|
Post by princelh on Dec 3, 2006 23:40:21 GMT -5
They pillar anybody in English Canada who can't speak French. I remember the Liberals putting up a stink, when Belinda Domi Stronach was going to run and her French was not great. About the same as Dion's English. Double standard here. I can't wait for the first English debate and watch him struggle. He'll sound more like Gilles Duceppe, in front of the camera's. Stephen Harper, on the other hand, is almost flawless in French. Advantage Harper. Dion was also a failure as an Environment Minister and still has the smell of the old Chretien regime attached to him. To me, all that is missing is the puppet strings. He'll be tarred as part of the past corrupt politico's, who helped steal taxpayers money.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 4, 2006 19:25:14 GMT -5
They pillar anybody in English Canada who can't speak French. I remember the Liberals putting up a stink, when Belinda Domi Stronach was going to run and her French was not great. About the same as Dion's English. Double standard here. I can't wait for the first English debate and watch him struggle. He'll sound more like Gilles Duceppe, in front of the camera's. Stephen Harper, on the other hand, is almost flawless in French. Advantage Harper. Dion was also a failure as an Environment Minister and still has the smell of the old Chretien regime attached to him. To me, all that is missing is the puppet strings. He'll be tarred as part of the past corrupt politico's, who helped steal taxpayers money. Anybody who's been awake even occasionally over the last couple of decades, knows that the Reform alliannce party of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day who may have finished high school knows of the near visceral contempt felt in the West for legitimate Quebec interests and people. Bilingulisim really is a prerequisite for the job or at least the intention to develop some capacity. Dion speaks very good english. It is his accent that will bother those inclined towards bigotry. There are lots and lots of those. Stronach is a natural conservative, an utter airhead. Given Harpur's desperate efforts to get an election as the inquiry effects were diminishing, accepting the airhead into the Liberal party was seen probably correctly as the lesser of two evils. I high price and a great embarassment, but there you have it. Better than a whole govenment of mean-spirited divisive rednecks. Dion, unlike almost all reformers, is a highly educated scholar and professor, and two other contesters for the leadership are Rhodes scholars. Stockwell Day's job before getting a Conservative provincial post in Alberta was as I recall, manual labour in a slaughter house, a fitting metaphor. I think he's a Minister in charge of national security policies now. How was Dion a failure as Environment? I hear that he was internationally respected and was instrumental in advancing the Kyoto Accord. How can a right winger dare to even mention environmental issues. Harpur models Bush's clean air evasion as the good oil industry and Saudi rep that he is. What a coincidence that the Canadian version, minor bush is also from the oil patch. Dion will indeed be tarred as corrupt but only by people who are inherrently dishonest. There isn't a person in Quebec or anyone who knows this guy who thinks he is anything but entirely his own man and a man of deep principle and scrupulouslhonesty. It is Harpur who has the office staff of his ministers spying on them for him and ordering his ministers not to say anything in either language and for any reason.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 4, 2006 22:15:29 GMT -5
In other words, another in the long line of political elites, who have caused the split in this great country. You Liberaro's always pull out that tired Reform/Alliance/Conservative/redneck quote, whenever you get cornered on anything that shows corruption in the Liberal Party Of Canada. I will tell you one thing about the so called Reform/Alliance/Conservative people; they are more honest and trustworthy, then those thieves that ran Canada, during the last 13 years, leading up to Harper. Harper has more personality and average person personna than anything that the Liberals have presented in 35 years. Who needs another elite egghead to look down on the average Canadian. The Liberals are only interested in power at any price and not about justice for all Canadians. Social justice? Just another buzz word for a 10 second soundbite. Liberal Party Of Canada = Lie, Tax and Steal!
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 4, 2006 23:56:14 GMT -5
In other words, another in the long line of political elites, who have caused the split in this great country. You Liberaro's always pull out that tired Reform/Alliance/Conservative/redneck quote, whenever you get cornered on anything that shows corruption in the Liberal Party Of Canada. I will tell you one thing about the so called Reform/Alliance/Conservative people; they are more honest and trustworthy, then those thieves that ran Canada, during the last 13 years, leading up to Harper. Harper has more personality and average person personna than anything that the Liberals have presented in 35 years. Who needs another elite egghead to look down on the average Canadian. The Liberals are only interested in power at any price and not about justice for all Canadians. Social justice? Just another buzz word for a 10 second soundbite. Liberal Party Of Canada = Lie, Tax and Steal! Nope, I choose to vote for a party that's in no way whatsoever corrupted by power or by childish defections - both the Conservatives and Liberals are badly tainted IMO. My party isn't and by definition it won't be either - Vote Bloc !
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 1:03:19 GMT -5
In other words, another in the long line of political elites, who have caused the split in this great country. You Liberaro's always pull out that tired Reform/Alliance/Conservative/redneck quote, whenever you get cornered on anything that shows corruption in the Liberal Party Of Canada. I will tell you one thing about the so called Reform/Alliance/Conservative people; they are more honest and trustworthy, then those thieves that ran Canada, during the last 13 years, leading up to Harper. Harper has more personality and average person personna than anything that the Liberals have presented in 35 years. Who needs another elite egghead to look down on the average Canadian. The Liberals are only interested in power at any price and not about justice for all Canadians. Social justice? Just another buzz word for a 10 second soundbite. Liberal Party Of Canada = Lie, Tax and Steal! What is tired and old about Harpur's political genesis and support. You don't like your history and the type of yahoos you sent to parliament with their antisocial indifference to the country itself. I fail to see what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that I have somewhere denied that corruption was found in the Gomery enquiry? Who are you talking to? You are not adressing something I wrote. Are you holding that all Liberals over all time were involved in the ad agency scandal in Quebec? Is this honest and trustworthy information, or simple slander and defamation? Honestly? Truthfully? Rather did I rightly take you to task for impugning Dion. I will repeat that only dishonest people will do this. There is such a thing as integrity in speech; a concern for truth. I know its not guns or more money for "me", or the death penalty that "honest and trustworthy" Reform Party /Alliance / Conservatives support along with the war in Iraq, but still important. I don't mind you arguing my points. I merely point out that the redneck rump, many of whom were also in fact, western separatists are just that the redneck rump of our culture. Conservative policies never had to be intelligent or compassionate. These are not values to their supporters. Are you calling Chretien an elite egghead? That should make you the first. Being educated in law or political science or economics doesn't make you unfit to govern. You, not I write predictably of tax and spendthrift Liberals. May I suggest you acquaint yourself with the last 50 years or post WWI economic history. Ya, I know history , economics, all that school egghead stuff again, but you would hear perhaps for the first time that it was Maritin who eliminated the most massive debts left by guess who? In the US, elections of Conservative governments has always resulted in recessions, depressions or wars. NOthing says corruption like conservatism. Working on the floor of an Alberta meat plant doesn't always fully prepare you for dealing with sophisticated issues of national concern. It doesn't guaranteed that you won't be an intellectual lightweight of little substance. It's quite too that the Liberals have never, ever, ever ever had anyone as ordinary and extraordinarily stupid as Stockwell Day, or as dysfunctional as Preston Manning but the party holds little in common with these antisocial millenial boobs. I'm prepared to defend my points. Want to call MacKenzie King a chrystal ball gazing superstitious whackjob? I's agree. Want to point out that Trudea introduced legislation on abortion that morphed into a major crime against humanity? Fine. I would agee with that, though the majority of conservatives are much more concerned about their money. And as for social justice it was a liberal government that introduced the Canada Health Act that Harpur had to finally promise not to wreck. It was the liberals as memory serves that extended help to the umemployed and indeed incurred some debt which the conservatives trippled as memory serves. Liberals pulled hundreds of thousands of senior retireees out of poverty.....and so on. Are you honestly and trustworthily saying that these are not fundamental effforts to further social justice. How bizarre. Sounbites? I agree that they would be to conservatives. Ever looked at conservative health care in the US? You also in misrepresenting Liberals and seeking to hide Harpur's colours, neglected to address conservatism's fruits evident in the US?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2006 7:21:43 GMT -5
In other words, another in the long line of political elites, who have caused the split in this great country. You Liberaro's always pull out that tired Reform/Alliance/Conservative/redneck quote, whenever you get cornered on anything that shows corruption in the Liberal Party Of Canada. I will tell you one thing about the so called Reform/Alliance/Conservative people; they are more honest and trustworthy, then those thieves that ran Canada, during the last 13 years, leading up to Harper. Harper has more personality and average person personna than anything that the Liberals have presented in 35 years. Who needs another elite egghead to look down on the average Canadian. The Liberals are only interested in power at any price and not about justice for all Canadians. Social justice? Just another buzz word for a 10 second soundbite. Liberal Party Of Canada = Lie, Tax and Steal! Nope, I choose to vote for a party that's in no way whatsoever corrupted by power or by childish defections - both the Conservatives and Liberals are badly tainted IMO. My party isn't and by definition it won't be either - Vote Bloc ! Now, you can't say for certain that the Bloc isn't corrupt. How do you know what Duceppe is claiming on his travel expenses? Unless you mean the Bloc's sole purpose is to screw Canada, and anyway he can corrupt the system is looked upon as good. If so, then you should love the Liberals and the Conservatives ... To me, by definition, the Bloc is corrupt ... just like the NLFirst Party is corrupt ... just like all separtist parties are corrupt .... just because you/me support the corruption doesn't make it any less corrupt. You are just using the system to your advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2006 7:31:03 GMT -5
May I suggest you acquaint yourself with the last 50 years or post WWI economic history. Ya, I know history , economics, all that school egghead stuff again, but you would hear perhaps for the first time that it was Maritin who eliminated the most massive debts left by guess who? Now let's get our history right. Mulrooney introduced the GST. The Canadian public hated it and voted Chretien in because he promised to get rid of it ... that was 18 years ago and we still have it. The deficit was eliminated in Canada. Not the debt. They are two very distinct and different things. And Canada's deficit was eliminated because the Liberals used a Conservative policy they promised to abolish. This is the foundation for the "fiscal imbalance". The country obviously does not need an onerous tax if it is raking in billions of dollars each year .... give back to the provinces through tax cuts/breaks or eliminate the GST and this country still governs with money in the bank each year. Our country's debt will never be eliminated. The surplus is doled out, ... but I never hear them using it do pay down the debt. Maybe they are ... but even a kindergarten student can see that if they eliminate alot of taxes they still will have money to pay off some debt and the provinces would have less to complain about. The problem is that Ottawa wants to claim the money as theirs to pass out as they see fit, and ensure you use it is politically friendly ways ...
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2006 9:13:14 GMT -5
Our country's debt will never be eliminated. The surplus is doled out, ... but I never hear them using it do pay down the debt. Maybe they are ... but even a kindergarten student can see that if they eliminate alot of taxes they still will have money to pay off some debt and the provinces would have less to complain about. The problem is that Ottawa wants to claim the money as theirs to pass out as they see fit, and ensure you use it is politically friendly ways ... You don't get [re-]elected by promising to pay off the national debt. You barely get [re-]elected by promising to lower taxes. You get [re-]elected by promising new social spending. "It's yuour monay and we know how to best spend it for you", says the government -- and we, like chumps, believe it. I think that half the surplus at the end of the year is to go to debt reduction. Problem is, a known surplus will be "re-invested" in program spending, so as you say the debt will never be repaid (sometimes I feel that about my own finances too! )
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 14:07:20 GMT -5
May I suggest you acquaint yourself with the last 50 years or post WWI economic history. Ya, I know history , economics, all that school egghead stuff again, but you would hear perhaps for the first time that it was Maritin who eliminated the most massive debts left by guess who? Now let's get our history right. Mulrooney introduced the GST. The Canadian public hated it and voted Chretien in because he promised to get rid of it ... that was 18 years ago and we still have it. The deficit was eliminated in Canada. Not the debt. They are two very distinct and different things. And Canada's deficit was eliminated because the Liberals used a Conservative policy they promised to abolish. This is the foundation for the "fiscal imbalance". The country obviously does not need an onerous tax if it is raking in billions of dollars each year .... give back to the provinces through tax cuts/breaks or eliminate the GST and this country still governs with money in the bank each year. Our country's debt will never be eliminated. The surplus is doled out, ... but I never hear them using it do pay down the debt. Maybe they are ... but even a kindergarten student can see that if they eliminate alot of taxes they still will have money to pay off some debt and the provinces would have less to complain about. The problem is that Ottawa wants to claim the money as theirs to pass out as they see fit, and ensure you use it is politically friendly ways ... Thanks Skillky. I did in fact mean to refer to the debt run up by Mulroney and the deficit elimination by Martin.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 5, 2006 19:33:20 GMT -5
Nope, I choose to vote for a party that's in no way whatsoever corrupted by power or by childish defections - both the Conservatives and Liberals are badly tainted IMO. My party isn't and by definition it won't be either - Vote Bloc ! Now, you can't say for certain that the Bloc isn't corrupt. How do you know what Duceppe is claiming on his travel expenses? I meant that the Bloc isn't, nor will ever be, in a position to abuse any kind of power since it's destined for eternal opposition. Nope. Well, corrupt seems like an awful strong word for using the system to try and work against it, but I agree with the underlying sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 20:18:32 GMT -5
May I suggest you acquaint yourself with the last 50 years or post WWI economic history. Ya, I know history , economics, all that school egghead stuff again, but you would hear perhaps for the first time that it was Maritin who eliminated the most massive debts left by guess who? Now let's get our history right. Mulrooney introduced the GST. The Canadian public hated it and voted Chretien in because he promised to get rid of it ... that was 18 years ago and we still have it. The deficit was eliminated in Canada. Not the debt. They are two very distinct and different things. And Canada's deficit was eliminated because the Liberals used a Conservative policy they promised to abolish. This is the foundation for the "fiscal imbalance". The country obviously does not need an onerous tax if it is raking in billions of dollars each year .... give back to the provinces through tax cuts/breaks or eliminate the GST and this country still governs with money in the bank each year. Our country's debt will never be eliminated. The surplus is doled out, ... but I never hear them using it do pay down the debt. Maybe they are ... but even a kindergarten student can see that if they eliminate alot of taxes they still will have money to pay off some debt and the provinces would have less to complain about. The problem is that Ottawa wants to claim the money as theirs to pass out as they see fit, and ensure you use it is politically friendly ways ... As I posted earlier, and I accept the bad for having upbraided another with my own wrong term. I meant the deficit. I know we have debt. The Liberals did squawk about the GST and in a couple of instances only including one with Copps, did say they would eliiminate it. The vast majority of times, as I recall, they did not say that they would eliminate it. But they did get mileage out of knocking its authors. The GST was not a bad thing. It replaced the 12% manufacturer's tax that did not apply to many industries and services, making those that paid at a disadvantage. I beef at Liberal use of UIC payments to pay down the deficit and also agree that the feds used transfer payment reductions and downloading to get where they needed to go. Not pretty for sure, often, but correctives were needed, especially after the balooned deficits and debt increases of Mulroney which were much worse than Trudeau's. For me, I much preferred to have Liberals do the job. Look at what happened in Ontario with the sociopath, Harris.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2006 20:57:33 GMT -5
I meant that the Bloc isn't, nor will ever be, in a position to abuse any kind of power since it's destined for eternal opposition. I understand what you are trying to say .... but you don't have to be in power to be corrupt. Here in Newfoundland now there is a scandal with our MHA's travel expenses. There has been an NDP member, a PC member, and a few Liberal members found to have abused their travel expenses and constituency expenses to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The thing is every sitting member in a government has access to money, and when money is involved their is the temptation. Duceppe gets a constituency allowance, and he gets to claim travel expenses .... are they legit? ...perhaps ... but they are ways for politicos to be corrupt without governing is all I am saying.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 21:06:25 GMT -5
Now, you can't say for certain that the Bloc isn't corrupt. How do you know what Duceppe is claiming on his travel expenses? I meant that the Bloc isn't, nor will ever be, in a position to abuse any kind of power since it's destined for eternal opposition. Nope. Well, corrupt seems like an awful strong word for using the system to try and work against it, but I agree with the underlying sentiment. Trudeau quoted Teilhard de Chardin, who when considering the emergence of life in the universe observed that "Everything that rises must converge." He was against separatism because it is moving in the wrong direction. Another who I would expect to be in agreement is Marshall McLuhan, who coined the phrase, "Global village" We are increasingly a village. Nationalism is too limited a horizon, be it Canadian or Quebecois or Newfoundlandian nationalism. Everything that rises must converge. Canada has largely done so in one of the best countries in the world that has avoided somewhat the siren calls of selfish individualism from the fascist right wing and too the alienated valuelessness of state capitalism or communism. In so far as policies and actions seek to divide they are corrupt, corruptions of human community. There is no such thing as a "self-made man" a man who doesn't owe his complete existence to God and to the community of families that created him.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2006 22:16:53 GMT -5
The Liberals did squawk about the GST and in a couple of instances only including one with Copps, did say they would eliiminate it. The vast majority of times, as I recall, they did not say that they would eliminate it. But they did get mileage out of knocking its authors. It was a Red Book policy, and they actively campaigned on eliminating the GST. Methinks the language is becoming inflamitory. I bow out of this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 5, 2006 22:50:16 GMT -5
Trudeau quoted Teilhard de Chardin, who when considering the emergence of life in the universe observed that "Everything that rises must converge." What makes you think humanity, much less Canada, is "rising"? I'm the first to say that Quebec separation is probably a bad thing for all involved, but the better solutions have been rejected by the ROC... Also, while I respect de Chardin, quoting Trudeau to me is meaningless. Like I said elsewhere, the only good thing I can say about that SOB is that he's dead. More to the point, IMO economic integration can only truly happen when culturally nations can feel secure. Given the type of reaction we see when an essentially meaningless motion goes through the House of Commons, it basically shows that Quebecers have every reason to feel insecure in the current state of things.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 5, 2006 23:06:59 GMT -5
I still have not seen anything of benefit that the Liberals had accomplished in the 13 years in power. No initiatives, just corruption. From Kick Backs, to Leaning on Bankers to get money for a Golf Course you had an interest in selling, to hotels, to imagined homeless people, to downloading of debt....... These fools wasted 13 years of power to make our country look like a banana republic. Being dumb and ignorant is one thing, being stupid and blind is another.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 23:41:03 GMT -5
Trudeau quoted Teilhard de Chardin, who when considering the emergence of life in the universe observed that "Everything that rises must converge." What makes you think humanity, much less Canada, is "rising"? I'm the first to say that Quebec separation is probably a bad thing for all involved, but the better solutions have been rejected by the ROC... Also, while I respect de Chardin, quoting Trudeau to me is meaningless. Like I said elsewhere, the only good thing I can say about that SOB is that he's dead. More to the point, IMO economic integration can only truly happen when culturally nations can feel secure. Given the type of reaction we see when an essentially meaningless motion goes through the House of Commons, it basically shows that Quebecers have every reason to feel insecure in the current state of things. de Chardin's point in "the phenomenon of man " and "The Divine Milieu", was that evolution had a direction towards complexity and consciousness, and that to rise, or to perfect was to converge. Human beings are as far as we know the most convergent of entities in the universe. I am certainly not arguing that Canada is converging. Rather, that we must move beyond our narrow circles and embrace the more universal. Transcendence. I love Quebec and Quebecers. They bring most of what I lke most about Canada and have led it for most of its history. Canada would cease to exist without her. I further can sympathize with a lot of the sentiments that would lean toward separatism. I consider myself to be most closely tied to Quebec in ideas and cultural values generally. My identity is at root that of a Montrealer. Were it an uncomplicated thing, I'd be happier in Quebec than in any other province. My point is just that being a Quebecer at heart, Quebecers are greater as Canadians. I would not be gaining a country, I would be losing a country. Countries are all necessarily mixed blessings, but they are not generally good things to throw away. It is the uniting in common cause for the common good of all that fulfills the precept that everything that rises must converge. We know this intuitively.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 5, 2006 23:54:12 GMT -5
I love Quebec and Quebecers. They bring most of what I lke most about Canada and have led it for most of its history. Canada would cease to exist without her. But if Canada needs Quebec so badly, why is Canada unable to adjust to Quebec's needs? The ROC reaction often seems to me like a husband who doesn't want his wife to leave him, because mariage is sacro-sanct and all, but is unwilling to do anything more than to say "yes, honey, whatever" before going back to his chips and beer 15 minutes later.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 6, 2006 0:01:28 GMT -5
I still have not seen anything of benefit that the Liberals had accomplished in the 13 years in power. No initiatives, just corruption. From Kick Backs, to Leaning on Bankers to get money for a Golf Course you had an interest in selling, to hotels, to imagined homeless people, to downloading of debt....... These fools wasted 13 years of power to make our country look like a banana republic. Being dumb and ignorant is one thing, being stupid and blind is another. You have a problem with your eye, the difference between Dante and Machiavelli, is that while Machiavelli and Dante could both see evil, Dante could also see good. What's your solution? As Dion asked; a meaningless tax break or getting the 22% or so of children out of poverty? We finished about 50 places ahead of the US in evaluation of countries. The Reform Party was calling for even deeper cuts. They don't believe in helping the poor. They resent it. I am not a huge fan of this culture or its values which are largely corporate and consumerist, and I am not an uncritical fan of the Liberals. But I read. I know what the others offer. The right is so much more dishonest it beggars the imagination. Look to the south. Look at Harris's giving away a 407 highway for 100 years, one we paid for, and then yelp about padded contracts and some tens of millions lost in a scandal. That is so remotely small scale and meaningless when compared to a fraudulent war that its almost embarassing to have to remind people of this. What was it Mulroney had to say about all his pigs in the trough. THe Liberals had to clean up his mess. And the Reform / Alliance wanted it even harsher. Read Dante and try to understand him.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 6, 2006 1:17:53 GMT -5
The Liberals did squawk about the GST and in a couple of instances only including one with Copps, did say they would eliiminate it. The vast majority of times, as I recall, they did not say that they would eliminate it. But they did get mileage out of knocking its authors. It was a Red Book policy, and they actively campaigned on eliminating the GST. Methinks the language is becoming inflamitory. I bow out of this discussion. I used the term sociopath advisedly. You are perhaps aware that pyschologists have found MBA students at Harvard and others of the far right to have siimilar characteristic psychological profiles to psychopaths. Harris seemed to me highly sociopathic. And, while I am no scholar, I believe that this article accurately reflects the truth of the Liberal positon re the GST which they did not promise to eliminate, again, contrary to popular opinion. I am very tired of this old and false claim. Eliminating the Goods and Services Tax In 1991, the PC government introduced the seven-percent Goods and Services Tax (GST). The GST replaced the Manufacturers Sales Tax, a tax that was not visible to consumers since it was applied at the wholesale level. The GST created a storm of protest – both from the public since the tax was now visible, and from small businesses, who objected to the extra paperwork. Contrary to popular belief, the Liberals did not promise to remove the tax altogether. Instead, the Red Book commits to replacing the GST “with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal cooperation and harmonization.”In their first mandate, the Liberals attempted to harmonize the GST with provincial sales taxes. While this wouldn’t affect what consumers paid at the till, it would reduce the paperwork for small businesses. However, most provinces did not sign on. Furthermore, it became clear that a large segment of the public thought the Liberals promised to abolish the tax altogether. It didn’t help matters when the media began playing a campaign speech in which Chrétien flatly stated that the tax would be “scrapped.” There was an enormous amount of protest when the public realized that the GST was here to stay.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 6, 2006 8:49:48 GMT -5
But if Canada needs Quebec so badly, why is Canada unable to adjust to Quebec's needs? I can't speak for the rest of the country ... but all I ask on the issue is "What are Quebec's needs". You always hear that Quebec thinks that a "made in Canada" solution is not necessarily good for Quebec. And I agree entirely. The new revised (Conservative broken promise) made-in- Ontario Canada equalization formula is not good for Newfoundland in the least. But Newfoundland has been "lobbying, promoting, hell call it sooking if you want" her position and telling the ROC what she wants. Maybe it is because I am removed from it all and don't read the Globe and Mail or National Post .... but I never hear how Quebec wants to be treated differently from Canada or where she feels the problems are. I know the fiscal imbalance is a big issue in Quebec (as it is everywhere) and I know Quebec would rather have funding and not be directed on how to spend it (which I have no problem with if it is clear that mismanagement of funds will not be held against Canadian taxpayers) ... so for my ignorance (in private if you like) could you explain what you feel the problem is, what Quebec wants to stay in the country, etc.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 6, 2006 9:31:54 GMT -5
Conservatives at the trough? Humm....Liberals cleaning up the mess.....? If anything, the Liberals took it all to a new level. They must have read books about mobsters and organized crime, to figure out how to steal so much money. Oh wait, I forgot, and so did you, Alfanso Gaggliano and his friends. Why read a book when you have the real deal working for you and showing you the ropes. Ad agencies, kick back schemes, money laundering. Sounds like mob activity to me. Oh, lets not stop there, Liberal appointees to crown corporations, more kick backs, lavish spending, lies deceit. Yeah, Liberals cleaning up messes, about Liberals at the trough. Liberal Values = Lie. Tax, and Steal
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 6, 2006 20:12:01 GMT -5
Conservatives at the trough? Humm....Liberals cleaning up the mess.....? If anything, the Liberals took it all to a new level. They must have read books about mobsters and organized crime, to figure out how to steal so much money. Oh wait, I forgot, and so did you, Alfanso Gaggliano and his friends. Why read a book when you have the real deal working for you and showing you the ropes. Ad agencies, kick back schemes, money laundering. Sounds like mob activity to me. Oh, lets not stop there, Liberal appointees to crown corporations, more kick backs, lavish spending, lies deceit. Yeah, Liberals cleaning up messes, about Liberals at the trough. Liberal Values = Lie. Tax, and Steal Liberals are to Conservatives what les Canadiens are to Leafs. You have obviously forgotten or never knew and perhaps as would seem consistent with the level of comment that Mulroney, referring to an appointment of an ambassador made the infamous remark that he didn't blame him and would have had his nose in the trough too. You apparently are out of touch with the fact or will continue to ignore the fact, as is common with defenders of right wingers that Mulroney's deficits were massive while the debt under Trudeau was a significantly smaller ratio of GDP. Probably not a concern of yours, though the right wing, Preston Manning in particular was was shrilly crying in his most irritating whining nasal tones, (often a sign of insincerity), for even more drastic cuts than the ones you are crying about. You either are unaware of this, or don't have much regard for fact or reasonable argument. Polls of Canadians showed that they went from the majority believing that the MP's sent had their best intentions at heart, to only 2% believing this after Mulroney who was under personal investigation for corruption. But, quite frankly, and there's not a really easy way to say this, but the conservative agenda and the more right wing, the more this is true, is to maintain the material and social benefits of the few, even over and against the legitimate interests and aspirations of the many. They really are the party of greed. Just look at the US right wing conservative government Harper is trying to clone. Klein, his patron, has consistently tried to rob us of our health plan. And you want to talk about a few miilion bucks as a defining issue? How about a war in Iraq, fraudulently engaged and try to keep in mind that fraud is corruption marshalling the lives of soldiers, a debt load that is staggering and which we pay for at the pumps (Corruption??) and inspiring generations of terrorist response.? It's a special gift of the string pullers that can keep the dull right winger so self-destructively deluded. Ever drive the 407? I have a lot of sympathy for a teen-aged girl in love who gets pregnant and dumped and who turns in desparation to an abortionist, though she will as most to not just wish it hadn't been necessary, but wish she had never made such a terrible decision to carry all of her life. I don't have any respect at all for utter disregard for life of those who would take a man out of a cell and murder him. Given the small scope and import of the items you write about, reflective of the conservative meda like the Toronto Sun and other big scary headline papers of similar ilk. the fat and wealthy manipulate the dull witted with appeals, like yours to faux indignation. Has everybody had enough distraction from Clintons blowwjob? Incredible manipulation. Do you really not know why Mulroney was the most hated man in Canada? But enough of trivial pursuits. All parties make sweetheart deals with thier PR agencies when out of power and pay them back when they can when in power. It was Chretien who called for an RCMP investigation and appropriate prosecutions, and Martin who called the Gomery enquiry. You probably have no idea as well, of the primary historical economic and finance difference between Conservative and Liberal governments. Faced with inflation, Conservatives favour monetary policies, Liberals, fiscal. Monetary policy works for inflation alright, but only after devastating the society in which it is employed. They do this because it has the least effect on their large corporate benefactors and the very wealthy. Corporations, unlike the little guy have other sources for financing while the wealthy get even richer as the poor get poorer. Conservatives have done this to their poor dumb supporters for centuries. They inflame their unruly passions with nasty stories about how evil government is lest they ever wake up from their deep sleep and realize that they can deomcratically run society for the benefit of all. Liberals historically have employed fiscal policy, for exactly that reason. Incidentally, prime ministerial appointments are completely consistent with sound government and enlightened policies as is "parachuting" important skills and ability into ridings for the consideration of the electorate. Many government and crown corporations require particular attitudes and approaches. Many should be appointed. How many zillion committees would you have and for what benefit? Political parties can do whatever the hell they want in any riding. And why not? If the electorate wants the local dummy over a stirling genius to represent them, then they can make that stupid choice. The conservative press, perhaps because of its strong Calvinist input tends to see evil and corruption in all things, especially in government, that place where we have a say in how things will be. This theatens the special interests who spend a fortune keeping their dumber devotees as docile and maleable as their narrow and mean interests require to succeed. It's really disgusting to watch it in action. Constrained and chained by their own vices.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 6, 2006 22:46:53 GMT -5
I'll tell you a factual story about what happened the night, I believe it was 1984, when Mulroney won his first election.
I had worked for the Progressive Conservatives in the back rooms, making signs, sending out letters, stuff that a volunteer does to get their candidate elected. Our local MP, a PC who had been an MP since 1972, showed where the PC were heading after the election. A few weeks earlier, our local MP took the local nomination and had Peter Worthington, a Sun editor and PC candidate in Toronto speak at his nomination meeting, when he accepted the nomination locally. On election night, I was in the back room, where the winning candidate and a few close advisor's, were talking about the great win and PC majority, before he accepted his victory in front of all of the faithful on stage. As we sat and chatted in the back room, the election results came on for Ontario. Peter Worthington and another right of centre Toronto candidate (John Gamble) had went down to defeat in Toronto. Our candidate turns to the advisor's and says, "good, they were too right of center anyway"!
I was perplexed when I heard that. In front of my eyes, the Candidate that I had worked for, for 10 years was now turning his back on true Conservative values and becoming a Progressive, right in front of my eyes. He not only stabbed his friend Peter Worthington, the man who was there to speak at his acclamation, but me as well. On the first day of the Mulroney victory, I walked away from the Progressive Conservative Party. Within a few short years, tens of thousand Conservative thinkers followed me in my disgust for what had happened. Mulroney and his hacks, had hijacked the Party that I had worked and supported for 15 years of my life. As an 11 year old, I started working in Politics, with the Progressive Conservative Party in 1968.
By 1988, I was working for Reform and Preston Manning. Our motives were clear but we had one major obstacle. Emotional, bigoted people, who were hurt by what Mulroney was doing, spilled over in to our new Party. Being in Ontario, as an original Reformer was tough going but we were making headway. By 1993, the PC's were a spent corrupt force. We fought the fight to get back to the roots of true conservatism and they got what was coming to them. Decimated to 2 seats in the commons. We, in the Reform, were making inroads. Our biggest problem then became the Ottawa Press Gallery, controlled by Liberal hacks who wanted to keep the status quo. That war is still being fought today.
Fast-forward to the PC and Alliance merger. Stephen Harper, a former Reform MP was now the undisputed leader of the new Conservative Party. Many of the Progressives were purged and many true Conservative values were restored to the Party. We had not had a Conservative candidate since the time of John Diefenbaker. Finally, a chance for Canadians to have a defined choice. We got our minority government, and a chance to show Canadians that we could run the country and need not be on bended knee to big business or the elites that had run Canada since the beginning of the 1980's.
It's now 2007 and I think Canadians should give Stephen Harper the opportunity to run this country with a majority. The Liberals? They need to go away for a few years, purge the old guard completely and rebuild from the ruins, like many true Conservatives did. They need to re-establish their ideology and realize what Liberalism really is. What they are practicing right now is not real Liberalism. Until they can re-establish what it is to be a Liberal, then they need to stay out of power until this can be defined.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 6, 2006 22:54:15 GMT -5
But if Canada needs Quebec so badly, why is Canada unable to adjust to Quebec's needs? I can't speak for the rest of the country ... but all I ask on the issue is "What are Quebec's needs". You always hear that Quebec thinks that a "made in Canada" solution is not necessarily good for Quebec. And I agree entirely. The new revised (Conservative broken promise) made-in- Ontario Canada equalization formula is not good for Newfoundland in the least. But Newfoundland has been "lobbying, promoting, hell call it sooking if you want" her position and telling the ROC what she wants. Maybe it is because I am removed from it all and don't read the Globe and Mail or National Post .... but I never hear how Quebec wants to be treated differently from Canada or where she feels the problems are. I know the fiscal imbalance is a big issue in Quebec (as it is everywhere) and I know Quebec would rather have funding and not be directed on how to spend it (which I have no problem with if it is clear that mismanagement of funds will not be held against Canadian taxpayers) ... so for my ignorance (in private if you like) could you explain what you feel the problem is, what Quebec wants to stay in the country, etc. Short version is that we need to feel safe and respected as a distinct minority entity, and it has to be considered normal that in some cases Quebec gets different treatment - not better, not worse, just different. And to be clear, this means some rights which aren't automatically given to all who whine enough. In essence, this entails: 1- an opt-out program, so that a federal program that fits a need elsewhere but not in Quebec isn't imposed on us (Chrétien's Millenium Scholarships fit the bill - Quebec students don't have as much tuition or nearly as much debt as others, but schools need funding, but still, the money had to go to the students.). And I'm not talking about a "based on goodwill" type of opt-out program like we essentially get now for most programs, I want something that the worst kind of Western redneck would have to work with the system and not trample Quebec's needs as a nation. Ideally this would mean that for a new program Quebec has to either opt-in or opt-out but that the program couldn't go forward *anywhere* without that decision.... not because I want Quebec to control what programs apply elsewhere, but just because I don't want a redneck to be able to stall talks in Quebec while going his own way elsewhere - if a politician wants to benefit of a program Quebec has to have been treated fairly. We'd need to find a middle ground here, but you get my point. 2- a constitutionnal veto, so that even if the current demographic trend continues and Quebec is just 10% of Canada one day, that we won't be trampled simply because we're such a minority that election-wise a government can not care, and could impose a constitution on us that would take away point 1. 3- Culturally, it means Quebec needs to be able to keep its veto on the Rights and Freedoms Charter so that our schools and signs are kept predominantly in French. I'm sure plenty of constitutional experts would thoroughly disagree, but that's the gist of it. Looking at Meech, it was supposed to give Quebec: -Distinct society as being in the constitution -a veto -25% of the Senate -other stuff I forget, but the idea behind it all is the same. The worst part is that if Canada could finally accept Quebec as being equal-but-different, separatism could be killed as the waste of time it really should be and we could move forward on other fronts where our interests coincide (ie, a heck of a lot of other stuff).
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 6, 2006 22:59:46 GMT -5
I believe in separate but equal. I don't want them to see their culture go the way of those in Louisiana.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 7, 2006 0:16:19 GMT -5
I can't speak for the rest of the country ... but all I ask on the issue is "What are Quebec's needs". You always hear that Quebec thinks that a "made in Canada" solution is not necessarily good for Quebec. And I agree entirely. The new revised (Conservative broken promise) made-in- Ontario Canada equalization formula is not good for Newfoundland in the least. But Newfoundland has been "lobbying, promoting, hell call it sooking if you want" her position and telling the ROC what she wants. Maybe it is because I am removed from it all and don't read the Globe and Mail or National Post .... but I never hear how Quebec wants to be treated differently from Canada or where she feels the problems are. I know the fiscal imbalance is a big issue in Quebec (as it is everywhere) and I know Quebec would rather have funding and not be directed on how to spend it (which I have no problem with if it is clear that mismanagement of funds will not be held against Canadian taxpayers) ... so for my ignorance (in private if you like) could you explain what you feel the problem is, what Quebec wants to stay in the country, etc. Short version is that we need to feel safe and respected as a distinct minority entity, and it has to be considered normal that in some cases Quebec gets different treatment - not better, not worse, just different. And to be clear, this means some rights which aren't automatically given to all who whine enough. In essence, this entails: 1- an opt-out program, so that a federal program that fits a need elsewhere but not in Quebec isn't imposed on us (Chrétien's Millenium Scholarships fit the bill - Quebec students don't have as much tuition or nearly as much debt as others, but schools need funding, but still, the money had to go to the students.). And I'm not talking about a "based on goodwill" type of opt-out program like we essentially get now for most programs, I want something that the worst kind of Western redneck would have to work with the system and not trample Quebec's needs as a nation. Ideally this would mean that for a new program Quebec has to either opt-in or opt-out but that the program couldn't go forward *anywhere* without that decision.... not because I want Quebec to control what programs apply elsewhere, but just because I don't want a redneck to be able to stall talks in Quebec while going his own way elsewhere - if a politician wants to benefit of a program Quebec has to have been treated fairly. We'd need to find a middle ground here, but you get my point. 2- a constitutionnal veto, so that even if the current demographic trend continues and Quebec is just 10% of Canada one day, that we won't be trampled simply because we're such a minority that election-wise a government can not care, and could impose a constitution on us that would take away point 1. 3- Culturally, it means Quebec needs to be able to keep its veto on the Rights and Freedoms Charter so that our schools and signs are kept predominantly in French. I'm sure plenty of constitutional experts would thoroughly disagree, but that's the gist of it. Looking at Meech, it was supposed to give Quebec: -Distinct society as being in the constitution -a veto -25% of the Senate -other stuff I forget, but the idea behind it all is the same. The worst part is that if Canada could finally accept Quebec as being equal-but-different, separatism could be killed as the waste of time it really should be and we could move forward on other fronts where our interests coincide (ie, a heck of a lot of other stuff). I didnt agree with Meech Lake because the vetoes were never explained clearly enough for me .... But what you are saying I find myself agreeing with most of it. Point #3 : I agree 100% with. In fact, I would be in favour of all signs in Canada being in french and english .... How can we call ourselves a bilingual country otherwise. When I was in school in Newfoundland, you had to take french and could not opt out of it until grade 9 ... I think it should be a mandatory component in school like math and english right up to grade 12. Point #2: I have a slight problem with, but not so much of a problem that I wouldn't give it to Quebec to keep her in the country. The only problem I have with it is Newfoundland has 7 seats in Parliament. Our population is declining, and seats are determined by population .... so we have lived with no voice in Canada since 1949. But if you have a constitutional veto, I would assume that you would have signed on to the constitution to get it , so imposing a constitution on Quebec would be moot. Point #1: I have no probelm with as long as the same opt-out option can be applied by other provinces. Equal but different, I have no problem with .... but equal with privileges I do. Like I said, Newfoundland has 7 seats and no voice, Ottawa has continually inforced its will on us .... Quebec has 75 seats (?) and can determine an election .... So I think an opt-out should be given to all provinces to some degree. The question then becomes ... if a province opts-out of a program do they get the money to spend as they wish? That's where the ROC (and by ROC I mean provinces other than NL and Que) will have the problem. Invariably, if something goes wrong and NL or Que needs more money , cries of mismanagement of funds will ring out ..... If this is what the fuss is all about that I am not worried about Quebec leaving Canada ... it isnt too hard to come up with a solution to those issues ... sure you and I could sit down over a few beers and we'd have Quebec in the constitution by midnight .... then we could go to one of them nice Montreal ballets ....(chez paree )
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 7, 2006 22:54:37 GMT -5
Short version is that we need to feel safe and respected as a distinct minority entity, and it has to be considered normal that in some cases Quebec gets different treatment - not better, not worse, just different. And to be clear, this means some rights which aren't automatically given to all who whine enough. In essence, this entails: 1- an opt-out program, so that a federal program that fits a need elsewhere but not in Quebec isn't imposed on us (Chrétien's Millenium Scholarships fit the bill - Quebec students don't have as much tuition or nearly as much debt as others, but schools need funding, but still, the money had to go to the students.). And I'm not talking about a "based on goodwill" type of opt-out program like we essentially get now for most programs, I want something that the worst kind of Western redneck would have to work with the system and not trample Quebec's needs as a nation. Ideally this would mean that for a new program Quebec has to either opt-in or opt-out but that the program couldn't go forward *anywhere* without that decision.... not because I want Quebec to control what programs apply elsewhere, but just because I don't want a redneck to be able to stall talks in Quebec while going his own way elsewhere - if a politician wants to benefit of a program Quebec has to have been treated fairly. We'd need to find a middle ground here, but you get my point. 2- a constitutionnal veto, so that even if the current demographic trend continues and Quebec is just 10% of Canada one day, that we won't be trampled simply because we're such a minority that election-wise a government can not care, and could impose a constitution on us that would take away point 1. 3- Culturally, it means Quebec needs to be able to keep its veto on the Rights and Freedoms Charter so that our schools and signs are kept predominantly in French. I'm sure plenty of constitutional experts would thoroughly disagree, but that's the gist of it. Looking at Meech, it was supposed to give Quebec: -Distinct society as being in the constitution -a veto -25% of the Senate -other stuff I forget, but the idea behind it all is the same. The worst part is that if Canada could finally accept Quebec as being equal-but-different, separatism could be killed as the waste of time it really should be and we could move forward on other fronts where our interests coincide (ie, a heck of a lot of other stuff). I didnt agree with Meech Lake because the vetoes were never explained clearly enough for me .... But what you are saying I find myself agreeing with most of it. Point #3 : I agree 100% with. In fact, I would be in favour of all signs in Canada being in french and english .... How can we call ourselves a bilingual country otherwise. When I was in school in Newfoundland, you had to take french and could not opt out of it until grade 9 ... I think it should be a mandatory component in school like math and english right up to grade 12. Point #2: I have a slight problem with, but not so much of a problem that I wouldn't give it to Quebec to keep her in the country. The only problem I have with it is Newfoundland has 7 seats in Parliament. Our population is declining, and seats are determined by population .... so we have lived with no voice in Canada since 1949. But if you have a constitutional veto, I would assume that you would have signed on to the constitution to get it , so imposing a constitution on Quebec would be moot. Point #1: I have no probelm with as long as the same opt-out option can be applied by other provinces. Equal but different, I have no problem with .... but equal with privileges I do. Like I said, Newfoundland has 7 seats and no voice, Ottawa has continually inforced its will on us .... Quebec has 75 seats (?) and can determine an election .... So I think an opt-out should be given to all provinces to some degree. The question then becomes ... if a province opts-out of a program do they get the money to spend as they wish? That's where the ROC (and by ROC I mean provinces other than NL and Que) will have the problem. Invariably, if something goes wrong and NL or Que needs more money , cries of mismanagement of funds will ring out ..... If this is what the fuss is all about that I am not worried about Quebec leaving Canada ... it isnt too hard to come up with a solution to those issues ... sure you and I could sit down over a few beers and we'd have Quebec in the constitution by midnight .... then we could go to one of them nice Montreal ballets ....(chez paree ) Well, if every province has the opt-out, it really makes the Federal government as a whole an opt-in process, which just won't work. The whole basis for opt-out is that the Quebec nation's needs aren't the same as other provinces. If something just isn't right for Alberta or Ontario, then it just won't be adopted - or at least, the anglo-saxon nation can bump off the government making such a bad program. I'd be open to a "regional veto" for groups of provinces, so that if a program isn't appropriate for a region then it won't apply there. As to agreeing between ourselves, the problem is agreeing on something that we can sell across the country.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 8, 2006 0:59:47 GMT -5
I believe in separate but equal. I don't want them to see their culture go the way of those in Louisiana. The right wing, like radical feminists confuses equal with identical, which ignores the existence of the other insofar as they are unlike yourself. Destructive disengagement.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 8, 2006 1:52:04 GMT -5
I'll tell you a factual story about what happened the night, I believe it was 1984, when Mulroney won his first election. I had worked for the Progressive Conservatives in the back rooms, making signs, sending out letters, stuff that a volunteer does to get their candidate elected. Our local MP, a PC who had been an MP since 1972, showed where the PC were heading after the election. A few weeks earlier, our local MP took the local nomination and had Peter Worthington, a Sun editor and PC candidate in Toronto speak at his nomination meeting, when he accepted the nomination locally. On election night, I was in the back room, where the winning candidate and a few close advisor's, were talking about the great win and PC majority, before he accepted his victory in front of all of the faithful on stage. As we sat and chatted in the back room, the election results came on for Ontario. Peter Worthington and another right of centre Toronto candidate (John Gamble) had went down to defeat in Toronto. Our candidate turns to the advisor's and says, "good, they were too right of center anyway"! I was perplexed when I heard that. In front of my eyes, the Candidate that I had worked for, for 10 years was now turning his back on true Conservative values and becoming a Progressive, right in front of my eyes. He not only stabbed his friend Peter Worthington, the man who was there to speak at his acclamation, but me as well. On the first day of the Mulroney victory, I walked away from the Progressive Conservative Party. Within a few short years, tens of thousand Conservative thinkers followed me in my disgust for what had happened. Mulroney and his hacks, had hijacked the Party that I had worked and supported for 15 years of my life. As an 11 year old, I started working in Politics, with the Progressive Conservative Party in 1968. By 1988, I was working for Reform and Preston Manning. Our motives were clear but we had one major obstacle. Emotional, bigoted people, who were hurt by what Mulroney was doing, spilled over in to our new Party. Being in Ontario, as an original Reformer was tough going but we were making headway. By 1993, the PC's were a spent corrupt force. We fought the fight to get back to the roots of true conservatism and they got what was coming to them. Decimated to 2 seats in the commons. We, in the Reform, were making inroads. Our biggest problem then became the Ottawa Press Gallery, controlled by Liberal hacks who wanted to keep the status quo. That war is still being fought today. Fast-forward to the PC and Alliance merger. Stephen Harper, a former Reform MP was now the undisputed leader of the new Conservative Party. Many of the Progressives were purged and many true Conservative values were restored to the Party. We had not had a Conservative candidate since the time of John Diefenbaker. Finally, a chance for Canadians to have a defined choice. We got our minority government, and a chance to show Canadians that we could run the country and need not be on bended knee to big business or the elites that had run Canada since the beginning of the 1980's. It's now 2007 and I think Canadians should give Stephen Harper the opportunity to run this country with a majority. The Liberals? They need to go away for a few years, purge the old guard completely and rebuild from the ruins, like many true Conservatives did. They need to re-establish their ideology and realize what Liberalism really is. What they are practicing right now is not real Liberalism. Until they can re-establish what it is to be a Liberal, then they need to stay out of power until this can be defined. Interesting story and thank you for sharing it. Where I take exception to most of your comments is, frankly their dishonesty. Are you now prepared to admit that it was NOT the Liberals who built up massive debts and introduced and even publicly bragged about corruption, but the conservatives, which was my claim. Will you not acknowledge that it was the liberals under Nobel leader Pearson, (who picked Trudeau as I recall) who introduced the national health plan in Canada and the national pension plans? All dirty things to conservatives. Will you not admit finally that while Martin was indeed downloading and desperately trying to balace the books, Preston Manning was all the while calling for deeper and nastier cuts. It's hypocritical to criticize him as a conservative. An NDP'er yes, but not a right winger. Wasn't Harper carefully groomed by the right wing of the Alberta provincial government, that same govenment that has been trying to undermine the Canada Health Act in the interests of his cororate pals? Has he never read the Harvard study comparing the delivery of health services in Canada and the US. Guess where you really don't want to get sick? You fail to address the issues of right wing conservative madness in the US, world destabilizing madness from your comrades in arms. See how lovely a country you can enjoy with no gun laws, in one of the most dangerous countries in the western world. The place is just sick, and the corruption of government and democracy there, including fixed ballots is truly world class. Monstrous deficits, and of course, like Harper, like Bush, like Harris ...tax benefits for the wealthy. Liberals advance abortion and homosexual behaviours. In truth the forces behind these cultural ills that benefit no one lie with an entire culture that has become a society of "consumers', things that use things up. It was Trudeau who introduced the first abortion enabling legislation, a truly terrible choice, but I highly doubt that he had any idea what a horrible floodgate would open, but sought perhaps, again ill-advisely to deal with actual medical exigencies. Notwithstanding these serious ills whose repercussions will be felt throughout human history, liberals generally know what they are looking to accomplish, econonomic market rational planning with the goal of a just society of citizens who aren't at each other's throat with a perverse Nazi ethic of survival of the fiitest. This Darwinian ethic was perversely inculcated in the universities of Germany for 70 years before the implementation of the eugenic policies. These dehumanized secular ideologies leaned heavily on and stirred the far right, the moral relativists, the fascists. I just want you to get honest. As to Liberal values vis-a-vis their identity, unlike right wing conservatives who are laissez-faire capitalists, the guys who brought us the depression of 1929, liberals seek to instantiate some justice and compassion for their fellow man, not the deluded indifference of dog eat dog survivalism. Right wing govenments the world over sow grief and misery where they appear, and societies are right to reject their strident calls to selfishness.
|
|