 so what you are you talking about? No, they were "muted" until the liberals left office.

lol. No they DID NOT grow in "intensity" throughout the Liberal government rule - what country were you living in? They grew in intensity the moment Harper got in -- even BEFORE the LONG PLANNED move to southern Afghanistan....just the same way they were calling him a Bush-bot even before he got into office.

The peace movement is nothing more than an opposition vehicle. 10% of them are authentic - the rest are just liberal "puppets" (lol!) trying to impress their picculi-smoking girlfriends and recreate some role for themselves based on their romatic views of the '60's movement.

.