normanchateau Posted November 17, 2006 Report Posted November 17, 2006 So what you're saying is that Quebecers are idiots. Which I won't argue with. Indeed a higher percentage of Quebecers voted Conservative than Liberal in the January, 2006 election. Quote
Argus Posted November 17, 2006 Report Posted November 17, 2006 So what you're saying is that Quebecers are idiots. Which I won't argue with. Indeed a higher percentage of Quebecers voted Conservative than Liberal in the January, 2006 election. Guess what the polls reading would be like if you excluded Quebec... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
normanchateau Posted November 17, 2006 Report Posted November 17, 2006 So what you're saying is that Quebecers are idiots. Which I won't argue with. Indeed a higher percentage of Quebecers voted Conservative than Liberal in the January, 2006 election. Guess what the polls reading would be like if you excluded Quebec... Guess what the polls reading would be if you excluded Alberta... Quote
Black Dog Posted November 17, 2006 Report Posted November 17, 2006 Here we go again, repeat a lie often enough and the masses will believe it - Lenin would be proud., I think you mean Goebbels. As for the idea Harper is the last great white hope, that's silly. His biggest problem in English Canada is not that he's a social conservative from the west, it's that he possesses nothing even approaching charisma. Fortunately, that glaring lack of charm and charisma is balanced out by an almost complete lack of ideas. Quote
bk59 Posted November 17, 2006 Report Posted November 17, 2006 Wow, a lot of people seem so negative about Canada. Perhaps, if you want to see a country that is really falling apart, we should look to Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously there is room for improvement, but this talk of imminent destruction, Harper being our last hope, how on earth did Canada survive even this long, etc. seems a bit much. I think our society, which includes our media, likes to focus on an issue, blow it up nice and big, and then complain like crazy. As for Harper's chance for re-election... I think one of his problems was that he kind of painted himself into a corner. He made a big deal about being the party that was going to clean up government and be accountable. Then he goes and gets Emerson to cross the floor and starts to tax income trusts. Now, I'm not saying that those decisions were bad. (Actually... the Emerson one was bad. The income trusts thing was probably good.) What I'm saying is, you can't talk in those absolute terms and then expect people to be understanding when you have to go against that. Of course that might not destroy his chances of re-election, but it does hurt him a little bit. I'll reserve judgment on his chances until after the Liberal leadership convention. But I will say this about the next election campaign... I really hope that somebody somewhere starts talking ideas instead of partisan rhetoric. It would be nice to see someone act like a real leader. Quote
normanchateau Posted November 17, 2006 Report Posted November 17, 2006 As for Harper's chance for re-election... I think one of his problems was that he kind of painted himself into a corner. He made a big deal about being the party that was going to clean up government and be accountable. Then he goes and gets Emerson to cross the floor and starts to tax income trusts. Now, I'm not saying that those decisions were bad. (Actually... the Emerson one was bad. The income trusts thing was probably good.) What made the income tax trust issue offensive was that the Conservatives attacked the Liberals last year for suggesting that they MIGHT tax the income trusts. And the Conservatives campaigned on NOT taxing the trusts. And it didn't help the Conservatives that in February they appointed Fortier, an unelected Quebecer who was Harper's campaign manager to the Senate as well as to a cabinet position. This from a party that promoted accountability... Quote
Wilber Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 The country to the south of us is at least as diverse. There is probably a higher proportion of Hispanics there than there are Francophone's here, yet for all their faults you never hear talk of separation in the US or debate over whether the country is ungovernable. Trouble is, this country hasn't realy been tested since WWII. It has been so long since it has had to pull together that it may have lost the ability to do so. This troubles me as I think it is a real possibility. We have had it so good for so long that if faced with a real crisis, we may not be up to the task. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
gc1765 Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 The country to the south of us is at least as diverse. There is probably a higher proportion of Hispanics there than there are Francophone's here, yet for all their faults you never hear talk of separation in the US or debate over whether the country is ungovernable... Well, not since the 1860's anyways.... Maybe what happened last time (civil war) has put a few people off the idea of separation. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Wilber Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 The country to the south of us is at least as diverse. There is probably a higher proportion of Hispanics there than there are Francophone's here, yet for all their faults you never hear talk of separation in the US or debate over whether the country is ungovernable... Well, not since the 1860's anyways.... Maybe what happened last time (civil war) has put a few people off the idea of separation. Maybe that's what it would take. Would Canadians care enough about their country to fight to keep it together? I have serious doubts. If you look back in history, it seems like all great country's have gone through at least one civil war before they became great. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
gc1765 Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 Maybe that's what it would take. Would Canadians care enough about their country to fight to keep it together? I have serious doubts. If you look back in history, it seems like all great country's have gone through at least one civil war before they became great. I wouldn't. I'd rather see Quebec leave than go through a civil war. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Wilber Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 Maybe that's what it would take. Would Canadians care enough about their country to fight to keep it together? I have serious doubts. If you look back in history, it seems like all great country's have gone through at least one civil war before they became great. I wouldn't. I'd rather see Quebec leave than go through a civil war. That's part of the problem, the fixation on Quebec while igoring the rest of the country. Quebec would just be the first. It might not even be the first. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
gc1765 Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 That's part of the problem, the fixation on Quebec while igoring the rest of the country. Quebec would just be the first. It might not even be the first. Who else is likely to separate besides maybe Alberta? Again, I'd rather see them leave than go through a civil war. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Wilber Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 That's part of the problem, the fixation on Quebec while igoring the rest of the country. Quebec would just be the first. It might not even be the first. Who else is likely to separate besides maybe Alberta? Again, I'd rather see them leave than go through a civil war. Why do you think Alberta would be the end of it. BC would then be isolated from the rest of Canada and it would have more in common with Alberta, Washington State and the rest of the west coast US than the rest of Canada. In many ways its economy is doing as well as Alberta. It now has the lowest unemployment rate in its history. Like Alberta and much of Canada, most of its trade is north south. I would fear the separation of Alberta more than Quebec. I think the rest of the country might survive if Quebec left. If Alberta left, it is highly likely other western Provinces would eventually follow. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
gc1765 Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 Why do you think Alberta would be the end of it. BC would then be isolated from the rest of Canada and it would have more in common with Alberta, Washington State and the rest of the west coast US than the rest of Canada. In many ways its economy is doing as well as Alberta. It now has the lowest unemployment rate in its history. Like Alberta and much of Canada, most of its trade is north south. I would fear the separation of Alberta more than Quebec. I think the rest of the country might survive if Quebec left. If Alberta left, it is highly likely other western Provinces would eventually follow. BC would only leave after Alberta, and even then it's not clear that they would actually separate. I live in B.C. and I've never met a single person who is openly for separation (though things could change if other provinces separated). But let's say that Albert did separate, follwed by B.C. etc...could you imagine Canada fighting a civil war with Alberta and B.C.? What if Quebec also left? A civil war on three fronts? I'm not in favour of separation, but I'd still rather see every province become it's own country rather than have all of the provinces fighting eachother. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Wilber Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 Why do you think Alberta would be the end of it. BC would then be isolated from the rest of Canada and it would have more in common with Alberta, Washington State and the rest of the west coast US than the rest of Canada. In many ways its economy is doing as well as Alberta. It now has the lowest unemployment rate in its history. Like Alberta and much of Canada, most of its trade is north south. I would fear the separation of Alberta more than Quebec. I think the rest of the country might survive if Quebec left. If Alberta left, it is highly likely other western Provinces would eventually follow. BC would only leave after Alberta, and even then it's not clear that they would actually separate. I live in B.C. and I've never met a single person who is openly for separation (though things could change if other provinces separated). But let's say that Albert did separate, follwed by B.C. etc...could you imagine Canada fighting a civil war with Alberta and B.C.? What if Quebec also left? A civil war on three fronts? I'm not in favour of separation, but I'd still rather see every province become it's own country rather than have all of the provinces fighting eachother. You make my point, you are not in favor or separation but would do nothing to prevent it. All great countries like the US, Britain, France, even ancient Greece and Rome fought revolutions and civil wars to establish their identities. If you are in a majority you are saying that Canadians do not value their country enough to make the sacrifices necessary to keep it whole. Perhaps Lucien Bouchard was right and Canada is not a real country. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
gc1765 Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 You make my point, you are not in favor or separation but would do nothing to prevent it. All great countries like the US, Britain, France, even ancient Greece and Rome fought revolutions and civil wars to establish their identities. If you are in a majority you are saying that Canadians do not value their country enough to make the sacrifices necessary to keep it whole. Perhaps Lucien Bouchard was right and Canada is not a real country. I never said I would do nothing to prevent it, so that is a bit of a strawman. If there were other options to keep the country together, other than a civil war, then I'd be interested in hearing them. But, I am not prepared to go to war over the issue. It's not worth the loss of lives and millions (billions?) of dollars that would likely result. And just because civil wars were found hundreds or thousands of years ago, doesnt mean that is the best option today. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Wilber Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 You make my point, you are not in favor or separation but would do nothing to prevent it. All great countries like the US, Britain, France, even ancient Greece and Rome fought revolutions and civil wars to establish their identities. If you are in a majority you are saying that Canadians do not value their country enough to make the sacrifices necessary to keep it whole. Perhaps Lucien Bouchard was right and Canada is not a real country. I never said I would do nothing to prevent it, so that is a bit of a strawman. If there were other options to keep the country together, other than a civil war, then I'd be interested in hearing them. But, I am not prepared to go to war over the issue. It's not worth the loss of lives and millions (billions?) of dollars that would likely result. And just because civil wars were found hundreds or thousands of years ago, doesnt mean that is the best option today. It is not a straw man at all. Who said it is the best option. War is the best option only when there are no other options. If a country has to go to war with itself to be a country then thats the way it is, either that or there is no more country. Why do you think Canada has some sort of special God given exemption from those rules because this is the 21st century? Look around, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of civil wars. If you don't think Canada is that important or special, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, just get you to ask yourself what this country really means to you and what you would really do to be part of it. I keep asking myself all the time and the answer is not always the same. If BC did decide to separate what would you do? Would you just shrug your shoulders and follow the crowd? If it came to a fight, which side would you be on? Remember the Empire Loyalists, there is no reason why any one of us couldn't be the 21st century equivalent. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
gc1765 Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 It is not a straw man at all. Yes it is. I did not say I would do "nothing" to prevent separation, as you have said. I would be willing to make small sacrifices, if necessary. War and the potential loss of lives, however, is not one sacrifice I am willing to make. Who said it is the best option. War is the best option only when there are no other options. If a country has to go to war with itself to be a country then thats the way it is, either that or there is no more country. Why do you think Canada has some sort of special God given exemption from those rules because this is the 21st century? Look around, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of civil wars. Just because other countries are in civil war does not mean Canada should do the same. People murder eachother all the time, that does not mean that I would ever murder anyone else. By that same token, just because other countries are in civil war, does not mean that I want my country in civil war. It has nothing to do with a "special God given exemption", it is simply doing what I believe is best for Canadians. If you don't think Canada is that important or special, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, just get you to ask yourself what this country really means to you and what you would really do to be part of it. I keep asking myself all the time and the answer is not always the same. I think Canada is important. More importantly, I think Canadians are important. Therefore I would never want to see them losing their lives unless it was justified. Losing your life over the issue of separation is not, in my opinion, what I would consider justified. If BC did decide to separate what would you do? Would you just shrug your shoulders and follow the crowd? If it came to a fight, which side would you be on? Remember the Empire Loyalists, there is no reason why anyone of us couldn't be the 21st century equivalent. I don't know what I would do, it's something I would have to think about if such an event ever happened. If it came to a fight, I would stay neutral. I'm not so concerned over whether B.C. is considered part of Canada or not to justify risking my life over it. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
sharkman Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 August, I've been concerned about this very thing. Canadians are so blinded by our media they think the Tories have done a worse job on the environment after scant months than the Liberals, who signed Kyoto and then politely ignored it for a decade or more. This and Afghanistan have Canadians wishing to be robbed blind by the Liberals again. They don't even have a damn leader yet and they lead some polls. Harper should give them what they want in spades. Make all kinds of foolhardy pro-environment moves, hell, spend half the surplus on it. Get the troops the hell out of Afghanistan and into the blue helmet brigade and introduce a bill legalizing same sex abortions, adoptions, and mercy killing. But he wouldn't do that, he has principles he believes in. And someone who will do anything for power just may fool us bleeding heart Canadians. Quote
Wilber Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 I don't know what I would do, it's something I would have to think about if such an event ever happened. If it came to a fight, I would stay neutral. I'm not so concerned over whether B.C. is considered part of Canada or not to justify risking my life over it. Civil wars are the worst kind. There is no such thing as neutrality when everyone around you is taking sides. Even if you decided not to take sides, you would be accused of it by one side or another, probably both. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 Just because other countries are in civil war does not mean Canada should do the same. People murder eachother all the time, that does not mean that I would ever murder anyone else. By that same token, just because other countries are in civil war, does not mean that I want my country in civil war. It has nothing to do with a "special God given exemption", it is simply doing what I believe is best for Canadians. So what is best for Canadians could be that there are no more Canadians. OK I think Canada is important. More importantly, I think Canadians are important. Therefore I would never want to see them losing their lives unless it was justified. Losing your life over the issue of separation is not, in my opinion, what I would consider justified. But not important enough to go to the same extremes as other countries have done in order to remain Canadians and a country called Canada. OK Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
gc1765 Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 So what is best for Canadians could be that there are no more Canadians. OK Quite the opposite, actually. What is best for Canadians is that they do not loose their lives. When I use the term "Canadians" I am obviously referring to the people living in this territory we now call Canada. Those people will still be here if Canada separates....so long as they don't loose their lives preserving the unity of the country. They might not be called "Canadians" but at least they will be alive. But not important enough to go to the same extremes as other countries have done in order to remain Canadians and a country called Canada. OK Yes. Once again, I'm more concerned about being alive than whether I'm called a "Canadian" or a "British Columbian". Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Wilber Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 Quite the opposite, actually. What is best for Canadians is that they do not loose their lives. When I use the term "Canadians" I am obviously referring to the people living in this territory we now call Canada. Those people will still be here if Canada separates....so long as they don't loose their lives preserving the unity of the country. They might not be called "Canadians" but at least they will be alive. Would the same apply to defending Canada from another country that threatened it's existance? Yes. Once again, I'm more concerned about being alive than whether I'm called a "Canadian" or a "British Columbian". What if the choice was neither but that of another country imposed upon you by force? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
BHS Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 Joe Clark got nine months. Martin got about two years. Meighen got a year and a half. Turner got two months. After Macdonald's death, there were four PMs in succession: The most tragic was John Thompson (he got exactly two years).Will Stephen Harper go into Canadian history in a similar way? There's a strong likelihood and here's why I think so. * * * If Harper is defeated in the next election, and it's increasingly likely that he will be, I think that it will be the signal that Canada is ungovernable. The different regions of the country, urban and rural, linguistic and religious, simply cannot compromise any more. Here's a quote of something I wrote in an old thread called "'Hit The Road' Jack!": My earlier prediction was that the Conservatives would win a minority, face continual harrassment and obstructionism from the Opposition, and go down in defeat after 2 years or so, to be replaced by another Liberal majority. Now it looks as though the Liberals aren't up for the job. The infighting that brought Martin to power was a prelude (perhaps) for a period of the Liberals being lost in the woods. The Liberals actually did better in the election than many pundits (both left and right) predicted, and it seems ironic that they now look so weak.Here's my updated prediction: If the Liberals can't get unified under a strong new leader with the traditional media back onside within the next 6 months, they will continue to lose seats to both the Conservatives and the NDP in the next election, resulting in a likely Conservative majority. They absolutely have to begin attacking Harper as soon as possible if there's to be any hope for them. (Aside: Harper's likely defense against this strategy is his election strategy reprised: to play it cool, stay away from anything the least bit controversial, and give the fledgling Liberal caucus enough hyperbolic rope to hang themselves.) I'm standing by this prediction, and updating it by noting that the traditional media appear to have gotten their act together vis-a-vis heavy reportage of trivial matters that make the Harper government look bad (ie. the over-reporting of the moronic "fossil of the day" awards that under the Liberals were never reported on at all). Stephen Harper appears to be staying low-key, but that's probably because high drama isn't in his repertoire more than his having taken my advice. Now it's up to the Liberals to get their leadership issues straightened out. Note: if they pick Bob Rae (doubtful, they're not fools) they will lose. He's got the stink of inept government all over him (especially in Liberal-friendly Ontario), and nothing washes that off. Ignatief may be a darling of the Liberal establishment but he clearly lacks the kind of public charisma that would enable him to fill the shoes of Trudeau. Liberals lose under Ignatief as well for that very reason - he was brought on board to be something he clearly isn't, and it will turn voters off. I agree that Dion would be a good pick, but only because he's got good name recognition and not a lot of obvious baggage from his stint under Chretien and Martin. I still don't see any issue being big enough to force a confidence vote until late 2007 at the earliest, meaning a spring 2008 election at the earliest. As of this writing there's still plenty of wiggle room for the Tories to keep the minority alive until Spring 2010, especially if Harper continues to keep his head down, which for him isn't a problem. My election prediction: Spring 2008 at the very earliest, but the most likely scenario is a full four year term. I don't think August's dire prediction at the end of his post will hold, for the same reason that I don't see a return Liberal Majority as the end of the world. People will see it as a return to the old-school two party politics that held sway before the 1992 PC meltdown. I predict that most people will shrug and flip the channel over to whatever reality tv show has taken a grip on the public consciousness of 2010. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
gc1765 Posted November 18, 2006 Report Posted November 18, 2006 Quite the opposite, actually. What is best for Canadians is that they do not loose their lives. When I use the term "Canadians" I am obviously referring to the people living in this territory we now call Canada. Those people will still be here if Canada separates....so long as they don't loose their lives preserving the unity of the country. They might not be called "Canadians" but at least they will be alive. Would the same apply to defending Canada from another country that threatened it's existance? Yes. Once again, I'm more concerned about being alive than whether I'm called a "Canadian" or a "British Columbian". What if the choice was neither but that of another country imposed upon you by force? If it was from a different country, that would be a completely different situation. Presumably, for a country to invade Canada, they must be doing so to impose very different beliefs on this country (for example facism). In that case, it would be worth the risk to preserve our freedom & way of life. The views of British Columbians are not that different from Canada as a whole. It's not likely that my life would change in such a drastic way as to justify risking my life. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
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.