|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 13, 2006 21:05:26 GMT -5
You are becoming an apologist, for the Chretien Liberals. The question was: What government policy did Chretien ever introduce that was of benefit to Canadians? What is there to show for 13 years of Liberal government? I sure don't want to make a list of what bad things they did, because it would first take me at least an hour and I want my hands to be able to function, after typing out the long list of indiscretions that these thieves foisted on the people of Canada. And people want them back in power? Just goes to show how forgetful? Blind? Ignorant? Stupid? that many of the electorate are. Then there are those you can't reason with, because they are not objective and have been brainwashed into believing that they have to vote for them, because Daddy voted for them. The record, is the record and if you put it on an objective scale, these people need a long holiday from power, until they wash the stench of entitlement away. Right wingers are ideologues. Dangerous ideologues. Look to the south to see the greed and corruption and international warfare that right wingers stand for. They lack conscience. They lack concern for their fellow man. The live on fear, not advancement. They are moralistic, not moral. They moralize. The NRA comes into town afrer Comumbine and speaks against gun laws. Monsters. Canadians are not the blind, stupid idiots you have to imagine them to be for rejecting the right rump of the conservative agenda. Capital punishment? Come on. Become a human. Right wing capitalism? Come on. Become a human. Canadians know that the conservatives are just about.....themselves....that they couldn't care less about anyone else. They love money and kiss butt to the powerful, the oil industry, the arms ,makers, the HMO's the Insurance money. Corruption as ideology. The minor corruptions of Guite, and ad agencies is nothing compared to and international war, complete with all the sappy pictures and crocadile tears for "our boys over there" fighting for "freedom". It borders on sacrelege. If you care about your armed forces, which they don't...they just want a bunch of other guys to carry guns for them to further financial interests....if they cared, they wouldn't send them to their deaths in a phony war. I have not forgotten that Ignatief and Martin were sucking on the same teat, but that does not exhonerate the right wing sociopaths who broght this godawful reality into being. Tens of thousands of people are paying of the lie.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 13, 2006 22:19:26 GMT -5
You keep refering to the United States. We are not the United States, we are Canada and there is no link between the Conservative Party Of Canada, and the Republican Party Of America. You want to link the two, just like a good cool-aid drinking Liberal. It is what it is. The Conservatives have done a good job in their first year on the job. The Liberals were just a bunch of corrupt thieves, That is what you want us to go back to. Not!
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 14, 2006 1:33:55 GMT -5
Most jobs attract people who fit them well. That's why you won't find much altruism in the car dealership business, much honesty in the litigation business, much in the way of ethics in real estate, and much backbone in politics. Give a political party enough time in office and they'll turn into the "Liberals". Its the nature of the beast and has little to do with the people involved. I know of some good people who have gone into politics and it's really hard for them to stay good.
Having said that, there's no excuse for M. Bush. Why just half the voting American public wants to follow a guy like him is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 14, 2006 6:46:23 GMT -5
If you care about your armed forces, which they don't...they just want a bunch of other guys to carry guns for them to further financial interests....if they cared, they wouldn't send them to their deaths in a phony war. I have not forgotten that Ignatief and Martin were sucking on the same teat, but that does not exhonerate the right wing sociopaths who broght this godawful reality into being. Tens of thousands of people are paying of the lie. Why do you neglect the fact that the Liberals were the ones that sent our boys over to Afghanistan? Their role may have been different but we were there .... and being there put them in harm's way. I'd rather they be there fighting (so they be on high alert), then being over there as a peacekeeping force being blown to pieces everytime they try to help someone.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 14, 2006 8:44:05 GMT -5
You keep refering to the United States. We are not the United States, we are Canada and there is no link between the Conservative Party Of Canada, and the Republican Party Of America. PM Harper's approach to business was starting to look like the American President's method. He was front and centre of all press conferences with the minister responsible for the portfolio assuming a passive posture in behind the PM. This was picked up by the press almost immediately and it soon became a political issue. However, I think he realized the experiment didn't work and has gone back to giving his ministers their 'air time.' Harper p*ssed me off a few times but I think his government has done a pretty good job nonetheless. It will be extremely difficult for me to go back to the Liberals after Adscam. There was no high-end control over the funds and I still can't understand how Martin could not have known about it given his portfolio at the time. The internal bickering between Chretien and Martin left the party divided. Both were more concerned about consolidating their camps than they were about governing the country. At one point, Chretien was being continually blindsided by his ministers and would only hear what they had said to the press the next day in the news. But, I have to admit, Martin was probably one of our best finance minister's in many years. He got a grip on defecit and balanced the books at a time when our national finances were at a point where it could have brought down the country. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 14, 2006 10:27:21 GMT -5
It will be extremely difficult for me to go back to the Liberals after Adscam. There was no high-end control over the funds and I still can't understand how Martin could not have known about it given his portfolio at the time. Canadians, by and large, will tar and feather an entire party for the sins of a few. Perhaps not entirely prudent....but smaller country (population-wise) I guess. Word gets around faster. And we hold people accountable. Good on us, in the long run. Adscam was in the range of $100 million, correct? In contrast--Americans, by and large, are either not bothered by such things, too busy to care, or easily hoodwinked. The U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) headed by Paul Bremer to oversee Iraq after the initial phase of the invasion....could not and has not ever been able to account for $9 billion of US taxpayer money. 9 billion dollars, unaccounted for! How many people know that? It made CNN news...but caused nary a ripple. edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/Not to mention the estimated $350+ billion dollars (and needless loss of life on both sides) the Iraq invasion has cost so far...with no end in sight. Yet, Bush got re-elected on the strategy of Karl Rove who made the key issues: same-sex marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research. Good ol' Bible-thumpers....who would rather waste money and human life on an illegal invasion than have "God" be mad at them for going against the Word. Apparenty, they've skipped over the "thou shall not kill" or "not bear false witness against thy neighbor" parts. But they've certainly highlighted that "eye-for-an-eye" passage. Another example of this "moralistic paradox" that seems to exist south of the 49th. They made more fuss out of Clinton's lip service in the oval offfice than they did about Bush's initial and on-going mismanagement of Katrina's aftermath. It's still not right down in the Big Easy....far from it. Not more than two weeks after the hurricane hit...here's what 10-term Rep. from Baton Rouge, Richard Baker was overheard telling lobbyists: "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."
Baker issued a lengthy statement saying he was "taken aback" by the Journal's brief item. "What I remember expressing, in a private conversation with a housing advocate and member of my staff, was that 'We have been trying for decades to clean up New Orleans public housing to provide decent housing for residents, and now it looks like God is finally making us do it,' " Baker wrote. Yeah, that's how God works. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090901930.htmlYet the media goes ga-ga-goo-goo because the Louisiana Superdome is fixed... The Superdome cost $186 million to repair and refurbish, which was a cause for controversy among those who felt that it shouldn't receive priority over hospitals, schools and essential state buildings. To repair the Superdome, FEMA put up $115 million, the state spent $13 million, the Louisiana Stadium & Expedition District refinanced a bond package to secure $41 million and the NFL contributed $15 million... Wikipedia So the Saints are back in action and may even win it all this year. A feel-good story all-around, huh? Meanwhile, how many of those homeless people are back (or will ever be back) in their brand-new decent digs "God made the government " build? I remember when Spike Lee was on Monday Night Football from the Superdome earlier this year. He said things are far from better down there....lots of things to make right yet. Good on him for saying it. I would like to think that none of the above government mismanagement scenarios would ever be tolerated in Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 14, 2006 11:52:09 GMT -5
It will be extremely difficult for me to go back to the Liberals after Adscam. There was no high-end control over the funds and I still can't understand how Martin could not have known about it given his portfolio at the time. Not trying to "dis" you personally, Dis.....but Canadians, by and large, will tar and feather an entire party for the sins of a few. Smaller country (population-wise) I guess. Word gets around faster. Wouldn't worry about 'dissing' me my friend. We have to get all of the cards on the table, all perspectives out in the open. As soon as we stop doing this, things will fail to work. Thanks CH. By comparison Adscam is definitely a grain of sand. However, as princelh pointed out, we shouldn't compare ourselves with the USA. But, I know where you're going I think. These campaign issues are similar to the same issues being debated in Canada. That "Good old Bible-thumping America" was subject to the same vetted intelligence reports the rest of the world was. Bush owes this ultraconservative lobby a great deal for his re-election. However, he also owes them some explanations as well. When things go badly everyone and their dog will look for the most minute points possible so as to keep the ship sinking. These comments, while ill-timed, poorly thought out and inappropriate, are indicative of the off-the-cuff comments politicians use when in private. Check out: Oops! A Blunt Canadian on NATO (Chretien commenting on Clinton's election tactics), or even ... MacKay refers to Stronach as a dog (recent story). Now, don't get me wrong, this in no way excuses any of these comments; people have to be held accountable for their actions. But, in each case all that happened was they got caught saying what they did. And, consistent to the end, we see the opposition opportunists sieze any chance they get to make themselves look good, or make the other side look bad. Yeah, I imagine George W. would like to have that one back. Don't know why he was so passive on this one though. And, like you say, good on Spike Lee. I don't know if Lee actually went down to New Orleans or not in the aftermath of Katrina. I hope he didn't because like a few of his celebrity ilk, he would have been in the way (see Oprah Winfrey or Sean Penn). Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 14, 2006 13:31:50 GMT -5
That "Good old Bible-thumping America" was subject to the same vetted intelligence reports the rest of the world was. Bush owes this ultraconservative lobby a great deal for his re-election. However, he also owes them some explanations as well. When you were replying, I was editing the beginning of my post...I wasn't worried about dissing anybody.... But don't forget....there were no intelligence reports. The Weapons of Mass Destruction scenario was pieced together by the Bush Adminstration after the head U.S. counter-terror advisor, Richard Clarke, couldn't find a link between Saddam and 9/11....even though he was basically "ordered" to do so by Bush himself. He spells it all out in his book, "Against All Enemies". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_All_EnemiesIt's an invasion based on lies fuelled by the hegemonic ambition of the Bush administration...and they're abusing their armed forces and exhausting the economy to accomplish their goals. They should still be in Afghanistan, finishing what they started....cleaning up a terrorist sanctuary....instead of in Iraq...creating a whole new generation of them. The Iraqi people know that they had nothing to do with 9/11. They see how Bush's reasons for the invasion keep morphing to legitimize the continuance. They sense, and rightly so, that their resources and their very country is at stake. Wouldn't you fight back too?
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 14, 2006 22:17:47 GMT -5
If you care about your armed forces, which they don't...they just want a bunch of other guys to carry guns for them to further financial interests....if they cared, they wouldn't send them to their deaths in a phony war. I have not forgotten that Ignatief and Martin were sucking on the same teat, but that does not exhonerate the right wing sociopaths who broght this godawful reality into being. Tens of thousands of people are paying of the lie. Why do you neglect the fact that the Liberals were the ones that sent our boys over to Afghanistan? Their role may have been different but we were there .... and being there put them in harm's way. I'd rather they be there fighting (so they be on high alert), then being over there as a peacekeeping force being blown to pieces everytime they try to help someone. I think that we were absolutely correct in sending our troops to Afghanistan, and our troops are a fine example of what Canadian troops, always amongst the best in the world, can accomplish in the most trying circumstances. Iraq on the other hand was and is an international disgrace, a travesty of international justice and a blow against both international law and democracy. Bush should be impeached for high crimes, perhaps including treason.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 14, 2006 22:29:36 GMT -5
You keep refering to the United States. We are not the United States, we are Canada and there is no link between the Conservative Party Of Canada, and the Republican Party Of America. You want to link the two, just like a good cool-aid drinking Liberal. It is what it is. The Conservatives have done a good job in their first year on the job. The Liberals were just a bunch of corrupt thieves, That is what you want us to go back to. Not! I don't claim that all conservatives are undereducated right wing whackjobs of little or no moral sense, because its simply not so. You seem to have an aversion to fact, and prefer the less than accurate view. Chretien invited the RCMP to investigate corruption allegations and Martin CALLED the inquiry. Just as I seldom say that ALL conservatives are stupid and selfish, maybe as an exercise in honesty, you could practice truthtelling and stop claiming that ALL liberals are thieves. I don't mind a little stupid talk every now and then, and do a little of it myself, but, unless maybe you're a teenager or something and not open to moral arguments, maybe you could try this. Do you honestly want to maintain that there are no parallels to be made between the Levi Strauss right wing neocons in the white house, and the Levi Strauss neocons of the right wing form Alberta. You must really think I'm stupid. Why would you even attempt such deception? Why do you constantly attempt deception? As John Kenneth Galbraith observed, conservative apologists have the unhappy job of trying to make selfishness appear as something else.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 14, 2006 22:45:53 GMT -5
It will be extremely difficult for me to go back to the Liberals after Adscam. There was no high-end control over the funds and I still can't understand how Martin could not have known about it given his portfolio at the time. Canadians, by and large, will tar and feather an entire party for the sins of a few. Perhaps not entirely prudent....but smaller country (population-wise) I guess. Word gets around faster. And we hold people accountable. Good on us, in the long run. Adscam was in the range of $100 million, correct? In contrast--Americans, by and large, are either not bothered by such things, too busy to care, or easily hoodwinked. The U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) headed by Paul Bremer to oversee Iraq after the initial phase of the invasion....could not and has not ever been able to account for $9 billion of US taxpayer money. 9 billion dollars, unaccounted for! How many people know that? It made CNN news...but caused nary a ripple. edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/Not to mention the estimated $350+ billion dollars (and needless loss of life on both sides) the Iraq invasion has cost so far...with no end in sight. Yet, Bush got re-elected on the strategy of Karl Rove who made the key issues: same-sex marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research. Good ol' Bible-thumpers....who would rather waste money and human life on an illegal invasion than have "God" be mad at them for going against the Word. Apparenty, they've skipped over the "thou shall not kill" or "not bear false witness against thy neighbor" parts. But they've certainly highlighted that "eye-for-an-eye" passage. Another example of this "moralistic paradox" that seems to exist south of the 49th. They made more fuss out of Clinton's lip service in the oval offfice than they did about Bush's initial and on-going mismanagement of Katrina's aftermath. It's still not right down in the Big Easy....far from it. Not more than two weeks after the hurricane hit...here's what 10-term Rep. from Baton Rouge, Richard Baker was overheard telling lobbyists: "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."
Baker issued a lengthy statement saying he was "taken aback" by the Journal's brief item. "What I remember expressing, in a private conversation with a housing advocate and member of my staff, was that 'We have been trying for decades to clean up New Orleans public housing to provide decent housing for residents, and now it looks like God is finally making us do it,' " Baker wrote. Yeah, that's how God works. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090901930.htmlYet the media goes ga-ga-goo-goo because the Louisiana Superdome is fixed... The Superdome cost $186 million to repair and refurbish, which was a cause for controversy among those who felt that it shouldn't receive priority over hospitals, schools and essential state buildings. To repair the Superdome, FEMA put up $115 million, the state spent $13 million, the Louisiana Stadium & Expedition District refinanced a bond package to secure $41 million and the NFL contributed $15 million... Wikipedia So the Saints are back in action and may even win it all this year. A feel-good story all-around, huh? Meanwhile, how many of those homeless people are back (or will ever be back) in their brand-new decent digs "God made the government " build? I remember when Spike Lee was on Monday Night Football from the Superdome earlier this year. He said things are far from better down there....lots of things to make right yet. Good on him for saying it. I would like to think that none of the above government mismanagement scenarios would ever be tolerated in Canada. Interesting stats. Cheney's company got a chunk of the 9 Billion I believe. I think the whole of North American "culture" has become a lot like Rome in its corrupt final days. Like the "social conservatives". I too oppose abortion as the unjust killing of a human being, and know male spermoatzoa is a cell rupruing and invacing cell with immunosuppressants that renders certain male sex acts utterly counterindicated and destructive. No friend of men attracted sexually to other men can possibly recommend such acts, and as there is no "gay gene" and there are successful psychological treatments for the behaviour, there is no ground for accepting the behaviour. And too I am REALLY opposed to embryonic stem cell research on the grounds of basic human rights along with the fact that almost all progress in the field comes from adult and /or morally acceptable practice and research. It is also definitely the case that if I were not a practicing (and believe me it takes a lot of practice : I would indeed not be as notably, (or boringly) focused on these issues. My answer to the implicit question is that they are not in the least trivial. They are fundamental to human justice and human existence. I would be a coward not to stand up, just like many white Americans stood up for the oppressed in the US. One final note, the press presents Catholics as hating homosexually attracted persons. That's generally pure bullship. That said, opposing abortion while doing nothing about vast segments of one's population having no health insurance is not being prolife or "Christian". Not siding with the poor is not siding with Christ. Stopping the world to prosecute a blowjobb is immoral. An unjust war is about as morally and criminally irresponsible as one can hope to imagine. God bless Chretien for having the cojones to stand up against the bully and his Canadian pals who think so highly of him. And as a fitting adendum. Martin and Blair both sucked up to the lie.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 14, 2006 23:02:40 GMT -5
Why do you neglect the fact that the Liberals were the ones that sent our boys over to Afghanistan? Their role may have been different but we were there .... and being there put them in harm's way. I'd rather they be there fighting (so they be on high alert), then being over there as a peacekeeping force being blown to pieces everytime they try to help someone. I think that we were absolutely correct in sending our troops to Afghanistan, and our troops are a fine example of what Canadian troops, always amongst the best in the world, can accomplish in the most trying circumstances. Iraq on the other hand was and is an international disgrace, a travesty of international justice and a blow against both international law and democracy. Bush should be impeached for high crimes, perhaps including treason. Now you are changing the subject. You spoke of the conservative not caring about the armed forces and getting them involved in a phony war. The only "phony" war is Iraq ... and Canada wasn't in Iraq. Stop comparing US policies with Canadian and confusing them for being one and the same. The only war Canada is in is Afghanistan ..... which we were sent over as merely moderators by the Liberals, and increased to leaders of men under the Conservatives, and you have stated you support this war. Hmmmm a pro-lifer supporting a war? Now that is a convergence of diverging viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 14, 2006 23:09:40 GMT -5
You seem to have an aversion to fact, and prefer the less than accurate view. Chretien invited the RCMP to investigate corruption allegations and Martin CALLED the inquiry. Come now. Chretien invited the RCMP to investiagte only when the house of cards was about to fall ... and he fought the Inquiry tooth and nail. How long I wonder did he sit on the AG's findings? Martin pleaded ignorance saying as Finance Minister he didn't know where or how money is spent? He knows where the hundreds of millions of surplus came from and how to spend it, but he can't account for this 100 million , how convenient for him.... an obvious blatant lie. And the Canadian people spoke and as a wise man once said ... "Mr.Martin - No Soup for You!"
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 14, 2006 23:23:10 GMT -5
I think that we were absolutely correct in sending our troops to Afghanistan, and our troops are a fine example of what Canadian troops, always amongst the best in the world, can accomplish in the most trying circumstances. Iraq on the other hand was and is an international disgrace, a travesty of international justice and a blow against both international law and democracy. Bush should be impeached for high crimes, perhaps including treason. Now you are changing the subject. You spoke of the conservative not caring about the armed forces and getting them involved in a phony war. The only "phony" war is Iraq ... and Canada wasn't in Iraq. Stop comparing US policies with Canadian and confusing them for being one and the same. The only war Canada is in is Afghanistan ..... which we were sent over as merely moderators by the Liberals, and increased to leaders of men under the Conservatives, and you have stated you support this war. Hmmmm a pro-lifer supporting a war? Now that is a convergence of diverging viewpoints. I'm not changing the subject and am fully aware that it was the same Liberals who opposed Iraq who went in...with my full approval ...to Afghanistan. I spoke of Harper and the rights pressuring the Liberals to join in on the Bush family war in Iraq. That's not caring for soliders. I don't believe right wingers give much of a damn about much other than their money. They want a properly equipped army, not because they give a sweet ship about soldiers (Iraq), but because they want to climb into their gated communities and have the poor SOB's die for them. They love their military alright, just like they love and care for guns. It has absolutely nothing or precious little to do with concern for soldiers. As to a prolifer supporting war, what should I find wrong with a nation protecting itself from unjust agression. Abortion, a crime against humanity, like killing Jews, is just that, an unjust agression on the person of another. It's soomething people do and something people keep silent about. A just war is just that, just. You'd have been really pi$$ed to see me in a hockey fight. That said, saints are saints, and the so called evangelical counsels, vows many priests and nuns takes call to poverty, chastity and obedience, and some of these folks like Thomas Moore could really turn a cheek. Other prolifers like Jeanne d'Arc believed in enforcing justice. Catholic morality is built upon natural law (as all sane law must be).
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 14, 2006 23:41:34 GMT -5
You seem to have an aversion to fact, and prefer the less than accurate view. Chretien invited the RCMP to investigate corruption allegations and Martin CALLED the inquiry. Come now. Chretien invited the RCMP to investiagte only when the house of cards was about to fall ... and he fought the Inquiry tooth and nail. How long I wonder did he sit on the AG's findings? Martin pleaded ignorance saying as Finance Minister he didn't know where or how money is spent? He knows where the hundreds of millions of surplus came from and how to spend it, but he can't account for this 100 million , how convenient for him.... an obvious blatant lie. And the Canadian people spoke and as a wise man once said ... "Mr.Martin - No Soup for You!" "No soup for you". Heh heh I like that expression. I quite agree that Chretien probably had lots of regrets concerning calling in the RCMP. Who woudn't, given the mess, but he did in fact do it and call for any crimes to be punished according to the law, and I further agree that my stating his action above as I did, was too unnuanced, but none of us know his state of soul. As to Martin and the Quebec scandal, I believe he called an inquiry to present himself for whatever reason as clean and forthright and calling it was the clean and forthright thing to do, whatever the motive. Whether he had knowledge or an inkling of the goings on, I don't know, but he was not close to the PMO and staff, and Ministers of Finance have nothing to do with auditing, supply and services receipts. I honestly don't know how much he knew. I think there was some 150 million or so that was reviewed, but wasn't the clear abuse ammount about 14 million? That's an impression I have, not a clear memory. I detested Martin's using abortion as a marketing tool, as Democrats do in the US and many Conservatives do as well. It is one thing for MP's to shut up and sidestep issues they want to avoid, but quite another to use dead infants to rally votes. That made my skin crawl.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 15, 2006 0:13:12 GMT -5
I hate that word neo-conservative. It reminds me of Islamic Fundamentalist, Christian Fundamentalist, etc. It is a word that means to the very end result of the ideology. Many of the Neo-cons, could just as easily be Neo-libs. I'm sure there are such people. Personally, I describe myself as a true Conservative thinker, with the idea of fairness for all and no special status for special interest. What galls me about the Liberals, is their current status as the party of central Canadian establishment. I had hoped that the Liberals would return to what a Liberal should be, for fairness, equality and justice for all. Somewhere they lost that and are just another arm of the big establishment,who wish to socially engineer the electorate of this country. A question that I want to ask these ideologues, that will piss many off, here and everywhere, but is a valid question.
In the mid 1960's, the ethnic make up of North America, was 83 percent white, 9 percent black and the rest native and other visible minorities. Most people lived in harmony, with similar religious and ethnic backgrounds. I want to know who's idea it was to introduced a new standard of immigration, that changed the ethnic makeup of North America. By changing immigration patterns from European background, to those from Asia and Southern/Central America. We now have a huge ethnic problem here in North America. While the white population has started to decline, other cultures and religions are advancing at an alarming rate. Whoever decided for this to happened, has put North America on the road to civil strife. We are already seeing it in the southwestern states with 13 million illegal immigrants in the United States and thousands more trying to get in. Our standard of living is going to drop as the problem gets worse.
Was this a mistake? Or was this an idea foisted on the public to divide the people and allow business to get a handle on controlling the electorate, by pitting one ethnic group against another? Do new visible minorities spend more of their earned capital, than those of European extraction and is this why they did this to the older generational North Americans? Is this why the politically correct, secularists, try to destroy Christian symbols, while promoting more diverse religious freedoms for newcomers? Why are we allowing these people to do this? Why do we get on our knees and swallow? Have we drifted into irrelevance? It looks more that way, every day!
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 15, 2006 0:41:27 GMT -5
I hate that word neo-conservative. It reminds me of Islamic Fundamentalist, Christian Fundamentalist, etc. It is a word that means to the very end result of the ideology. Many of the Neo-cons, could just as easily be Neo-libs. I'm sure there are such people. Personally, I describe myself as a true Conservative thinker, with the idea of fairness for all and no special status for special interest. What galls me about the Liberals, is their current status as the party of central Canadian establishment. I had hoped that the Liberals would return to what a Liberal should be, for fairness, equality and justice for all. Somewhere they lost that and are just another arm of the big establishment,who wish to socially engineer the electorate of this country. A question that I want to ask these ideologues, that will piss many off, here and everywhere, but is a valid question. In the mid 1960's, the ethnic make up of North America, was 83 percent white, 9 percent black and the rest native and other visible minorities. Most people lived in harmony, with similar religious and ethnic backgrounds. I want to know who's idea it was to introduced a new standard of immigration, that changed the ethnic makeup of North America. By changing immigration patterns from European background, to those from Asia and Southern/Central America. We now have a huge ethnic problem here in North America. While the white population has started to decline, other cultures and religions are advancing at an alarming rate. Whoever decided for this to happened, has put North America on the road to civil strife. We are already seeing it in the southwestern states with 13 million illegal immigrants in the United States and thousands more trying to get in. Our standard of living is going to drop as the problem gets worse. Was this a mistake? Or was this an idea foisted on the public to divide the people and allow business to get a handle on controlling the electorate, by pitting one ethnic group against another? Do new visible minorities spend more of their earned capital, than those of European extraction and is this why they did this to the older generational North Americans? Is this why the politically correct, secularists, try to destroy Christian symbols, while promoting more diverse religious freedoms for newcomers? Why are we allowing these people to do this? Why do we get on our knees and swallow? Have we drifted into irrelevance? It looks more that way, every day! Neocons are scary. I agree. The idea of the self-made man is a masturbatory fantasy. (That phrase didn't really belong there, but I really liked it when I wrote it a yaer ago, and it has the virtue of being true) On immigration, I think all three parties recognized that only immigration could keep the country going. I read the other day that 44 Million Americans have been aborted in the last few decades. We of the European extraction are indeed fading into the mists of time. Italy will be an Islamic country by 2050. Pope Benedict XVI is directly calling Europeans to rediscover themselves while they can. Many think its already too late. We are disconnected. In the address he gave to academics that resulted in furor, he addressed the point that God in the west was a God of REASON, while Islam focuses upon the WILL of God, and sees reason as somehow and attempt at limiting the WIll of GOD. The pope's point is that God IS reason, and can only will what is reasonable. Accordingly, reason is the way of man, the way of God. The west has lost its reason. Immigration and integration with all the unavoidable tension, is very much an inevitable function of the jet plane. Everything that rises must converge. It is the future, though there may be not many of European descent in futureworld.
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Dec 15, 2006 10:02:49 GMT -5
In the mid 1960's, the ethnic make up of North America, was 83 percent white, 9 percent black and the rest native and other visible minorities. Most people lived in harmony, with similar religious and ethnic backgrounds. I want to know who's idea it was to introduced a new standard of immigration, that changed the ethnic makeup of North America. By changing immigration patterns from European background, to those from Asia and Southern/Central America. We now have a huge ethnic problem here in North America. While the white population has started to decline, other cultures and religions are advancing at an alarming rate. Whoever decided for this to happened, has put North America on the road to civil strife. We are already seeing it in the southwestern states with 13 million illegal immigrants in the United States and thousands more trying to get in. Our standard of living is going to drop as the problem gets worse. Code of Conduct Post THE RULES: 7. Please refrain from sweeping, or general comments about race, nationality, religion, language or political affiliations. The members of our community come from all walks of life, from all continents, religions and languages. We have blacks, whites, French, English, federalists and separatists. We even have Leafs fans. If you absolutely feel the need to insult or put down any group for any reason, you must do so in a humorous tone, and you must make sure that everyone knows you are being humorous. We have smiley faces for this very reason. If you are not very good at making jokes, then we suggest that you not make them. At all times, jokes of a sexual, racial or vulgar manner will not be tolerated. No exceptions. Many people like to read this board with their children. Keep that in mind when telling the joke “about the blond, the boss, and those funny carpet stains.” Johnny....this afternoon....in my office. CO
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 15, 2006 11:05:03 GMT -5
In the mid 1960's, the ethnic make up of North America, was 83 percent white, 9 percent black and the rest native and other visible minorities. Most people lived in harmony, with similar religious and ethnic backgrounds. In the mid 1690's the ethnic make up of North America, was 0 percent white, 0 percent black, and the rest native. So do the indigenous people of this land. First Nations (first settlers, really) were not in favour/did not have a say in the immigration . . . err colonization policies of white European "visitors". The immigration of foreigners non- white European settlers was fine when inexpensive labourers were needed for fairly risky ventures (railroads, etc). Now that the land is settled/has been tamed for us we should erect huge "KEEP OUT" signs? I think not! That smacks of xenophobia to me (and I am usually quite hesitant to throw around the phobia label. Interestingly enough, our "culture" is not starting to decline because of immigration -- it is because [no proof for this; based on opinion only] the Canadian culture is so shallow that there is nothing to it. Ask people to define what a Canadian is and they'll say something along the lines of "not an American". That's our crowning glory? Sheesh! Many immigrants are more (I use the word advisedly -- stronger is more accurate) Christian than long-time Canadian Christians. Their Christianity is based on commitment -- ours is based on tradition ("my grandparents and parents were church-goers; I may not be but I am a Christian"). The other thing about Canada is that we embrace democracy, which allows open discussion and debate amongst different peoples and ideas -- and even encourages it. Which allows proselytization by Muslims and Hindus as well as by JWs and traditional Christians. Why are mainline churches disappearing? Because even though they may proselytize (share the faith) many don't embrace the faith but the church -- and only do that half-heartedly. The North American religion of mammon has overtaken even those in the church. Immigrants bring their culture and their faith with them, and believe in what they bring. Don't worry, though . . . in a couple of generations they'll have bought into the religion of their new land. Those illegals have been invited: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" The US promises "the good life". Mexicans want a decent life. And it isn't as if those who sneak across the US/Mexican border can't find work. Rail all you want against them, but they are scrubbing toilets and washing dishes -- jobs that "regular" citizens just won't do. Give them Green Cards. Make them citizens. Allow them to pay taxes. But it will mean that those good 'Murikins will have to pay a decent wage. Fat chance. So as much as Californians might complain about illegal immigration, it is a necessary part of their economic system. Actually, it won't. Immigrants eat, buy houses, rent movies . . . keep our economy going. Some of them are even decent workers and might even be decent people!
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 15, 2006 11:18:09 GMT -5
In the mid 1690's the ethnic make up of North America, was 0 percent white, 0 percent black, and the rest native. I am going to have to bring you in for your "Newfie sensitivity" refresher course. And you were doing so good too. Its one thing when Canada ends in Halifax, but now we aren't even part of North America? Newfoundland was discovered in 1492 .... and settled long before 1690.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 15, 2006 12:15:23 GMT -5
In the mid 1690's the ethnic make up of North America, was 0 percent white, 0 percent black, and the rest native. I am going to have to bring you in for your "Newfie sensitivity" refresher course. And you were doing so good too. Its one thing when Canada ends in Halifax, but now we aren't even part of North America? Newfoundland was discovered in 1492 .... and settled long before 1690. My apologies: shall we say "In the mid 1690's the ethnic make up of North America, was 1 percent white, 0 percent black, and the rest native." ;D Actually, I only used the year 1690 in transposition of the prince's 1960. I was in the midst of replying to you when I suffered the indignity of a computer crash (thanks, MicroSoft) and now I can't find the site that listed a "permanent" population of about 2,600 people on Newfoundland during the 1700s (those who lived on the Rock discovered it was "fish or die"; those who could left for Europe when they could [managers, captains, etc, leaving the 600 men with wives and children that braved the winters]). So maybe an equal number of Beothuk and Europeans at the beginning. We often think of North America being what is now Canada and the US, but forget/ignore Mexico. According to this (and who knows how right it is), The indigenous population of Mexico, for example, was more than 17 million when the Europeans landed in 1519 , but it had dropped to 750,000 by 1630 . . . Scholars estimate that on average the population of a Native American people dropped 90 percent in the first century of European contact with them.
The European prosperity in the Americas was achieved at horrendous expense for the millions of Native Americans who died and for the millions of Africans who were enslavedThe point: the cultural makeup of "our" land has been in flux since the beginning -- and it didn't start out full of "middle aged white bald guys" (not that there's anything wrong with that).
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 15, 2006 19:40:13 GMT -5
I dont doubt your numbers franko ... there wasn't many white people in Newfoundland in the 1600's. Most returned to Europe after the fishing season.
But the french did settle in Placentia around early to mid 1600's ... and after 1713(?) were banned from settling here after the English won control over Newfoundland. The first English colony was in the Cupids area and that was around 1610 when John Guy colonized Cupid's Cove. The early settlers of Newfoundland in the 1650's did most of their trading with New Englanders, so there was settlements in America as well. (The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock circa 1620 (?) )
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 15, 2006 22:04:09 GMT -5
In the mid 1960's, the ethnic make up of North America, was 83 percent white, 9 percent black and the rest native and other visible minorities. Most people lived in harmony, with similar religious and ethnic backgrounds. In the mid 1690's the ethnic make up of North America, was 0 percent white, 0 percent black, and the rest native. So do the indigenous people of this land. First Nations (first settlers, really) were not in favour/did not have a say in the immigration . . . err colonization policies of white European "visitors". The immigration of foreigners non- white European settlers was fine when inexpensive labourers were needed for fairly risky ventures (railroads, etc). Now that the land is settled/has been tamed for us we should erect huge "KEEP OUT" signs? I think not! That smacks of xenophobia to me (and I am usually quite hesitant to throw around the phobia label. Interestingly enough, our "culture" is not starting to decline because of immigration -- it is because [no proof for this; based on opinion only] the Canadian culture is so shallow that there is nothing to it. Ask people to define what a Canadian is and they'll say something along the lines of "not an American". That's our crowning glory? Sheesh! Many immigrants are more (I use the word advisedly -- stronger is more accurate) Christian than long-time Canadian Christians. Their Christianity is based on commitment -- ours is based on tradition ("my grandparents and parents were church-goers; I may not be but I am a Christian"). The other thing about Canada is that we embrace democracy, which allows open discussion and debate amongst different peoples and ideas -- and even encourages it. Which allows proselytization by Muslims and Hindus as well as by JWs and traditional Christians. Why are mainline churches disappearing? Because even though they may proselytize (share the faith) many don't embrace the faith but the church -- and only do that half-heartedly. The North American religion of mammon has overtaken even those in the church. Immigrants bring their culture and their faith with them, and believe in what they bring. Don't worry, though . . . in a couple of generations they'll have bought into the religion of their new land. Those illegals have been invited: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" The US promises "the good life". Mexicans want a decent life. And it isn't as if those who sneak across the US/Mexican border can't find work. Rail all you want against them, but they are scrubbing toilets and washing dishes -- jobs that "regular" citizens just won't do. Give them Green Cards. Make them citizens. Allow them to pay taxes. But it will mean that those good 'Murikins will have to pay a decent wage. Fat chance. So as much as Californians might complain about illegal immigration, it is a necessary part of their economic system. Actually, it won't. Immigrants eat, buy houses, rent movies . . . keep our economy going. Some of them are even decent workers and might even be decent people! Nice response to what really does typify right wingers in their attitudes towards "aliens". Such an alienating term... His western alienation is of the same ilk. It's a state of soul, and not a happy one, riddled as it is with such fear. It is natural for different races to find each other strange looking, smelling, acting and sounding, and that gives rise to an equally natural discomfort in many circumstances. That is the point where the spiritual, or mental (same thing) principle has to be recalled and given life in the situation. It would be really good for prince to leave off the prince of darkness in this, and consider Jesus's admoniton. when he said we would be judged on such things welcoming a stranger in his name, wherein we welcome Christ or tell him to go to hell. I don't mean to claim I ride a white horse all day incidentally. One card I received one Christmas remains on my fridge. It has a nice traditional picture of a suspiciously anglo saxon-looking Jesus replete with flowing beard et al. The caption inside says "Jesus loves you." on the next page was written "Everybody else thinks you're an a$$hole."
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 15, 2006 22:32:15 GMT -5
My problem is not with the immigrants, but with the big business/elitists who want to control people through economic means. You mentioned cleaning toilets, doing jobs that born here people won't do. Maybe they would if they paid them properly and not expect them to work for starvation wages. If the welfare sect doesn't want to do it, then the welfare sect can go hungry. I still remember the welfare types left behind in New Orleans, after Katrina. Overweight, almost illiterate, many the dregs of society. Cannot these lazy bastards do the jobs of the illegals? Can't big business afford to pay a living wage, instead of looking out for the shareholders? These are the pariah who are to blame, not immigrants. Where I have the problem, is unleashing a different culture and way of life on those who have been here for generations. That to me, is divide and conquer. The Liberals are the Establishment party, in this country, and are the ones that use the immigrant vote against the generational Canadians. Those with older roots who have been here, for hundreds of years, tend to not fear change. This kind of politics, that the Liberal Party Of Canada practices makes me sick! Scare the immigrants to vote Liberal and use the Quebec card to get enough seats to survive. Hence, the need for a Liberal leader from Quebec, to get that handful of seats that makes the difference. To hell with the west and to hell with those who don't believe in the strategy of fear. Harper is scary! Not!!
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 16, 2006 0:32:17 GMT -5
It would be really good for prince to leave off the prince of darkness in this, and consider Jesus's admoniton. when he said we would be judged on such things welcoming a stranger in his name, wherein we welcome Christ or tell him to go to hell. Ten of thousands of American strangers were welcomed into Newfoundland homes on Sept 11, 2001. Many were not welcomed in Jesus' name .... they were welcomed because it was the human thing to do, the right thing to do, but mainly it was just Newfoundlanders being Newfoundlanders. I don't think God looked upon anybody more or less favourably whether it was in Jesus' name or not. This is my problem with religion. One does not have to believe in Jesus, church, or religion to believe in God or do good for their fellow man ... just live the golden rule ...if that isnt good enough to get me through the pearly gates, then i dont want to be in there. Some religions believe there is a quota on who gets in anyway .. and I am sure there are 144,000 (if you believe the JW's) better candidtes than me.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 16, 2006 1:42:32 GMT -5
One does not have to believe in Jesus, church, or religion to believe in God or do good for their fellow man ... just live the golden rule ...if that isnt good enough to get me through the pearly gates, then i dont want to be in there. Amen brother ! I agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 16, 2006 1:48:08 GMT -5
If the welfare sect doesn't want to do it, then the welfare sect can go hungry. I still remember the welfare types left behind in New Orleans, after Katrina. Overweight, almost illiterate, many the dregs of society. Cannot these lazy bastards do the jobs of the illegals? I, for one, am really astonished that you are still allowed to post on this board.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 16, 2006 10:26:20 GMT -5
I, for one, am really astonished that you still believe the Liberal Party Of Canada is the best party for Canadians.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 16, 2006 10:45:25 GMT -5
I, for one, am really astonished that you still believe the Liberal Party Of Canada is the best party for Canadians. Find one post where I said that. And how does your reply, in any way, address my response to your quote I cited?
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 16, 2006 11:48:25 GMT -5
If the welfare sect doesn't want to do it, then the welfare sect can go hungry. I still remember the welfare types left behind in New Orleans, after Katrina. Overweight, almost illiterate, many the dregs of society. Cannot these lazy bastards do the jobs of the illegals? I, for one, am really astonished that you are still allowed to post on this board. The consrvative soul emerges. This is why I generally prefer the Liberals with their faults to the Conservatives who so clearly lean towards fascism. The world has been there, done that.
|
|