# this is gonna piss off Macnut et al



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*this is gonna piss off Macnutt et al - BIG TIME !*

Deal with Left Helps Canada's Liberals in New Poll

Sat April 30, 2005 7:51 AM GMT-04:00

TORONTO (Reuters) - A spending deal with a small left-wing party has boosted support for Canada's beleaguered Liberals, although results from an opinion poll published on *Saturday [Apr. 30] * would still lead to a minority government.

The Liberals, in power since 1993, are struggling to defend themselves against allegations of kickbacks and wasted tax dollars during a campaign in the 1990s to win federal support in the French-speaking province of Quebec.

They have only a minority in Parliament and need support from at least one other party to stay in power.

The *[Liberal]* party garnered support from *32.5* percent of voters in Saturday's poll, compared with *30.5* percent for the opposition *Conservatives* and 19 percent for the Liberals' new political allies, the left-wing New Democratic Party.

On April 11, the same pollsters put support for the Liberals at 25 percent, the lowest level for well over a decade. That compared with 36.2 percent support for the Conservatives and 20.5 percent for the NDP.

"The political alliance between federal Liberals and New Democrats is helping push Prime Minister Paul Martin's government onto the comeback trail," said the Toronto Star, which published the opinion poll by Ekos Research Associates.

"Overall, it seems that most of the dramatic trends witnessed at the beginning of this month have now reversed."

The Toronto Star said the Ekos survey of 1,212 Canadian voters was the first poll since Martin sealed a deal with the NDP that will delay planned corporate tax cuts and boost government spending in return for NDP support for the federal budget.

If the budget is defeated, or if other opposition parties win a vote of no confidence in the government, the government will fall and there will be a new federal election, possibly as early as June.

But the poll shows no party has enough support to guarantee them a majority in Parliament if an election were held now. Pollsters usually say that a party needs some 40 percent public support to get a majority government.

http://www.reuters.ca/locales/c_new...?type=topNews&localeKey=en_CA&storyID=8351626


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Shame on the government for turning the debate towards...<i>policy!</i> 

Shame on them for trying to keep Parliament going...when that's what most of the people want!

Shame on them and the NDP for putting something back towards social programs after a decade of deep cuts and huge surpluses!

  

Seriously...Martin is actually starting to look like a smart politician instead of a deer caught in the headlights. The Libs are by no means sunk.

If the budget passes I wish they would then postpone summer recess so as to clear the order paper, and also encourage Gomery to speed things up a little if possible. (A September report, instead of November.)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You guys let all the rest of us know if you ever manage to figure out what "Liberal Policy" really means, okay? 

If it means that they will actually DO what they claimed thay would do, once elected....then please tell us when that's actually happened.

If it means saying whatever they need to say in order to get elected, then I would suggest that "Liberal Policy" simply means obtaining power and hanging on to it, at ANY cost.

I'm thinking here that some of you are about to fall back into this trap. Again. 

Do try to figure it out eventually. Okay? The country can't handle much more of this waste and theft...not to mention the resurgence of separitist sentiments that the Liberal corruption scandal has caused in Quebec.

You are cheering for the wrong team.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the people are speaking and speaking loudly
you'd better listen


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with iMatt' comments about "Shame on the government for turning the debate towards...policy! Shame on them for trying to keep Parliament going...when that's what most of the people want! Shame on them and the NDP for putting something back towards social programs after a decade of deep cuts and huge surpluses!"

We should hang our heads in shame to have a government that dares to govern when it was elected to do so, and to have fiscally sound social policies. For shame!!

The business of Canada should be business. Life would be far simplier if we had One world view, One party and One leader. Democracy is a sham and we should realize it before it is too late.

We should forget about all this talk of elections and just name Harper the Supreme Leader of Canada, and let him do what he wishes for as long as he lives.

I, for one, request that all my mail be forwarded to the following address:
Re-education Internment Camp #2937
A Cold Day in Hell, NWT
Canada
H0H 0H0


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i don't think i've seen the good Dr. ever so "fired up"

"Welcome to the dark side"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fidel Harper......I like that...sort of......dichotomous..


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Fidel Harper......I like that...sort of......dichotomous..


There you again MacDoc, making me use that nifty new Control+Command+D feature again.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Fidel Harper......I like that...sort of......dichotomous..


I like "_Crime Minister Jean Corruptien_". 

After all...we DO know what the Liberals are capable of when it comes to waste and mismanagement and corruption. Which prompts a clever nickname to fully express that history.

Calling an untried leader ( who has never misspent or stolen a single Canadian tax dollar) nasty names based on fear, and not actual fact, is sort of childish and even a bit "_MACciaDOCkian_".

Don't you think?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

let's have a gander (that's for you Dr. G.) at harper's musings

http://www.stephenharpersaid.ca/

yeah, i know it's a Liberal website, but doesn't make the quotes any less accurate

so macnutt, i assume you would rather be fully involved in the war in Iraq as per Harper's wishes?
even though polls consistently show that over 70% of Canadians are against that war?

war-monger come to mind?

by the way, how many WMDs found in Iraq so far? wasn't that the reason for going into Iraq in the first place?

see? some of us don't forget


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, the Dark Side. The Right Side. The side that wins and makes sure the victory is permanent. Others have tried, but have failed. We, however, shall NOT fail. Victory shall be ours. Let the forces of Good and Justice try to stop our cause. They shall crumble under the might of wealth and power. Power to the People of Wealth and Influence. Keepiing in mind that money is not everything, because it cannot buy poverty, it is the next best thing to heaven on Earth. 

We must dedicate ourselves to the belief that all men are created equal, although some are more equal than others. And that these men are endowed by their Master with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Wealth. With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence and our Master, we must mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor that we shall not fail in our mission.

We must remember what is written in the Holy Scrolls:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

So, rise up my brothers (sisters, stand aside, because this is man's work), and let us take what is rightfully ours. One way.....one leader.....one future.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Let's hope that the Americans have a very short memory too. Especially if we ever have to call on them to assist us.

Traditionally, we have always stood side by side with the rest of the English speaking world whenever something like this happened. This time around, Canada was the only absentee. 

For the very first time, we Canadians turned our backs on our traditional allies... Britain, Australia AND the USA. Just when they really needed our expertise in things like water purification and post-invasion peacekeeping. This is stuff we Canadians do particularly well (let's face it, only a fool would send our poorly equipped troops into frontline fighting).

They all stood up...and we walked away.

And you are _PROUD_ of this?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i'm proud that my gov't kept my fellow citizens out of an illegal war
i'm proud that they had the conviction to say "no"
i'm proud that many Canadian soldiers will live to be husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, to not die needlessly for someone's profits
AND
to live to fight, and maybe die, when our country's security demands it, not just for oil profits and helping support the military industrial complex

we owe it to our fighting men and women to ONLY put them in harms way as a last resort - they signed up for a job where they may be asked to make the ulitmate sacrifice - the least, the very least, we can do is to make sure that we respect them for laying their lives on the line for us

i fight with words so they don't have to die

i'm proud to be Canadian


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Keep on chanting that mantra, Michael. It might drown out the cries of all the murdered Iraqis. It might also make you forget how much of a threat Saddam really was...espcially since he'd corrupted the highest levels of the United Nations.

You can chant that mantra while working on your worry beads as Canada anxiously awaits help from our traditional allies in the next big crisis.

You know...the traditional allies that _WE TURNED OUR BACKS ON_.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Keep on chanting that mantra, Michael. It might drown out the cries of all the murdered Iraqis. It might also make you forget how much of a threat Saddam really was...espcially since he'd corrupted the highest levels of the United Nations.
> 
> You can chant that mantra while working on your worry beads as Canada anxiously awaits help from our traditional allies in the next big crisis.
> 
> You know...the traditional allies that _WE TURNED OUR BACKS ON_.


You mean we wouldn't be bullied into it like the others who now regret ever being a party to it. What crises are you talking about Macnutt? The unilateral declaration of war on us by Iceland! Give your head a shake.
I'm very proud my Country took no part in that travesty of an illegal war. Just as proud as I am that we took part in Afghanistan, when we were helping and dying for our friends for a just cause.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Keep on chanting that mantra, Michael. It might drown out the cries of all the murdered Iraqis. It might also make you forget how much of a threat Saddam really was...espcially since he'd corrupted the highest levels of the United Nations.
> 
> You can chant that mantra while working on your worry beads as Canada anxiously awaits help from our traditional allies in the next big crisis.
> 
> You know...the traditional allies that _WE TURNED OUR BACKS ON_.


please identify the last crisis the u.s. helped us

wwII? oops, canada was in there long before the u.s. helping out OUR allies in europe
sneaking out hostages from iran? oh, sorry that was us helping them
letting planes land and putting up the thousands of passengers during 9/11?
sorry again, that was us - without thanks from Bush by the way
banning beef imports, then allowing it, then having a local judge ban it again?
oops, that was the U.S.
putting up huge tarriffs on lumber effectively killing an industry? oops, that was the u.s "helping us" again, even tho the WTO has ruled in Canada's favour 6 or 7 times now?
sending troops to afghanistan to get rid of 9/11 terrorists? yep, canada is/was there

please let me know when the u.s. helped us out in a time of crisis


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Traditionally, we have always stood side by side with the rest of the English speaking world whenever something like this happened. This time around, Canada was the only absentee.


You mean the warmongers or the countrys that will gladly bend over whenever the US asks?

Laterz


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt, polls consistently showed that over 70% of cdn. were against the war
should a democratically elected leader go against what 70+% of the people don't want to go to war?
that's stephen harper would have gone to war
i guess that's why he's your kinda' guy, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

iPetie said:


> You mean we wouldn't be bullied into it like the others who now regret ever being a party to it. What crises are you talking about Macnutt? The unilateral declaration of war on us by Iceland! Give your head a shake.
> I'm very proud my Country took no part in that travesty of an illegal war. Just as proud as I am that we took part in Afghanistan, when we were helping and dying for our friends for a just cause.


Ummmm...correct me if I'm wrong here...but the Australian voters re-elected their Prime Minister with an even larger majority than he had before he decided to back thier traditional allies in removing Saddam.

George W. Bush _ALSO_ ended up with a stronger mandate and more power after the removal of Saddam. 

Both new majority elections were courtesy of voters whom you seem to be calling people who "regret ever being a party to it".

I'm not sure if Britain's Blair will be elected with an even greater majority than before the removal of Saddam....but no one thinks he's about to be summarily dumped by a pissed off electorate.

On the OTHER hand....

Our Canadian Liberal Party decided to turn their backs on our traditional allies and took no part in the removal of Saddam.
And, guess what? They were reduced to a razor thin minority in the last election. And now, only a year later, they are again fighting for their political lives. And it looks like a losing battle.

Funny about that, eh?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I seem to remember Bush to having a selective memory when he publically thanked the nations who reached out to help the American people on 9/11... except the Canada. At least he remembered Mexico... glad he could at least include one country that they share a border with. 

It wasn't him trying to stroke England for military support was it? They were number one on his thank-you list, oddly enough.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nice that you didn't try to dispute the post Saddam election figures for the leaders of our traditional allies, Manny.

You know....the ones that actually stepped up and went off to do a distasteful but necessary job. While we Canadians turned our backs and walked away.... 

But, then again, you couldn't. Could you.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Nice that you didn't try to dispute the post Saddam election figures for the leaders of our traditional allies, Manny.
> 
> You know....the ones that actually stepped up and went off to do a distasteful but necessary job. While we Canadians turned our backs and walked away....
> 
> But, then again, you couldn't. Could you.


What do election figures have to do with anything? The simple fact, if you'd care to research, is that the majority of people in all countries mentioned, were against the war. As the fraud that is the reason for fighting permeates, that number only has increased.
Fighting a war that your electorate doesn't want, oddly enough, rarely impacts negatively on the government of the time. Nixon, a perfect example. Bush Sr. fought and won what could be described as a just war and got tossed.
No logic to your argument I'm afraid!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

iPetie said:


> What do election figures have to do with anything? The simple fact, if you'd care to research, is that the majority of people in all countries mentioned, were against the war. As the fraud that is the reason for fighting permeates, that number only has increased.
> Fighting a war that your electorate doesn't want, oddly enough, rarely impacts negatively on the government of the time. Nixon, a perfect example. Bush Sr. fought and won what could be described as a just war and got tossed.
> No logic to your argument I'm afraid!


A "majority"? What is your source? A poll by the media? What was the sample size? One thousand people...out of three hundred MILLION??

The biggest and most extensive polls were held in the US and Australia well AFTER the removal of Saddam. They were called "elections". And those polls covered about a HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE in the case of the USA. Slightly more than half the population of Australia. 

And the results were quite decisive. Read em and weep. 

We had a similar poll here in Canada, not too long after our sainted Liberals decided to turn their backs and walk away from our traditional allies.

Guess what? This long-term majority government was reduced to a tiny minority. And they are now on the ropes again, only a year after that humiliating result.

Wake up.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

Gee MacNutt, I was just starting to think that you were making sense untill you started trying to defend this whole war thing. Was this a just war? Clearly not!! What was the justification for this war? WMD's which have been proven to have never been there in the first place! I am certainly no liberal, but at least I can admit it when our Governement gets it right (even though I disagree with them on almost every other issue). War is a very serious business that should transend partisan politics. I, personally, am quite proud that our governement decided to not send our brothers out to die for a cause that is not worthy of us. Everybody agrees that Sadam was a bad guy, and did bad things, but should we send our brothers to die for every petty dictator that is out there? Just because the Americans have a beef with him? This was clearly not a war that anybody should be proud of. Thank God that we were not a part of it!!! If the Americans decide to chastise us for it, then so be it. We made a pricipled stand and I believe that most Canadians are willing to face the consequences of that stand.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You're just not gettin it here. I will try to explain again...

Saddam wasn't just one of the many evil dictators that still infest this planet. He was the only one of them who had ever used WMD's in the past sixty years. On his own people, no less! 

And he was the only one sitting on a pool of vast oil wealth that gave him the means to buy whatever he wanted. This includes nukes from North Korea, bio weapons from whatever is left of the Soviet empire or China. Or he could even afford to buy top officials of the United Nations. Which he DID!

And Iraq is a pivotal country in the region that we know of as the middle east. Also...and this is rather important...the Iraqis are pretty well educated. Most of them are not so terribly wild-eyed about their religion, either. Most of them.

This means that removing Saddam and turning the place into a democracy has a real chance of succeeding. Once that is done, then a major threat will have been turned into a massive asset for the whole region. In one fell swoop.

WMD's now, or in the past? How about in the potential future? One thing is for sure...the future of Iraq is unlikely to contain WMD's. Couldn't say that when Saddam was still in power, could we?

You need to look at the bigger picture. It'll become quite clear to you once you step back and do that.

At least I hope so.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Unbelievable! Do you really think that the reason the Liberals lost seats in the last election was because Jean Chretien kept Canadians out of the invasion of Iraq? That probably prevented them losing more than they did. By contrast, one of the reasons Canadians are so wary of Stephen Harper is because he would have entangled us in that quagmire (he doesn't like to be reminded of that fact in public).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Unbelievable! Do you really think that the reason the Liberals lost seats in the last election was because Jean Chretien kept Canadians out of the invasion of Iraq? .


BINGO! (knew he'd go for it) 

No Jim...I think that all of us Canadian citizens know exactly why Paul Martin and the Liberals lost so much ground in the last election.

CORRUPTION! WASTE! MISMANAGEMENT!

Simple as that.

(Woodgett is just _toooo_ easy. I almost feel guilty whenever I do this to him. Almost.)


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Let's see... which reason did Bush invade Iraq?
Sadaam's ties to Al Qaeda? Can't find Osama... Afghanistan has been bombed to ****e. What else can we do?
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Can't find them, but we have awesome Powerpoint presentations that look convincing.
Free the Iraqi people from a dictator? We did tell everyone our only reason was to disarm Sadaam, maybe everyone will forget about that part.
Democracy to the middle east? Operation successful, we're leaving soon -- oops, no we're not. Yes we are. Nope, not yet... still meeting resistance, but it's just a little...
You tell me...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> It might drown out the cries of all the murdered Iraqis.
> 
> You can chant that mantra while working on your worry beads as Canada anxiously awaits help from our traditional allies in the next big crisis.
> 
> You know...the traditional allies that _WE TURNED OUR BACKS ON_.


Mad? Mad?   C'mon Macnutt be a man and defend this... 

Parents Killed 

You tell me who is the one being terrorized in this photo.  



MacNutt said:


> It might also make you forget how much of a threat Saddam really was...espcially since he'd corrupted the highest levels of the United Nations.


What sort of deluded revisionist crap is this? what sort of proof do you have? Hussein may have been a tin pot dictator with a ruthless hold on the Iraqi's... But you cannot prove that he was a threat to anyone? And that he influenced the UN? You are paranoid... take off the tin foil hat, the alien invasion force has left.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

daJonesey wrote about Saddam: 

"But you cannot prove that he was a threat to anyone? And that he influenced the UN? You are paranoid..."

Ummmmm...maybe you should pick up a newspaper sometime. The UN is currently going through a major inquiry to seee how deep the Iraqi oil-for-food scam really went. And numerous top officials from France, Germany and Russia hace already been implicated. So has Kofi Annan's own son. They were all getting kickbacks from Saddam for helping him to sell his oil under the table and ALL of them had made deals that would give them fat contracts to sell Iraqi oil on the open market legally....once the restrictions were relaxed.

Which was going to happen rather soon. Why not? The guys who were in charge of the restrictions had a great deal to gain by relaxing them and allowing Saddam to sell oil. This is all over the news these days. It's a no-brainer.

I might also note that the key countries that voted AGAINST removing Saddam were the very same ones whose UN officials had made the shady deals. Again, a no-brainer.

As for the first part of your statement...

Saddam had been a threat to EVERYONE in the area. He'd even launched missiles at Israel when they weren't even a part of his particular war. He'd attacked Iran and his own people with WMD's in the past...and he was about to get his stream of massive oil wealth back on line.

But he "wasn't a threat to anyone"...was he. And never would be EVER!   

(why do I feel like I'm trying to explain gravity to a kindergarten class sometimes? YIKES!)


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Ummmmm...maybe you should pick up a newspaper sometime. The UN is currently going through a major inquiry to seee how deep the Iraqi oil-for-food scam really went. And numerous top officials from France, Germany and Russia hace already been implicated. So has Kofi Annan's own son. They were all getting kickbacks from Saddam for helping him to sell his oil under the table and ALL of them had made deals that would give them fat contracts to sell Iraqi oil on the open market legally....once the restrictions were relaxed.


Yeah and half of that is a load of crap... and has already been proven as such. Were people getting their palms greased under the table, yeah probably. Was it a global conspiracy with Sadam pulling the strings of society as we know it... not a chance. You and your neo-con buddies down south have been trying to potray this as a massive global conspiracy... it isn't and everyone knows it.

WHAT IS MORE INTERESTING AND TELLING IS HOW YOU'VE FAILED MISERABLY IN REMOTELY ANSWERING / RESPONDING TO MY OTHER POINT.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=52018170&cdi=0 

What's the matter? You can't defend it can you?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think we can all agree that the way the Liberals dealt with the Iraq war was pathetic. I found our response to the Americans to be quite embarrassing. If we didn't want to go to Iraq, then we should have been more direct and more supportive.

At the end of the day, I think the correct decision was made. Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to anybody with the US sitting next door in Saudia Arabia. There was simply no rush to remove Saddam right away. I think the weapons inspectors should have been given more time. If the entire world put pressure on Saddam in a meaninful way, he would have fully co-operated. If he didn't, then the US would have been justified for going in. I wouldn't have advocated waiting another ten years. Perhaps two would have been sufficient.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I think we can all agree that the way the Liberals dealt with the Iraq war was pathetic. I found our response to the Americans to be quite embarrassing. If we didn't want to go to Iraq, then we should have been more direct and more supportive.


I politely have to disagree with you... our response was exactly what it should have been. The whole point of being a friend is being able to tell them when they are wrong.



Vandave said:


> At the end of the day, I think the correct decision was made. Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to anybody with the US sitting next door in Saudia Arabia. There was simply no rush to remove Saddam right away. I think the weapons inspectors should have been given more time. If the entire world put pressure on Saddam in a meaninful way, he would have fully co-operated. If he didn't, then the US would have been justified for going in. I wouldn't have advocated waiting another ten years. Perhaps two would have been sufficient.


I think you are confused or mistyped... You first sentence says that "I think the correct decision was made" and then every sentence that follows indicates that that they were contained and that there was no rush.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I politely have to disagree with you... our response was exactly what it should have been. The whole point of being a friend is being able to tell them when they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confused or mistyped... You first sentence says that "I think the correct decision was made" and then every sentence that follows indicates that that they were contained and that there was no rush.


No, I didn't mistype it. I think the correct decision was made by Canada, not the US.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> No, I didn't mistype it. I think the correct decision was made by Canada, not the US.



Sorry my bad  I agree with you.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You are both wrong on this. Canada made a huge error by not backing it's traditional allies on this. Yeah...we avoided some casualties and we dodged our responsibilities at the very same time. Good call.

The French did the same in the WW2. Dodged the bullet and let everyone else take the heat. Note how the world percieves them, these days. 

This one's going to come back to haunt us. Mark my words.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The French did the same in the WW2. Dodged the bullet and let everyone else take the heat. Note how the world percieves them, these days.


Whoa...what planet are you on? I'd like to see where you got the idea that the French dodged the bullet when the Nazis attacked.

Note that it took the Americans over two years before they entered the war and they only did that because they were attacked. They were the ones hoping that they could "dodge the bullet".


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> You are both wrong on this. Canada made a huge error by not backing it's traditional allies on this. Yeah...we avoided some casualties and we dodged our responsibilities at the very same time. Good call.
> 
> The French did the same in the WW2. Dodged the bullet and let everyone else take the heat. Note how the world percieves them, these days.
> 
> This one's going to come back to haunt us. Mark my words.


You are wrong... We made the right decision. There was no reason whatsoever for us to have supported the invasion. Everything that the world was told was lies. 

And what makes you think that in this day and age that there any traditional allies anymore. Wake up and smell the world. The power structure and alliances of old have dramtically changed forever. If we are so close to our our traditional allies then explain to me the failure of NAFTA (softwood lumber, cattle export, etc...)

Perhaps... in your shortsightedness you fail to realize that the reason we did not got to war was that we did not want this to happen...

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=52018170&cdi=0 

And again... please try not to avoid the point this time... who in this picture are the ones being terrorized?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The French did the same in the WW2. Dodged the bullet and let everyone else take the heat." Then what was DeGaulle doing in England and what was D-Day all about? For your birthday, Macnutt, I shall send you my son's old high school history book. The thousands of those killed while working for the French underground, or the Free French forces fighting in Africa are turning over in their graves at your insenstive and incorrect comment. Next time, think before you write and think again before you post. Merci, mon ami.

Here are a few citations you might find interesting. I trust that you won't find the Encyclopedia Britannica too "left" as it has sometimes been described due to their fair treatment of controversial issues.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9035284
http://vampiro.bizhosting.com/freefrench.html
http://search.eb.com/normandy/articles/Free_French.html
http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/fr-ffl.html
http://www.mvlife.com/mv/mvlife_wiki/fr/Free_French_Forces.html
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/F/Fr/Free_French_Forces.htm


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> BINGO! (knew he'd go for it)
> No Jim...I think that all of us Canadian citizens know exactly why Paul Martin and the Liberals lost so much ground in the last election.
> CORRUPTION! WASTE! MISMANAGEMENT!
> Simple as that.
> (Woodgett is just toooo easy. I almost feel guilty whenever I do this to him. Almost.)


Keep crying wolf and acting like an ignorant bully MacNutt, it does a lot for your reputation - and you fit the part to a tee. Trust me when I say your little pathetic little games have no effect on me. They just make you look all the more petty.

I can imagine you are mightily pissed off that Canadians care more about things such as the economy and staying out of unjustified, pre-emptive attacks than a political scandal. Stephen Harper got it wrong on Iraq. He did not reflect the will of the people. We did not ignore our allies. They were acting irresponsibly and the invasion was contrary to everything Canada has stood for as a peace-keeper for the past 50 years. We did not ignore the Americans on September 11, 2001. We reached out to them like friends should. We are not the 51st State and we have our own principles. It's a shame that you do not share them.

As for France in World War 2, as Dr. G. points out, you need some night school. Germany invaded France soon after it invaded Poland. British and British Commonwealth troops fought the Germans alongside French, Polish, Belgian and Dutch troops until they were forced to retreat at Dunkirk. France quickly fell after that. The French resistance movement played a critical role in antagonizing the German occupiers and French, Dutch, Belgian and Polish regiments trained in the UK. The resistance helped Commonwealth service men shot down over France evade capture. They suffered enormously. 1940-1944 was a horrific period in France and the rest of Northern Europe.

Most Americans seem to think France owes them a perpetual debt of gratitude for their liberation yet if the USA had entered the war in 1939, the onslaught of the German war machine may well have been staunched. Who knows? The Americans had their own reasons for staying out of the war and it was a different time. 50 million people died during WW2 and its now the 60th anniversary of VE Day. It would serve us all to remember the horrible sacrifices and mistakes made back then and not to simply use the global catastrophe as a vehicle for a cheap quip.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I didn't like the way that the Bush admin went about selling this war. They flat out lied and distorted the truth. They did everything to make sure that the public thought the war against Iraq was retaliation for 911. 

Nor did I like how the US media was incapable of asking basic questions about the Bush admin rationale. This is definately something to be concerned about.

No matter how you feel about the war, you have to agree that people should be able to make informed decisions and that lying and distortion does not serve anybody well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

complete errata..........even the google ads are picking up on the ahem........frequent poster



> Macadamia Nut Oil-premium
> *MacNut Oil *as used in The Hamptons Diet. Australian. Buy or find store


carry on


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

" 50 million people died during WW2 and its now the 60th anniversary of VE Day. It would serve us all to remember the horrible sacrifices and mistakes made back then and not to simply use the global catastrophe as a vehicle for a cheap quip." Amen, brother. Amen. Paix.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> You are cheering for the wrong team.


You misunderstand me. I'm not cheering for <i>any</i> team right now, but I am happy to see some signs of Parliament getting down to Parliamentary business after months of wallowing in filth and completely ignoring the nation's business. I am happy to see signs that due process may yet be allowed to prevail. I am happy that we may have an election, either this spring or in the fall, that will be fought on policy issues, not "we're clean, you're dirty." 

And for the record, I am neither a member of nor a staunch supporter of any political party. My proclivities run toward libertarianism, environmentalism, and social democracy. There is no party that really speaks to me at this time, though I suppose the Greens come closest and NDP second.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I am neither a member of nor a staunch supporter of any political party. My proclivities run toward libertarianism, environmentalism, and social democracy. There is no party that really speaks to me at this time, though I suppose the Greens come closest and NDP second.


 :clap: ...

You and a lot of other Canadians including me with similar sentiments. I really wanted to see a working minority as I felt the Pearson parliament got a lot of amazing things accomplished in a minority situation.

This one has been a disappointment tho perhaps and that's "faint hope" a modicum of work may yet be accomplished before another election.....at least a budget. 

Give and take HAS to become a way of life for Ottawa in my view and there is precious little sign of it becoming so.

One time I'm glad my candidate of choice is Independent. I've never been quite comfortable with the whip and caucus system tho it does get things done.

Should be an interesting week on Capitol Hill.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> :clap: ...
> Should be an interesting week on Capitol Hill.


Particularly with the Crime Minister in charge!


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Should be an interesting week on Capitol Hill.


Surely you both mean Parliament Hill... or have I missed something?

--

It will be an interesting week... but despite the polls I think it's a false dawn for the Liberals. In fact, the small reversal in Liberal fortunes will only be an additional incentive for the Conservatives and BQ to pull them down at the earliest opportunity.

The Liberal rhetoric about saving Canada from the Separatists shows real chutzpah, given that their own corruption is the main driver pushing Quebecers to the BQ and PQ. But then again, this is only a sensitive topic for Quebec because we've seen the corruption before... most recently under Mulroney's Conservatives. Plus ca change... Plaudits to Jack Layton though who got dealt a pair but played a full house; he must be smarter than I gave him credit for.

The key for me in the next election will be the platforms the parties put out. I lean to the right but stopping same sex marriage will be a deal breaker for me... I couldn't vote Conservative if that's in their platform. A Conservative minority would be a good thing I think... or best of all, I'd love to see Paul Martin leave the Liberals to lead the Conservatives instead. A reformist, somewhat radical party led by an experienced and fiscally responsible but progressive leader... we'd get some good government at last!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oops blush and you know I even had to think about the spelling. 

I think most want to see some minority governing and not an election.

Not sure how Harper will play it with polls running against him and big polls against a snap election.

Time will tell pretty quick.

Always glad to have your insight. :clap:


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

This morning on Globeandmail.com:

"Tory MPs question need for snap vote / Cracks appear in Conservative Party's plan to topple government"

Colour me shocked! Conservatives, letting mere opinion polls undercut their steely resolve? (Mulroney must be fuming.) The Reform party, dithering? The Alliance, showing cracks? A Great Tory Hope running a serious risk of not defeating the lame-duck, untelegenic, bumbling, stuttering, terminally wishy-washy "Mr. Dithers"?

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Here in St.John's North, the local incumbant for the past three elections shall be running once again, but he does NOT want an early election. Even though he has won by margins that have beaten the combined votes of all the other candidates that have run against him, there is actually take that an early election might see his seat go to the Liberals or the NDP. This is the same situation in St.John's South, which has the only other Conservative MP in the province. With the Liberals having a chance to increase their number here in NL from 5 to either 6 or 7, this should be seen like the proverbial canary in the coalmine. We shall see.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> You are wrong... We made the right decision. There was no reason whatsoever for us to have supported the invasion. Everything that the world was told was lies.
> 
> And what makes you think that in this day and age that there any traditional allies anymore. Wake up and smell the world. The power structure and alliances of old have dramtically changed forever. If we are so close to our our traditional allies then explain to me the failure of NAFTA (softwood lumber, cattle export, etc...)
> 
> ...



That picture you keep providing should be put in perspective for you. The reason it happens is because the coward terrorists don't fight with uniforms. They hide among civilians like the sick human beings they are. You know their tactics are war crimes? This is the very reason they are war crimes because the pictures you provide will happen. There are honorable rules to war to keep the war in the battlefield and away from innocent vulnerable civilians. But then again I am used to the fact that all you socialists ignore the fact that we are fighting horrible, unhonorable, disgusting terrorists.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> There are honorable rules to war to keep the war in the battlefield and away from innocent vulnerable civilians.


You need to study war and history a little more closely. The last war that was fought this way was probably WWI. But even then, we were gassing each other with chemical weapons.

When we (including Canada) bombed Dresden in WWII, did we avoid civilians? Did the A-bomb avoid civilian casualites? Did the US avoid razing villages in Vietnam?

You should also learn the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist. Even the US media (with the exception of perhaps Fox) calls these people insurgents. The same tactics the insurgents are using are similar to what the US colonies did to win their independance from Britain. I'm sure if you gave these people tanks and aircraft, they would be more than happy to fight on the battlefield. In the meantime, they are fighting an asymetric war.

The following is a response from Robert McNamara to General LeMay that you might find interesting.

Lemay: "If we lost the war (WWII), we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals". 
McNamara: "And I think he's right."


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> That picture you keep providing should be put in perspective for you. The reason it happens is because the coward terrorists don't fight with uniforms. They hide among civilians like the sick human beings they are. You know their tactics are war crimes? This is the very reason they are war crimes because the pictures you provide will happen. There are honorable rules to war to keep the war in the battlefield and away from innocent vulnerable civilians. But then again I am used to the fact that all you socialists ignore the fact that we are fighting horrible, unhonorable, disgusting terrorists.


The French resistance was also called a Terrorist organisation by the Nazis.

Think about it.
<img src="http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/OldPhotos/ResistancePoster.jpg">

Laterz


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey Dude - the British complained about the very thing during your own "freedom fight". Guerrilla's sniping from bushes - not honourable harrumph harrumph.....

Funny one man's terrorist - another man's freedom fighter.
Ask some South and Central Americans about US "honour", or maybe a few Vietnamese.

Don't ever compare the moral necessity of WWII to the "by choice" imperial adventures of the US ...it won't wash.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Yea the politically Correct way to appease all the socialists is to call them insurgents. It doesn't sound near as bad. In fact it almost makes it sound heroic doesn't it?

As for civilian deaths. I didn't bring it up. Some other guy kept posting the picture as if it proved the US soldiers are over there just randomly shooting civilians. It is a tough fight to be in when those cowards pose as civilians. Maybe I do need to study some war history because I have never heard of or read where the US military posed as civilians to fight a war. 

Oh yea and don't ever tell me what to compare. I never compared the moral necessity of WWII to anything


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> Yea the politically Correct way to appease all the socialists is to call them insurgents. It doesn't sound near as bad. In fact it almost makes it sound heroic doesn't it?
> 
> As for civilian deaths. I didn't bring it up. Some other guy kept posting the picture as if it proved the US soldiers are over there just randomly shooting civilians. It is a tough fight to be in when those cowards pose as civilians. Maybe I do need to study some war history because I have never heard of or read where the US military posed as civilians to fight a war.
> 
> Oh yea and don't ever tell me what to compare. I never compared the moral necessity of WWII to anything


If you think I support what the insurgents are doing or trying to make them sound heroic, you are wrong. I support getting rid of these people and making Iraq a free and democratic country. In fact I also support Canada sending troops to assist in this endevour. But, I am not naive enough to expect Iraqis to fight an open war. 

The US has supported all sorts of regimes that have used the same tactics as in Iraq. If you really want to learn about it, start with Columbia. It's still going on today.

As far as your socialist comment goes, you have me pegged wrong as I am on the right of the political spectrum. In any case, this isn't a right wing or left wing issue. It's simply an issue. Just because Bush started this war, it doesn't make it a right wing issue.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

You don't have a problem with these people dressing and acting like civilians and then attacking? It is a no brainer to realize that civilians will be mistaken for.

I really wasn't pegging you. I believe you are not a socialist. The socialists know who they are. If you are not one you usually respond the way you did. Its not meant as an insult. But it is funny how people interpret it that way. 

its not a left wing or right wing issue. But it doesn't take a math degree to figure out that most liberals are against the war and most right wingers are OK with the war. Truly though the liberals are against the US and this is the issue they are choosing to use against the US right now. Because if Clinton had started this it would have an entire different reaction. Its funny how Clinton had the same opinions of Iraq and yet it is a Bush Oil thing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> You don't have a problem with these people dressing and acting like civilians and then attacking? It is a no brainer to realize that civilians will be mistaken for.
> 
> I really wasn't pegging you. I believe you are not a socialist. The socialists know who they are. If you are not one you usually respond the way you did. Its not meant as an insult. But it is funny how people interpret it that way.
> 
> its not a left wing or right wing issue. But it doesn't take a math degree to figure out that most liberals are against the war and most right wingers are OK with the war. Truly though the liberals are against the US and this is the issue they are choosing to use against the US right now. Because if Clinton had started this it would have an entire different reaction. Its funny how Clinton had the same opinions of Iraq and yet it is a Bush Oil thing.


Where did I say I didn't have a problem with the insurgents? Of course I do. Read my response above. 

FYI.... I don't have a problem with socialists and I wasn't offended that you called me one. But to be clear with you, I am right leaning. The term socialist is misused in any case since we are all socialists, even GW Bush. He supports spending public money on the public good (e.g. roads, airports, education, health, police, military, etc..). Like it or not, that's socialism. It's only a matter of where we draw the line.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

"But, I am not naive enough to expect Iraqis to fight an open war. "

This part. I expect them too. The statement just made me think you are OK with it.

Bravo! Bravo! I agree with you completely in regards to your assessment of socialism. I am just begining to draw a more aggressive line. People don't want to think they are socialists but when it comes down to it they are more socialist than they think. So in my book if you consider yourself left wing, liberal, democrat whatever I consider you a socialist. I don't mean you Vandave. People don't realize how socialist our society is.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> So in my book if you consider yourself left wing, liberal, democrat whatever I consider you a socialist.


nothing like using a broad brush, eh?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Sorry Macspectrum. I can see it really offends you. Wasn't intended to be so offensive. It was just the way I decided to describe things lately.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

As a keen proponent of recycling, let me repost a chunk of what I wrote in a previous thread on socialism back in January in response to MacNutt's assertion that socialism was dead... 

--

I think you are right but you are missing the bigger picture. Socialism as a route to communism or as an ideological goal itself is dead and discredited. However, I would argue that there is a general consensus in the western world that the government and the public sector have a large role to play in the economy and in our lives.

Pure, unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism was effectively discredited by the Great Depression. Toward the end, governments responded with 'make work' projects, wellfare, the 'New Deal' etc. The growth of the public sector accelerated during WWII and continued unabated afterwards as universal healthcare and more extensive welfare programmes were introduced in Europe and Canada. Beginning in the 1980's, we see their growth slowing and governments attempting to apply market principles to these programmes... but they have not been curtailed. In the western world today, government spending accounts for 35-45% of GDP in most counties. It is lowest in the US at about 33%, it is highest in the Scandinavian countries at close to 50%, but most of western Europe (and Canada) is close to 40%. So the difference between the capitalist Yanks and 'Canuckistan' is 7-10% of the economy. Not a small figure, but not an ideological chasm either. In fact, due to US spending on the war, the tax burden (and so the effect of the government on their economy) is certain to rise; they are trying to defer the effects by running deficits but they won't be able to it forever and their sinking dollar suggests time may be running out.

I would argue that Socialism is dead not just because countries like the USSR and East Germany collapsed, but also because the mixed economies of Western Europe, Canada and the USA have done so well. We all want the wealth that a market economy makes possible... but we also want health care and a safety net if that economy fails us. As long as we have those things, we don't need socialism... off to the dustbin of history with you!

I'll leave you with a prediction... the United States will have some form of universal health care within 20 years. Trust me on this...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

With shrinking resources I find it interesting the current race between say China with a highly controlled economy moving to a mixed style and partnering and India.

I'm of the firm belief that the next Cold War is in full flight and that the power blocs are forming up rather clearly.

The US is in severe problems in this particular war and has effectively put itself in a very unfavourable economic situation should China or OPEC exercise their leverage.

Multinationals likely represent the non geopolitical "powers" in this long term wrestling match.

I'm not convinced at this point that democratic mixed economies can make the wholesale changes that more centrally structured ones can.
Damn we can't even get a simple bridge built without jumping through expensive time consuming hoops.

Harnessing the creative and speed of individual initiative and the infrastructure and ability to look long term and execute massive planning ( S Korea - EVERYONE should get this month's Wired to see what kind of competitor Canada is up against ) puts western mixed economies at a disadvantage.

Nations like China are exercising the kind of national will that gave us a transcontinental railway, the Niagara Power system, powered the US into WWII and the moon and rebuilt Japan after WWII.

I simply do not see the ability to compete on that scale and it shows in the situation in the US with industrial power shifting to the far east and being replaced by a consumer society.

I look at what Singapore has accomplished and compare it to Toronto........who is winning......
Singapore simply DOES what Toronto NEEDS to do but doesn't.

What happens when the power of the large state comes into play in say - buying Canadian resource companies.......that has arisen as a question already.

The combination of truly exercised national direction - call it what you want - providing the infrastructure along WITH the innovation and speed of private or private/state partnered key industries just might be a combination the more fractious democracies/market oriented economies may not be able to cope with effectively.

From what I see, we aren't.
I'm not making a judgement on which is "better or worse", more or less good for their citizens.
I'm observing very strong paradigms arising that can transform nation states pretty damn quick.

Who called China........

BTW of the 100 largest economies - 51 are transnationals and the top 500 control 70% of the world trade.

What role does sovereignity, egality, democratic choice even play with numbers that size.??


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> That picture you keep providing should be put in perspective for you. The reason it happens is because the coward terrorists don't fight with uniforms. They hide among civilians like the sick human beings they are. You know their tactics are war crimes? This is the very reason they are war crimes because the pictures you provide will happen.


Please stop posting, your responses are causing me pain. I am not going to be an apologist for any combatant in this issue. The fact of the matter is that attrocities are happening and being caused by both sides. You can try and defend your position by calling ther other side names and dehumanizing them, but it doesn't fly. It is the tactic of a simpleton and the whole world knows you have no business being there in the first place.

My whole point around that incident and photo is to illustrate that terror is NOT one sided. People in Kansas do not fear having a JDAM mistakenly (or purposefully) drop on their house while they sleep at nite... people in Bhagdad do. 

That event was tragic... very much in the Shakespearian sense of the word. I feel badly for the the children who are now orphans, and I feel badly for the soldiers who have just made those children orphans (I would not want to sleep at night if I were those guys). What predicated that whole event is the situation... and there is NO reason why the US should have been in Iraq in the first place.



Dudireno said:


> There are honorable rules to war to keep the war in the battlefield and away from innocent vulnerable civilians. But then again I am used to the fact that all you socialists ignore the fact that we are fighting horrible, unhonorable, disgusting terrorists.


OOOhhhhh please stop it. Somebody make him stop. The US does not have the right to make any claims about civilized warfare and honourable rules. There are no rules as far as you guys are concerned... 100 000 dead civilians firebombed in Tokyo, 60 000 in Hiroshima, 30 000 in Nagasaki, 135 000 in Dresden. Those were planned purposeful attacks on civilian populations. For shame that you would make any claim to "honourable" rules of war.

As for the socialist comment... kiss my ass!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The following is a response from Robert McNamara to General LeMay that you might find interesting.
> 
> Lemay: "If we lost the war (WWII), we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals".
> McNamara: "And I think he's right."


Everyone should have to watch the "Fog of War"... I didn't think much of McNamara, however that interview I found to be very insightful.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> Sorry Macspectrum. I can see it really offends you. Wasn't intended to be so offensive. It was just the way I decided to describe things lately.


What a co-inky-dink! I've decided to call Republicans, Conservatives, right-wingers, military dictators, etc. "fascists." No offense intended, it's just the way I decided to describe things lately.

<i>Note: before anyone jumps in to find fault with the parallelism, I'm simply mocking the broad-brush labelling approach, not suggesting that "socialist" is a slur on a par with "fascist."</i>


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

*dudireno wrote:*


> You don't have a problem with these people dressing and acting like civilians and then attacking? It is a no brainer to realize that civilians will be mistaken for.


so just where are they supposed to buy uniforms? with whay money? who will supply them? where are they supposed to buy weapons? ever heard of ied's? that's what the us army calls the bombs that are blowing up their hummers. know what the "i" stands for? improvised. as in they're building these things with just about anything they can get their hands on. and you want them to wear uniforms? grow up and learn something! this is what happens when you invade another country, you meet resistance! this is war and nothing else. don't presume to lecture us about it, because you have never experienced it! i hate hearing about people being killed just as much anyone else but the us government brought it, and now the iraqi resistance is fighting back against the invading force, just like any other country or it's people would do if they were attacked.[/rant]


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

iMatt said:


> Note: before anyone jumps in to find fault with the parallelism, I'm simply mocking the broad-brush labelling approach, not suggesting that "socialist" is a slur on a par with "fascist."


Interesting, the word Socialist would seem to evoke the same reaction from some Americans as the term Fascist. Socialist seems to have replaced Communist somehow. Education by Media I suppose.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

iPetie said:


> Interesting, the word Socialist would seem to evoke the same reaction from some Americans as the term Fascist. Socialist seems to have replaced Communist somehow. Education by Media I suppose.


Socialist? In the States, all you have to do is call someone a "liberal" and make it stick, and their political career is essentially over. I think that's why Dudireno winds up in these combative exchanges even if that's not his initial intention: the political centre in the States is way, way to the right of Canada's centre.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

you mean like "socialized medicine?"
that'll never see the light of day in Amerika
the spin doctors and mind control machine has done its job very well
nevermind the AMA


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Yes, being successfully tarred with the epithet 'liberal' is the political kiss-of-death in the US, and a very serious problem in Canada (you're pretty much dead in the water west of Manitoba).

However, even admitting to being a 'socialist' isn't as bad as being an 'atheist' in either country. Separation of Church and State looks good on paper, but nobody has ever tried it. 

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Bryanc, a valid point. I wonder if an avowed athiest could successfully run for high office in Canada or the US? Personally, I have no problem voting for such a person so long as their policies were socially liberal and fiscally conservative.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> .... Personally, I have no problem voting for such a person so long as their policies were socially liberal and fiscally conservative.


Good to hear that Dr. G! I concur! Wholeheartedly!

Hmmm...let's see here...The NDP is not terribly "fiscally conservative". In fact, pretty much all of the evidence from many sucessive provincial governments shows that they are pretty much the opposite of "fiscally conservative". They don't seem to be very good at managing the economy, either. Even when they are put in charge of a rich "have province" like BC in the middle of a massive boom decade like the nineties.

Even given all of that, they still managed to turn it all into crap.

And the Liberals are not terribly good at managing public funds, either. Especially when large government spending programs are involved. In fact, they're pretty darned BAD at it, as history has proven. These guys can really blow a lot of dough while not getting anything done. They are past masters at this.

Plus, they steal. BIG TIME!

So...I imagine that you will be voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in this next election, eh?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I doubt he will, seeing as the Conservatives don't really meet the other half of his requirements.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh really? In what way?

Care to explain, PosterBoy? I'm sure thare are several people here besides me who would just love to hear you tell us all about how the conservatives are dead set against the Canadian social safety net.

( _pssst_...you might want to stay with their stated policies instead of flying off into wild accusations about scary "hidden agendas". Especially if you are judging the other two parties on their stated policies. And not their hidden agendas. Because there are a wealth of "hidden agendas" out there, after all. Some proven, some purely speculation. You don't want to go there.) 

Trust me on this.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Good to hear that Dr. G! I concur! Wholeheartedly!
> 
> Hmmm...let's see here...The NDP is not terribly "fiscally conservative". In fact, pretty much all of the evidence from many sucessive provincial governments shows that they are pretty much the opposite of "fiscally conservative". They don't seem to be very good at managing the economy, either. Even when they are put in charge of a rich "have province" like BC in the middle of a massive boom decade like the nineties.
> 
> ...



Where to start:
1) When have our great allies the Americans helped us out of a jam (WWII doesn't cut it as we were in in '39)

2)We have not allways "Stood by the americans" (thank God). Ever hear of a war called Viet Nam?

3) Fiscal Conservatives are not fiscally Conservative: note the US debt under Bush from a Surplus under Clinton. Infact name one Republican since and including Nixon who has decreased debt. You can't because they spend more than their "liberal" counterparts. Not the Premiere Harris and Eves absolutly ruined Ontario with "fiscal responsibility".

4)You mention problems with the NDP's performance in Gov't but convienently forget successful NDP gov'ts in Sackatchewan.


5) You talk about the seperatism issue like Harper isn't part of a regional (read: seperatist) party

6) The Alliance, I mean Reform, I mean Conservatives are peopled by intolerant bigots.



This brings me to my final point: In Lousiana there was an election where the people running for govenor were in a nasty battle. One was a Neo Nazi and KKK leader the other convicted of fraud. People were driving around with bumper stickers that read "vote for the thief it's important."
If it wasn't for the NDP I'd put one of these on my car.

I'D WAY RATHER HAVE ANOTHER LIBERAL GOV'T WITH THEIR CORUPTION THAN WATCH HARPER KILL SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND DISCRIMINATE AGAISNT GAYS AND OTHER MINORITES!

Fortunatly we have another choice: NDP

I wouldn't vote for Harper if you stuck a gun to my head.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

martman said:


> Where to start:
> 1) When have our great allies the Americans helped us out of a jam (WWII doesn't cut it as we were in in '39)
> 
> 2)We have not allways "Stood by the americans" (thank God). Ever hear of a war called Viet Nam?
> ...


Welcome to ehmac, martman. Good to have you aboard!

Now...where do I start?? 

Your first three answers refer to the _AMERICANS_ as if THEY were the Canadian Conservative Party. You use examples of US governments when referring to the Canadian Conservatives. 

I would suggest that you might be confused about what country and what party we are referring to here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Your next statement seems to infer that the Saskatchewan NDP government has been some sort of a roaring success. I beg to differ. The Saskatchewan NDP barely won the last election and may be deafeated in the next provincial elections. Saskatchewan is not exactly the poster child for a bright new set of political ideas. Nor is it a huge economic powerhouse. To say the least.

Your fifth statement seems to say that the Canadian Conservative Party is somehow comitted to separating a part of Canada from the whole. Please explain. In detail.

Your sixth statement is pure tripe. Especially since the Canadian Conservative Party is made up of candidates and members from ALL ehtnic groups. (BTW....You might want to re-engage your brain when you type your reply to this post).

Just a thought here.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Welcome to ehmac, martman. Good to have you aboard!
> 
> Now...where do I start??
> 
> ...


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2L8buIpF5fMJ:www.stephenharpersaid.ca/ncc/footnote56_en.html


> Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."


{sarcasm} no seperatist leanings here{/sarcasm}

On top of this I ask who but a seperatist would be working with the Bloc?


As for my first three answers? You obviously didn't read my post.

First two answers are all about Canada.

As for talking about fiscal Conservatives? Since so called fiscal Conservatives get their ideology from the Amercans and are trying to emulate the Americans I felt it was reasonable to include them as examples of bogus fiscal responsibility. Notice I included Premires Harris and Eves as well but I should have also mentioned that big spender who is as responsible as anyone else for Canada's seperatist problems: Brian Mulroney. I repeat: it is a myth that Conservatives are responsible spenders. Period.


As for the bigots who form the Conservative party? What do you think trying to squash gay rights is. Just because the Conservative party can point to a few members to say they are not racists doesn't mean it is true. 



> "Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work."
> 
> - Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders, who in 2001 called Nelson Mandela "a Communist and terrorist."





> "Not all women can ask their husbands to lend them the money to run a campaign..."
> 
> - Louis-Hébert Alliance candidate Léonce Roy on why the Alliance has not attracted more women as candidates, Le Soleil, November 6, 2000.





> "What happens if a boatload [of immigrants] comes over from wherever and decides that they want to to cast ballots?"
> 
> - Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders expressing opposition to landed immigrants having the right to vote in candidate nomination races, Edmonton Journal, October 2, 2000.





> "They don't want to do like their ancestors did and work for a living and go where the jobs are. Probably, [we] won't go over as well there ... The simple reason is that eastern provinces believe in handouts and 'Give me a cheque for doing nothing.'"
> 
> - John Mykytyshyn, Canadian Alliance executive member, as quoted in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 14th 2000. Mykytyshyn claims that his comments were taken out of context.





> "The [homosexual] activists that organized in those days [encouraged] people of their persuasion to enter into educational fields, and to do this with the feeling of a mission, you know, of going out there as pioneers in a -- quote-- human rights area, and I think they were successful as we've seen."
> 
> - Canadian Alliance MP Larry Spencer, speaking about the "well-orchestrated" homosexual conspiracy, Vancouver Sun, November 27, 2003.
> 
> ...





> "I don't think that, you know, anybody would argue that if Nelson Mandela was saying, you know, 30 years ago, that you should go around with matches and necklaces and strangle people or burn them out of their homes, that is not terrorism."
> 
> - Conservative MP Rob Anders after blocking a resolution to declare former South African president Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen, June 11, 2001. Anders also implied that South Africa was better off during Apartheid than it is today.
> 
> ...





> "In the 1950s, buggery was a criminal offence. Now it's a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government."
> 
> - Yorkton-Melville Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz commenting on same sex benefits, The Leader-Post, March 3, 2000.





> "I want to assure the House and everyone watching today that if I did say something, and I am not saying I did, it certainly was not meant as a racist slur as the hon. member has accused. "
> 
> - Conservative MP Jay Hill, October 28th 1999, apologizing to the House for heckling African-Canadian member of Parliament Gordon Earle with demeaning comments about slavery, including that Earle was "in chains."





> "My riding has the largest Iranian population in the country. At least 40% of all the Iranians living there are refugee claimants. Most of them are bogus. "
> 
> - North Vancouver Conservative MP Ted White in the House of Commons, March 31 2003.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

> "Old age security is welfare for the aged."
> 
> - Conservative MP Paul Forseth, Vancouver Sun, October 6th 1993.





> "That's my guess, yes, especially where you have alcohol and drugs and mix that with very short-term changing sexual relationships... There's a lot of jealousy... they [homosexuals] are vengeful, and their health isn't very good. [Skinheads bashing gays] is one kind of marginalized group doing its thing against another marginalized sub-group, which essentially has nothing to do with human rights before the law. It's purely one gang going against another gang."
> 
> - New Westminster-Coquitlam Conservative MP Paul Forseth opposing legislation to protect gays from hate crimes, March 18th 1995, House of Commons.





> "The danger in having sexual orientation just listed, that encompasses for example pedophiles. I believe that the caucus as a whole would like to see it repealed."
> 
> - Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant on CTV News, June 5th 2004, attacking proposed hate propaganda legislation that would protect homosexuals.





> "You can't scalp me because I haven't got much hair on top of my head."
> 
> - Saskatchewan Canadian Alliance candidate Brian Fitzpatrick during a native-organized candidates debate, November 2000.





> "For instance, I'm not opposed to gays, but if you bring one of those suckers into my school and they try to push their crap on my students, I have a problem with that. "
> 
> - MP Myron Thompson opposing education promoting understanding of gays in the Belleville Intelligencer, April 29th 1994.
> 
> ...





> "Do you notice that in Toronto there has been increased crime from certain groups, like Jamaicans? "
> 
> - Calgary Northeast MP Art Hanger during a get-acquainted tour of Toronto's ethnic communities, to a storekeeper about crime, quoted in the Edmonton Journal, March 14th 1994





> "[Government policy] is promoting diversity at the expense of unity and equality. "
> 
> - Gurmant Grewal, Conservative Multiculturalism Critic, Vancouver Sun, December 2nd 1997. Grewal had introduced a motion aimed to "prevent the reference to and designation of any Canadian or group of Canadians in a hyphenated form, based on race, religion, colour or place of origin."





> "The Europeans came to this country 300 years ago and opened it up and settled it and because we didn't kill the Indians and have Indian wars, that doesn't mean we didn't conquer these people. If they weren't in fact conquered then why did they allow themselves to be herded into little reserves on the most isolated, desolate, worthless parts of the country."
> 
> - Athabasca MP David Chatters on Aboriginal people.



{sarcasm} nope no bigots here{/sarcasm}


NOW YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE OFT ASKED QUESTION IN THIS THREAD:
NAME ANYTHING THE US HAS DONE FOR ITS GREAT ALLY CANADA. WWII doesn't count we entered in 1939.



(edit)
Sorry I forgot: {sarcasm}Rommanow was only Premier of Saskatchewan for 10 years. No sucess there!{/sarcasm}

I'd also add Canada is hardly an "economic powerhouse" so what exactly is your point?

Jack Layton has been a prominent polititian in Canada's "economic powerhouse": Toronto.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So, martman, I take it you are going to be voting for the conservatives this june? 

Right ON! Good to have you aboard!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> So, martman, I take it you are going to be voting for the conservatives this june?
> 
> Right ON! Good to have you aboard!


      

UM... ya!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Right _ON!!_ Yet another convert!! 

Welcome to the light! And welcome, again, to ehmac. 

You'll do just fine here, laddie. And you'll enjoy the ride.

Trust me on this.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Right _ON!!_ Yet another convert!!
> 
> Welcome to the light! And welcome, again, to ehmac.
> 
> ...


MacNutt, you may try and make light of Martman's postings, but let me say that I've not seen a better researched string of posting as to exactly why the Conservatives will fail to ever achieve a majority government so long as Harper and all his Alliance/Reform cronies are calling the shots.

Go on and make fun of it... the recent polls must be driving you mad. Face it, if you are so mad at the Liberals, do something about it. Complain to your caucus that Canadian's demand real leadership and Harper (et al) isn't it. Give us a choice we can make... otherwise be doomed to be a fringe right wing party from the West.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> MacNutt, you may try and make light of Martman's postings, but let me say that I've not seen a better researched string of posting as to exactly why the Conservatives will fail to ever achieve a majority government so long as Harper and all his Alliance/Reform cronies are calling the shots.
> 
> Go on and make fun of it... the recent polls must be driving you mad. Face it, if you are so mad at the Liberals, do something about it. Complain to your caucus that Canadian's demand real leadership and Harper (et al) isn't it. Give us a choice we can make... otherwise be doomed to be a fringe right wing party from the West.


Oh my goodness. Are you EVER in for a big NASTY surprise in the next few months!  

I hope you have a really BIG can of Prozac in order to handle the upcoming reality! And a couple of well-chilled six packs, as well. 

I feel your pain, DaJonesy. I really do.

(Doesn't make me want to embrace it...but I DO feel your pain. Honest!) 

Try to leave the bitterness behind. It just gets in the way, after all....

Trust me on this.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Oh my goodness. Are you EVER in for a big NASTY surprise in the next few months!


Ha ha ha... keep dreaming. You really have lost touch with political reality in the the East (such as it unfortunately is). Harper will NOT get a majority, and he only just might get a minority.

He cannot win, face it. The conservatives have been handed the greatest political opportunity they could ever possibly imagine (and they are still behind in the polls) and they are squandering this opportunity.

Here is what I see happening... Both Martin and Harper are totally unfit and incapable of any real leadership. We will likely go through two more minority governments before Harper and Martin are handed their hats. The more interest question is who are waiting the wings to take their places. On the Liberal side I am not so sure, on the Conservative side it has to be McKay or Stronach.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

da_jonesy, I would think that Brian Tobin is waiting for his turn to return to federal politics he's still young and can wait it out the other potential Liberal leader would have to be John Manley.

Laterz


----------

