|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 9:50:36 GMT -5
But that is not an achievement. It is a decision to do......nothing! It is still an acievement ... it kept Canada strong, proud, righteous, and noble in the eyes of many. It also showed the world one thing - that there is a little brother that is willing to challenge big brother when he is wrong. I am not sure if any representatives visited New York in the aftermath of the destruction or not. I would be suprised if they didnt ... but let's remember that new York was trying to keep people out so they could do their jobs. I am willing to bet someone, whether it was the ambassador or the PM, visited during the month of September to show solidarity. But I disagree that the Canadian government was AWOL during 9-11. The Canadian government actually took steps to save ten of thousands of lives. Ever wonder why so many planes landed in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia during 9-11? It had absolutely nothing to do with trans-atlantic flights or proximity. It was a Canadian policy put into effect. Planes were diverted that were over land. If the planes had enough fuel, they were told not to land in Dorval, or Pearson and head east to Halifax and Newfoundland. Why? Because the risk was less. If a terrorist tried to crash a plane out east there were less people, less tall/important structures, and a emergency response network in place to handle it. This was an amazing feat put of by Transport Canada and who knows how many lives could of been/were saved. It was a catch-22 for Chretien on 9-11 and the days after. Does he handle the emergency issues at home (ie Gander with a population of 5000 people, had 8000 unexpected visitors ... and that needed money ASAP to cope) ... or does he leave the country to show support for his American neighbours. I would have stayed home too ... and I am sure Bush and Chretien spoke on the phone. They still talk in the US and will for a long time of the reception received in Nfld, some of the most sociable and accepting of people in Canada. Sanity runs East to West in Canada. A lot of hearts were well won in those days. God bless Newfoundland, and long may she be an irreplaceable part of the heart of Canada. Like Quebec. To fail to realize how powerful were the forces, economic and political beign exerted by the US right wing dry drunk and Harpur fuelling up the same jingoistic war cry with his right wing sycophants, is a major failure to understand both high-minded principle and leadership. Chretien, about the most popular prime minister ever, or right up there, stood against the wind and amidst the hysteria of the day is now vindicated. We had and have good reasons to join the international community in suppressing terrorist activity in Afghanistan even at so hight a cost. This action is both moral and legal. We would be losing a lot more family members in Iraq if the right wing yahoos had been in power at 9/11. It was even worth the humiliation of having Belinda the homewrecking consrvative bonee, to keep them out. If you want to criticize Dion, then you would be right for criticiizing him for resisting the reopening of the homosexual "marriage" mess of the supreme court and Liberal led government. They believe that homosexuallly attracted people, for there is no actual orientation in the issue are, as junk advocacy science, the entertainment industry and homosexual lobbying insisted, "just born that way". If that were true, and there is no evidence that it is true, then some form of civil recogniton would be applicable. But marriage? Marriage ? A physical, sexual and ontological impossiblity, no matter what the state declares. Male sperm is designed to bust open cells (ova) in a very aggressive way. Vaginas are heavily protected from infection and viruses. Male canals are completely vulnerabale. Male sperm also contains immunosupressants, which renders the area completely defenceless to serious and life-threatening attacks. Male homosexual attempts to mimic intercourse annally can never be even remotely considered natural, good, or healthy to the practitioners or the society, any more than shooting rifles at a person's chest with a flawed pice of body armour for protenction is safe, in either theory or practice. If a person loves or cares for a person suffering from homosexual attractions, he or she should do everything he or she can to help them overcome and redirect such attractions and habits as is successfully done and recognized by the APA. Though Harpur's moton will not carry, it should be supported. He and the right wing rump are right on this issue and deserve our support.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2006 10:24:44 GMT -5
It's probably just a misunderstanding so maybe you would care to explain. Because the way I read it, you don't seem to think that "Quebecer" are qualified to run this country... I always thought that one only had to be Canadian to qualify -- last time I looked it didn't matter where one lives as long as it was here. You don't even have to be Canadian. Just a citizen. If I am not mistaken, I believe you have to be born in the US to be president .... for instance, I don't think Arnold Schwartzenagger can be president. Sir John A MacDonald and Alexander MacKenzie were Scottish. John Turner was English (Surrey, England)
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2006 10:36:05 GMT -5
If you want to criticize Dion, then you would be right for criticiizing him for resisting the reopening of the homosexual "marriage" mess of the supreme court and Liberal led government. They believe that homosexuallly attracted people, for there is no actual orientation in the issue are, as junk advocacy science, the entertainment industry and homosexual lobbying insisted, "just born that way". If that were true, and there is no evidence that it is true, then some form of civil recogniton would be applicable. But marriage? Marriage ? A physical, sexual and ontological impossiblity, no matter what the state declares. Male sperm is designed to bust open cells (ova) in a very aggressive way. Vaginas are heavily protected from infection and viruses. Male canals are completely vulnerabale. Male sperm also contains immunosupressants, which renders the area completely defenceless to serious and life-threatening attacks. Male homosexual attempts to mimic intercourse annally can never be even remotely considered natural, good, or healthy to the practitioners or the society, any more than shooting rifles at a person's chest with a flawed pice of body armour for protenction is safe, in either theory or practice. If a person loves or cares for a person suffering from homosexual attractions, he or she should do everything he or she can to help them overcome and redirect such attractions and habits as is successfully done and recognized by the APA. Though Harpur's moton will not carry, it should be supported. He and the right wing rump are right on this issue and deserve our support. How did you manage to turn a discussion about 9-11 and Chretien's legacy into one about homosexuality? My wife's sister is lesbian, (although I am thinking she is more bi, but thats another story) and she has a few lesbian friends .... (which she never invites over ..*sigh* .. ;D ) ... but they tell me that there is evidence/research that indicates it may be possible for two eggs to fertilize each other one day ... now what do you think about that? Of course, since the male determines the sex and women only have "x" genes ... we'd be looking at a new race of women... HA and I are going to have some time I tell ya!!
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 11:39:57 GMT -5
If you want to criticize Dion, then you would be right for criticiizing him for resisting the reopening of the homosexual "marriage" mess of the supreme court and Liberal led government. They believe that homosexuallly attracted people, for there is no actual orientation in the issue are, as junk advocacy science, the entertainment industry and homosexual lobbying insisted, "just born that way". If that were true, and there is no evidence that it is true, then some form of civil recogniton would be applicable. But marriage? Marriage ? A physical, sexual and ontological impossiblity, no matter what the state declares. Male sperm is designed to bust open cells (ova) in a very aggressive way. Vaginas are heavily protected from infection and viruses. Male canals are completely vulnerabale. Male sperm also contains immunosupressants, which renders the area completely defenceless to serious and life-threatening attacks. Male homosexual attempts to mimic intercourse annally can never be even remotely considered natural, good, or healthy to the practitioners or the society, any more than shooting rifles at a person's chest with a flawed pice of body armour for protenction is safe, in either theory or practice. If a person loves or cares for a person suffering from homosexual attractions, he or she should do everything he or she can to help them overcome and redirect such attractions and habits as is successfully done and recognized by the APA. Though Harpur's moton will not carry, it should be supported. He and the right wing rump are right on this issue and deserve our support. How did you manage to turn a discussion about 9-11 and Chretien's legacy into one about homosexuality? My wife's sister is lesbian, (although I am thinking she is more bi, but thats another story) and she has a few lesbian friends .... (which she never invites over ..*sigh* .. ;D ) ... but they tell me that there is evidence/research that indicates it may be possible for two eggs to fertilize each other one day ... now what do you think about that? Of course, since the male determines the sex and women only have "x" genes ... we'd be looking at a new race of women... HA and I are going to have some time I tell ya!! Opportunism alright. Heh heh. It just happens that Harper is going to introduce a motion for Thursday I think, and I believe it should be supported. I also give him kudos for doing it, unlike most of the other stuff he does. Lastly, sexual practices (AIDS week) are simply destroying great swaths of the human race, and the confusion culpably spread on the nature of same sex attraction is stunning. Many people opf liberal and some conservative ilk, do not, as I do not, seek to discriminate against homosexually attracted people, but have been sold a false bill of goods on its origins, numbers ( fewer than 2 persons per hundred), safety and use of condoms, and advisablity of behaviours. Homosexual acts are indeed intrinsicly bad for those who do them and for the culture. Like getting shot in the chest while wearing unreliable armor, we are simply not at all designed for such behaviours. Even if the armor could be made reliable we still shouldn't recommend it. No one is designed for this. Much heterosexual practice cuts a swath of misery through human lives and history too. Incalculable human suffering is the result. It does require honest appraisal and redress. Dion should support both the vote and should definitley vote against the well-intended but ultimately destructive notion of homsexually attracted persons "marrying". No offence or ill-will intended to anybody, but it's simply terribly off the mark of human happiness and fulfillment and has a staggering effect on the thinking of the young. That too is incalculable.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 11:46:59 GMT -5
A new "race" of women presumably to cure the defect of "maleness" , wouldn't be much of a race.
We catch'em because we can outrun them. They're so wonderfully slow.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2006 12:20:58 GMT -5
The statement is a perfect example of what I was saying about the radical right which thinks a person can make ethmic comments like these which are nothng but typical of the Reform / Alliance supporters and still believe that they are standing up for Canada. They actuall believe that they are. Spooky. To fail to realize how powerful were the forces, economic and political beign exerted by the US right wing dry drunk and Harpur fuelling up the same jingoistic war cry with his right wing sycophants, is a major failure to understand both high-minded principle and leadership. Ah, I see you have the paintbrush out again. I thought that was Trudeau. Or rather, did nothing until he could say he was vindicated. A decision by indecisiveness. Or if Mr. Chretien hadn't held on to power for so long just to spite Mr. Martin, who was in favour of participating.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2006 12:22:06 GMT -5
I always thought that one only had to be Canadian to qualify -- last time I looked it didn't matter where one lives as long as it was here. You don't even have to be Canadian. Just a citizen. I thought that made you a Canadian . . . not by birth, but by active choice.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 16:35:07 GMT -5
The statement is a perfect example of what I was saying about the radical right which thinks a person can make ethmic comments like these which are nothng but typical of the Reform / Alliance supporters and still believe that they are standing up for Canada. They actuall believe that they are. Spooky. Ah, I see you have the paintbrush out again. I thought that was Trudeau. Or rather, did nothing until he could say he was vindicated. A decision by indecisiveness. Or if Mr. Chretien hadn't held on to power for so long just to spite Mr. Martin, who was in favour of participating. You raise good points. The paintbrush was indeed out, but the right, along with Martin wanted Canada to go to war in Iraq. You have perhaps forgotten the us and them, with us or agaist us pressure of the dry drunk on supposed allies. To label Chretien as 'indecisive' is disingenuous, and not at all fair to history or to Chretien. Martin is rightly credited with restoring fiscal balance as finance minister, but rightly discredited for his Iraq toadyism, his actually pushing himself as an abortion fan, while most politicos were very happy to leave the issue buried. Sheer desperate cowardice on Martin's part and it was very wrong of him to attack the right wing for their albeit muted and shallow opposition. Only a few liberals had the balls to stand up to Martin on this and his treatment of homosexual issues. Trudeau may well have been more popular than Chretien, but he was up there and popular for a long, long time. He loved Canada. The line between centrist red tories and right side liberals is murky.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2006 21:09:32 GMT -5
You don't even have to be Canadian. Just a citizen. I thought that made you a Canadian . . . not by birth, but by active choice. This is true.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 5, 2006 23:22:29 GMT -5
Speaking of Citizenship, is Stephane Dion going to renounce his French Dual Citizenship? I noticed that this didn't become an issue at the Liberal Party Convention.
I love the use of the name "Harpur", instead of Harper. It shows disrespect and ignorance toward a Prime Minister that really does care about his Country, their armed forces personel and the victims of crime. More than I can say for the pius Liberals, who cut our military spending every year, endangered their lives with worn out equipment, raided their treasury for new jets for the PMO and refused to make harsher sentences for criminals. Real Liberal values.
On Gay rights, let there be a free vote and let the chips fall where they may. Enough of this party discipline crap, that warps the will of the people. The last vote was corrupted by Paul Martin, when he forced his cabinet to follow the wishes of his government.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 5, 2006 23:43:58 GMT -5
Speaking of Citizenship, is Stephane Dion going to renounce his French Dual Citizenship? I noticed that this didn't become an issue at the Liberal Party Convention. Why should he ? I know the xenopobic redneck opinion will be that anything related to France is terrible and has to be gotten rid of, but really, why should the guy dump something he got at birth ? Or must the Western opinion follow the Yankee lead as always and try and banish anything relating to France? After all, they were against the invasion of Iraq which has clearly been shown to have been critically urgent and necessary.... For an example of the type of thinking that makes me want out of Canada... calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Levant_Ezra/2006/12/04/2621199-sun.html
|
|
|
Post by boonda on Dec 6, 2006 0:40:14 GMT -5
I also have found for the most part the discussion on this thread quite interesting, however I to find some things disturbing. 1) I am finding that I actually agree with a Toronto Maple Leafs fan on some of his/her arguments. 2) I find this offensive, Or must the Western opinion follow the Yankee lead as always and try and banish anything relating to France? After all, they were against the invasion of Iraq which has clearly been shown to have been critically urgent and necessary.... pretty broad paint brush against us from the western provinces.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 6, 2006 6:59:23 GMT -5
Speaking of Citizenship, is Stephane Dion going to renounce his French Dual Citizenship? I noticed that this didn't become an issue at the Liberal Party Convention. Why should he ? Agree. Temepst in a teapot. Or must the Western opinion follow the Yankee lead as always and try and banish anything relating to France? After all, they were against the invasion of Iraq which has clearly been shown to have been critically urgent and necessary.... pretty broad paint brush against us from the western provinces. I believe he was speaking of "the West" as opposed to Western Canada; North America as oppsoed to Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2006 8:19:51 GMT -5
The way people are talking you would think this was the first time a potential Canadian Prime Minister held dual citizenship. John Turner was born in England. I guess their goes my dream of my father being Prime Minister... he was born in the country of Newfoundland (1948 ). You know I really hate picking up for Liberals .... but he goes. If I was Dion, you know what my answer would be? "You first, please" Conservative members of Parliament with dual citizenship: 1) Diane Ablonczy - Preoria, Illinois 2) Tony Clement - Manchester, England 3) Steve Fletcher - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 4) Nina Grewal - Osaka, Japan 5) Rahim Jaffer - Kampala, Uganda 6) Inky Mark - Toysun, China 7) Deepak Obhrai - Oldeani, Tanzania 8) Daniel Petit - Doische, Belgium 9) Myran Thompson - Monte Vista, Colorado 10) Vic Toews - Fidelfia, Paraguay 11) John Williams - Aberdeenshire, Scotland First let's see the governing party force all their members to denouce their citizenships, you know just because they should set a good example, being the government and all, then the rest can follow. Inevitably the arguement will be - "but Dion is leader and can become PM". Well anyone in Parliament can become PM. Confidence votes, snap leadership conventions, death ... all play apart. The one thing I don't understand is if where you are born or citizenship is such a big deal then why are westerners so infatuated with Steven Harper. The man with such devote Western values was born in Toronto!! Isn't the Ontario, center of everything good and noble, the mentality that Westerners are fighting against?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2006 8:32:00 GMT -5
On Gay rights, let there be a free vote and let the chips fall where they may. Enough of this party discipline crap, that warps the will of the people. The last vote was corrupted by Paul Martin, when he forced his cabinet to follow the wishes of his government. Actually, I am more in favour of a referendum on that issue. I do not want Norm Doyle voting for me ... I do not want 300 stiff suits with agendas voting for me. If the Canadian public sees fit to say yes to gay marriage, or no to gay marriage, then at least my voice counted either way. You can conduct all the polls you want.... but a secret ballot will allow the public to vote how the truly feel. Recently a pollster contacted my house and my wife answered ... all I heard was her saying "yes" and she hung up .... I asked her what that was about. She told me it was a survey, and the person asked her "Are you in favour of the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians?". I was a little upset ... not so much that she was in favour ... but because our household would be considered in favour. And when I asked her why she was in favour .. she said .. well who cares (which is true) it is only a poll and as long as they dont adopt. That's the rub ... she had conditions, but the question did not explain any conditions ... so she is isnt entirely in favour. But she was marked down as in favour. So let there be a referendum ... whatever the canadian public decide then put it too rest for good. IMO, why can't they call it something else .... it isn't discrimaintion in the least. We compartmentaliz everything. Men, Women ... too distinct catergories with equal rights. I don't see wanting to call everyone "humans". "This is the human I am married to"... So marriage and civil union (or whatever you want to call it) can be distinct and equal too .... If it is just the equality that is the issue it shouldn't matter what it is called, but somehow I feel it is more than just equality it is a way for people to remain anonymous as well. (Which I understand ... to a degree)
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 6, 2006 9:41:00 GMT -5
Maybe we should have a referendum with 10 questions and we can settle all of the divisive issues all at once.
1. Gay marriage, yes or no.
2. Quebec as a nation, inside of Canada, yes or no.
3. Abortion, yes, or no.
4. Capital punishment, yes, or no.
5. Immigration quota's, yes or no.
6. Abolish the Senate, yes or no.
7. Abolish the monarchy, yes or no.
8. Dual citizenships, yes or no.
9. Right to secession, yes or no.
10. Abolish the CBC, yes or no.
Add some more to this list and make the point of having such a vote.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 6, 2006 10:02:58 GMT -5
It is different if you are running the country. You are in conflict of interest, when dealing with the country that you have a dual passport with. Personally, I would like to see all dual citizenships revolked. You are either a Canadian or you are not! That fiasco in Lebanon is a good enough reason to abolish this practice.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 6, 2006 20:45:51 GMT -5
Maybe we should have a referendum with 10 questions and we can settle all of the divisive issues all at once. 1. Gay marriage, yes or no. 2. Quebec as a nation, inside of Canada, yes or no. 3. Abortion, yes, or no. 4. Capital punishment, yes, or no. 5. Immigration quota's, yes or no. 6. Abolish the Senate, yes or no. 7. Abolish the monarchy, yes or no. 8. Dual citizenships, yes or no. 9. Right to secession, yes or no. 10. Abolish the CBC, yes or no. Add some more to this list and make the point of having such a vote. Representative democracy in that it presumes that human beings are moral agents would never demand that an MP do what the majority want, be it give tax breaks to the wealthy or invent a third sex. As moral agents, MP's are to seek out the best approaches to complex issues, many of which require considerable expertise, and exercise their consciences responsibly insofar as they are able. The populist misunderstanding of both human nature and the nature of personal responsinbilty overlooks this. It's silly. Plebiscites are another dumb idea. Elvis really is dead and save for issues of governance, as in nationhood, have virtually no place in a sane country. How about a plebiscite voting on whether all plebiscites will be forever binding. Dumb, dumb dumb. I frankly don't care what Joe Butts thinks about sodomy or the CBC. I will listen to or seek out candidates of intelligence and good character and judgement to decide on the several million aspects of many complex issues in a complex society. Or run myself. A good point you raise, is that all of these things, the things that scare people really should be debated. It's an unfortunate reality that the media, owned and controlled almost completely by an increasingly smaller group of individuals an oligarchy of no known saintliness who we do not elect, and who therefore run things like Conrad Black, a very small player, for his own trivial reasons.. The media controlls the debate and couches the terms of discourse. We lose. Been to Iraq lately?
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 6, 2006 22:17:40 GMT -5
I guess you like minority rule, forever, in this country. That's why our society has been drifting downward for the last 40 years. Too many elites knowing what was good for us. Open wide and swallow!
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 6, 2006 23:03:17 GMT -5
pretty broad paint brush against us from the western provinces. I believe he was speaking of "the West" as opposed to Western Canada; North America as oppsoed to Europe. Thx for assuming I was being reasonable, but I really was talking about the Western Canada yahoos who seem to claim they aren't American, but you wouldn't know it from their points of view.... -guns are good - gun control is evil and the product of overinvasive governements -France is bad (Quebec's just an annoying offshoot of France and we just need to be firm, and get the army to settle things there for good) -government in all forms is bad (other than to impose a good Christian lifestyle on people) -everyone really just wants a nice house in the suburbs and a Starbucks Tim Hortons nearby -Kyoto and the "Greens" don't see the impact of their claims on real, normal people's pick-ups. -"Human Rights" are just an intellectual trap leading to ruining peoples lives by letting them become homosexuals and deviants. -We have a moral right to go screw up other countries if they disagree with us and refuse to sell oil cheaply - but if they do, a repressive government can be propped up, of course. -Everyone has a God-given right to a large pickup that burns gas like there's no tomorrow. And at this rate, there won't be one for long.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 6, 2006 23:39:46 GMT -5
Spooky, nice buzz word. Where have I heard this before? Oh, I remember, every centre right candidate, that was not Liberal. Must have been in the daily E Mail from Liberal head office to all of those who swallow their brand of Kool-Aid. Do you get a discount on all of that paint and paintbrushes you use to paint everyone that is not Liberal that way? By the way, I was the person who submitted that slogan (Stand Up For Canada ) to the Conservative Party, the day after they lost to Martin in his Minority Government. Someone listened at Conservative Party Central.
What is typical about those who support the Liberals, as they now are. Their need to win at all cost and to hell with everybody that doesn't bow down to them is nausiating. It is cynical to think that you can get away with running leadership candidates from the same Province for Prime Minister three times in a row and 4 out of 5, for over 40 years. The Liberal Party does not seem to want to include anybody out of Central Canada. Next time they get elected, they should run a referendum, in Ontario and Quebec, and seceed from the rest of Canada, since they have no interest in the rest of Canada and what their needs might be.
Quebec has special needs, but it doesn't give them the right to run the agenda of the country for another 40 years. It's time to give another section of the country the opportunity to run the Canadian Commonwealth and improve the standard of living for all, and not just those in Central Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2006 23:47:36 GMT -5
Maybe we should have a referendum with 10 questions and we can settle all of the divisive issues all at once. 1. Gay marriage, yes or no. 2. Quebec as a nation, inside of Canada, yes or no. 3. Abortion, yes, or no. 4. Capital punishment, yes, or no. 5. Immigration quota's, yes or no. 6. Abolish the Senate, yes or no. 7. Abolish the monarchy, yes or no. 8. Dual citizenships, yes or no. 9. Right to secession, yes or no. 10. Abolish the CBC, yes or no. Add some more to this list and make the point of having such a vote. Representative democracy in that it presumes that human beings are moral agents would never demand that an MP do what the majority want, be it give tax breaks to the wealthy or invent a third sex. As moral agents, MP's are to seek out the best approaches to complex issues, many of which require considerable expertise, and exercise their consciences responsibly insofar as they are able. The populist misunderstanding of both human nature and the nature of personal responsinbilty overlooks this. It's silly. Plebiscites are another dumb idea. Elvis really is dead and save for issues of governance, as in nationhood, have virtually no place in a sane country. How about a plebiscite voting on whether all plebiscites will be forever binding. Dumb, dumb dumb. I frankly don't care what Joe Butts thinks about sodomy or the CBC. I will listen to or seek out candidates of intelligence and good character and judgement to decide on the several million aspects of many complex issues in a complex society. Or run myself. A good point you raise, is that all of these things, the things that scare people really should be debated. It's an unfortunate reality that the media, owned and controlled almost completely by an increasingly smaller group of individuals an oligarchy of no known saintliness who we do not elect, and who therefore run things like Conrad Black, a very small player, for his own trivial reasons.. The media controlls the debate and couches the terms of discourse. We lose. Been to Iraq lately? My idea is dumb? Fair enough .... How would you like an MP who is gay, who you didn't vote for, voting for you in Parliament on the issue of gay marriage ... an issue you are devoutly opposed to? Plebisites aren't dumb. The way the goverment goes about them are. They try to confuse people with elaborate questions...... and you know they don't have to waste money on a referendum (although I think that is the fairest way) ... if a member is trustworthy (oh jebus I cant stop laughing) he could call all his constituents over a 6 month period (he has aides) and determine what the majority wants. But do you think if 80% of Nova Scotians are against gay marriage, Scott Brison walk into parliament and votes againt it?? Not a chance .... government is suppose to be of the people, for the people, and by the people .... when government can not do this, due to personal conflictions, thats what referendums are for.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2006 23:50:26 GMT -5
Spooky, nice buzz word. Where have I heard this before? Oh, I remember, every centre right candidate, that was not Liberal. Must have been in the daily E Mail from Liberal head office to all of those who swallow their brand of Kool-Aid. Do you get a discount on all of that paint and paintbrushes you use to paint everyone that is not Liberal that way? By the way, I was the person who submitted that slogan (Stand Up For Canada ) to the Conservative Party, the day after they lost to Martin in his Minority Government. Someone listened at Conservative Party Central. What is typical about those who support the Liberals, as they now are. Their need to win at all cost and to hell with everybody that doesn't bow down to them is nausiating. It is cynical to think that you can get away with running leadership candidates from the same Province for Prime Minister three times in a row and 4 out of 5, for over 40 years. The Liberal Party does not seem to want to include anybody out of Central Canada. Next time they get elected, they should run a referendum, in Ontario and Quebec, and seceed from the rest of Canada, since they have no interest in the rest of Canada and what their needs might be. Quebec has special needs, but it doesn't give them the right to run the agenda of the country for another 40 years. It's time to give another section of the country the opportunity to run the Canadian Commonwealth and improve the standard of living for all, and not just those in Central Canada. Yep I agree it is time for a Newfoundland Prime Minister .... John Crosbie was sooooo close.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 6, 2006 23:54:41 GMT -5
Tequilla Shiela, will stand in infamy, thanks to John Crosbie. He almost ran for the Conservatives during the last election. I would have loved to have seen him back. A National treasure. Only met him once.
|
|
|
Post by boonda on Dec 7, 2006 0:37:24 GMT -5
I believe he was speaking of "the West" as opposed to Western Canada; North America as oppsoed to Europe. Thx for assuming I was being reasonable, but I really was talking about the Western Canada yahoos who seem to claim they aren't American, but you wouldn't know it from their points of view.... -guns are good - gun control is evil and the product of overinvasive governements -France is bad (Quebec's just an annoying offshoot of France and we just need to be firm, and get the army to settle things there for good) -government in all forms is bad (other than to impose a good Christian lifestyle on people) -everyone really just wants a nice house in the suburbs and a Starbucks Tim Hortons nearby -Kyoto and the "Greens" don't see the impact of their claims on real, normal people's pick-ups. -"Human Rights" are just an intellectual trap leading to ruining peoples lives by letting them become homosexuals and deviants. -We have a moral right to go screw up other countries if they disagree with us and refuse to sell oil cheaply - but if they do, a repressive government can be propped up, of course. -Everyone has a God-given right to a large pickup that burns gas like there's no tomorrow. And at this rate, there won't be one for long. I think I will respond to this with something you yourself have in your signature, I think it captures the essence of your post. ;D When did ignorance become a point of view?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 7, 2006 7:13:30 GMT -5
I believe he was speaking of "the West" as opposed to Western Canada; North America as oppsoed to Europe. Thx for assuming I was being reasonable, but I really was talking about the Western Canada yahoos who seem to claim they aren't American, but you wouldn't know it from their points of view.... I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt ;D Rather than saying "the west", though, you should prbably limit that to Alberta. Medicare came from "The West" (Saskatchewan). "The West" sans Alberta have had NDP governments galore. [Long] guns: a fact of life on the prairie, to keep away varmints. imo, a provincial matter. Govermnent: can be invasive. Good Christian lifestyle? No, good traditional lifestyle -- my lifestyle, that is. Individualism at its best] worst. But that's typical across Canada. Ah, Kyoto: let's face it, non of us are willing to pay the price. Pickups out west; SUVs out east. Air conditioning in the summer. The easy way: buy billions of dollars worth of carbon credits from China, who is excluded from the accord. And this is going to help the environment by . . .? [Time to get an actual working policy in place that does something. Hear that, Mr. Harper? M. Dion?]
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 8, 2006 20:50:34 GMT -5
Thx for assuming I was being reasonable, but I really was talking about the Western Canada yahoos who seem to claim they aren't American, but you wouldn't know it from their points of view.... I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt ;D Rather than saying "the west", though, you should prbably limit that to Alberta. Medicare came from "The West" (Saskatchewan). "The West" sans Alberta have had NDP governments galore. [Long] guns: a fact of life on the prairie, to keep away varmints. imo, a provincial matter. Govermnent: can be invasive. Good Christian lifestyle? No, good traditional lifestyle -- my lifestyle, that is. Individualism at its best] worst. But that's typical across Canada. Ah, Kyoto: let's face it, non of us are willing to pay the price. Pickups out west; SUVs out east. Air conditioning in the summer. The easy way: buy billions of dollars worth of carbon credits from China, who is excluded from the accord. And this is going to help the environment by . . .? [Time to get an actual working policy in place that does something. Hear that, Mr. Harper? M. Dion?] Saskatchewan did not introduce the national health plan. LIBERALS DID. And Saskatechewan's govenment under Tommy Douglas, the most important Canadianwas the CCF, not the right wing conservative laissez-faire capitalists who caused the DEPRESSION. A s Galbraith pointed out , EVERY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT IN THE US BROUGHT ABOUT DEPRESSION, RECESSION OR WAR. The issue and context was what LIBERALS do and what RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES do. LIBERALS introduced that national health plan and the national pension plan for seniors. SOCIAL JUSTICE, not corporate greed and selfisness. Right Wing CONSERVATIVES in Canada AND the US RUINED the economies of both nations. That's right the guys who like to whine about all the money going to people who need it, the old, single mothers and their children (who make up the largest group on welfare) pensioners, the unemployed. Who do they give money to? The RICH. Ever hear of "triclkle down" ecoonomics. Clinton left the dry drunk (Bush) surpluses. Bush will leave recession, maybe ultimately depression and war. But...coincidentally ...to the permanently obtuse and blinkered, we are all giving BILLIONS to the oil industry that has paid for and installed the Bush family to be our masters. Martin cleaned up the corrupt Mulroney's horrible mess and saved the Canadian economy as was acknowledged across the world. Conservatives always appeal to individual greed, but they kill economies. They are only interested in the welfare of the wealthy, and tonnes of dupes get suckered right into hiring them to ravage their lives. It's not the Liberals who tax and spend. The record shows that Conservatives bring nations to financial ruin just as Bush is doing now. I must admit, that the more I think about the lying frauds, the more I start to get pretty angry at the self-righteous hypocrites who give Christianity a bad name. In Canada and the US the right continue to try to keep health care for the wealthy. Bush, KLein, Harris, and Harper who was forced to backtrack to get elected. As always, you can only trust the Conservatives to look after the ones who don't need any looking afer; the ones who'll gouge the working man and the poor. When they preach Jesusl, they should think more of the story of Lazarus who asked for the scraps the wealthy fed to their dogs, or such warnings as "Woe to you rich, your consolations are now."
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 8, 2006 21:44:07 GMT -5
Saskatchewan did not introduce the national health plan. LIBERALS DID. And Saskatechewan's govenment under Tommy Douglas, the most important Canadianwas the CCF, not the right wing conservative laissez-faire capitalists who caused the DEPRESSION. A s Galbraith pointed out , EVERY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT IN THE US BROUGHT ABOUT DEPRESSION, RECESSION OR WAR. The issue and context was what LIBERALS do and what RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES do. I do not mean to speak for franko ... but if you read his post he says: He does not say Saskatchewan introduced it .... I infer from franko's post that he meant that the residents of Saskatchewan "developed the concept" of Medicare ...and Tommy Douglas brought that concept to Ottawa. Which is quite right. An exerpt taken from the Canadian Health Coalition website on the history of Medicare: Medicare in Canada was not created by doctors. Nor was it invented by politicans.
Rather, it was started by ordinary Canadians – people who felt that a better health care system was needed to improve life for their families and communities, and who went out and did it.
According to health analyst and historian Colleen Fuller, medicare had its roots in Saskatchewan’s Swift Current Health District No. 1 in the 1940s.1 It was there that farmers and civic leaders got together around their kitchen tables and decided something should – and could – be done to ensure that adequate, affordable health care was available to all citizens.
And they made it happen.
Ten years later, with the support of a broad coalition of unions, churches, farmers and other grass-roots organizations, they turned that local action into a province-wide medicare system.
Ten years later, there was a national one.So Medicare in fact ... did come from the West (Saskatchewan) and it was first introduced in Saskatchewan ... it clearly states that Saskatchewan had medicare before a national program was ever conceived.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 8, 2006 23:46:31 GMT -5
I do not mean to speak for franko Speak away . . . your doing a fine job.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 9, 2006 1:13:14 GMT -5
[quot=author=franko board=NonHockey thread=1164931595 post=1165639591] I do not mean to speak for franko Speak away . . . your doing a fine job.[/quote] An awful lot of evasion and dissembling from suporters of the right wing. The context of this conversation was in fact achievements of Liberal governments. You chose to ambiguously detract and distract from the Liberals introduction of the Canada Health Act by interjecting your bit on the "Western" provincial plan. The discussion was about right wing conservative govenments and their acts, and in fact it was socialists under Douglas who introduced it in their province and they were viciously resisted by the right wing capitalist conservatives. Harper would have fought "socialist medicine" to the death and aligned with the money interests as he has consistently done. Y our purpose was to deny the Liberals their rightful claim to having introduced universal comprehensive healthcare, one of the best health systems in the world It is unjust, and therefor ungodly incidentally to practice detraction, deny simple historical facts and deny people their due credit for their achievements. I consider the right wing agenda to be savagely ill-suited for human communities and a major contributor to a culture of death. I don't have to rewrite history or deny balanced treatments to do this. By all means, show the harm and terrible record where you can, but our history shows a staggering record of right wing conservative malfeasance, corruption and deceit and retrograde programs that take from the poor and give to the rich. This has been a rather big waste of my time. It takes a hell of a lot to get simple, honest acknwledgements over incontrovertable basics and straightforward matters of historical record. People commonly like to slam politicians for leger de mouth, but it sure seems to be a common affliction when dealing with those who support right wingers. The right has precious little to recommend it to anyone, so perhaps slight of hand is the only recourse. Skilly's posting will not rob Tommy Douglas of his due as implementer of the first provincial universal health care program, no matter how dissembling the language used, and you will not succeed in robbing Nobel Prize winning Lester Pearson, of his insuring all Canadians with the Canada Health Act.Enough bs on this red herring. As anyone with eyes can readily see, the following did not enjoy the suport of right wing consrvatives, sworn enemies of national public health insurance. Health 1944-1948 – Premier Douglas assumed the role of Health Minister during the first term of his government, during which time the first steps towards Medicare were taken. New policies and building projects were based partly on the recommendations of the new Health Services Planning Commission. Major innovations included: * Free health care for pensioners, * Free psychiatric hospital treatment for the mentally ill, as well as the construction of Mental Health Clinics, * Free cancer treatment for those in need, * The creation of the first comprehensive health services region, * Construction of new health care facilities, * The creation of the College of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, * Air Ambulance to transport those in rural areas to central or regional hospitals. January 1, 1947 – Douglas created Canada’s first universal and compulsory hospital insurance program – the Universal Hospital Services plan. It was the first program in North America to provide complete benefits to all residents. The legislation offered: * Expanded hospital facilities (21 new hospitals over 4 years), * X-rays and lab services, * Common drugs and other hospital services, * Compensation for a share of out of province medical costs, * With payment for the insurance at a rate of $5 per person to a maximum of $30 per family. April 25,1959 – Douglas announced his government’s revolutionary intention to introduce a universal and comprehensive medical care insurance program for the province. Nearing the end of his government’s fourth term in office, and with Prime Minister Diefenbaker’s newfound willingness to share in the cost of any universal health plan developed by a provincial government, the time was right for Douglas to proceed with his vision. His plan, however, was strongly opposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, which not only governed and upheld the competency of the province’s medical professionals, but also protected the interests of the doctors. June 8, 1960 – Douglas and his CCF Party’s overwhelming election victory represented the public approval necessary to bring the universal health insurance plan to fruition. Medicare, the revolutionary part of their election platform, was founded upon the following three major themes: * A public system was necessary because a universal and comprehensive healthcare package would require citizens of the province to pay extremely high private insurance premiums, * A lot of public money was needed to fund such an extensive program, * The largesse of the program would require the government to be accountable for it’s management. November 17, 1961 – Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act The Act, put into legislation by new CCF Premier Woodrow S. Lloyd mere weeks after replacing the departed Tommy Douglas, gave the Medical Care Insurance Commission the power to run the new universal insurance system. In 1962 when the program came into effect, the premiums that replaced the payments for private insurance were $12 per individual per year or $24 for families. All Saskatchewanians would collectively pay for those who were sick, and all could be reassured that a terrible illness in the family wouldn’t lead to bankruptcy.
|
|